House of Representatives
29 October 1975

29th Parliament · 1st Session

  1. House of Representatives
  2. 29th Parliament
  3. 1975

Mr SPEAKER (Hon. G. G. D. Scholes) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers.

page 2575

NOTICE OF MOTION

Want of Confidence Motion

Mr DALY:
Leader of the House · Grayndler · ALP

– I wish to inform the House that I accept the notice of motion given yesterday by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Lynch) as a want of confidence motion for the purposes of standing order No. 1 10. 1 take it that the notice of motion will now be called on.

page 2575

WHITLAM MINISTRY

Want of Confidence Motion

Mr LYNCH:
Deputy Leader of the Opposition · Flinders

– I move:

No more serious charge could be laid against a Prime Minister and his Treasurer than the accusation that the Treasurer deliberately leaked details of a Budget prior to its announcement to the Parliament and that this action had the concurrence of the Prime Minister. On Monday evening on national television the present Treasurer (Mr Hayden) stated that he revealed details of this year’s Budget to the President of the Australain Labor Party who is also the head of his own political party and a director of several commercial companies. No other person was given that information at that time. The inference of the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) that Mr Hawke was treated no differently from journalists, members of the Reserve Bank Board or State Premiers is false and misleading.

I want to make it perfectly clear that Mr Hawke ‘s treatment in this matter was entirely unique and without precedent in the history of this country. Why is it that a government which has closed up on all information has yet made the most vital financial facts known to the President of the Australian Labor Party? Why is it that a government which refuses to publish a White Paper on the economy and suppresses all departmental advice on the loans scandal is at the same time prepared to make the most sensitive information available to its chosen political son? Members of this House are very much aware the Mr Hawke is the chairman of directors of ACTU-Solo Enterprises Pty Ltd, a company which would have a vital interest in financial information of this type.

The President of the ALP has deep personal involvement in all aspects of the Australian Council of Trade Union’s business and financial activities. The Treasurer’s action without any doubt gave the ACTU’s financial interests the capacity to profit by prior knowledge of the Government’s financial decisions. This is without parallel in Australian history. It transgresses all precedents and practices. It was in the view of the Opposition Parties, and I believe the public at large, an act of gross impropriety. This Treasurer can no longer have the confidence of this Parliament.

Mr Killen:

– He should resign.

Mr LYNCH:

-The Treasurer should resign, and the Opposition Parties call on him to resign. Yesterday the Prime Minister told this House that Mr Hawke had been given prior information to assist that gentleman in his television comment on the evening of the Budget. The Prime Minister said:

For years Mr Hawke has regularly participated in television programs on the Budget on Budget night and he takes part in these discussions with journalists who have seen copies of the Budget in advance. Quite obviously it is better for him to be equally well briefed, and he has been, and quite properly.

That is a disgraceful statement. How can the Prime Minister seriously allege that the head of one of this country’s major political parties is entitled to prior Budget information simply to assist him in acting on television performances as a direct propagandist for this Government? This is no more than aiding a Government propagandist by improper and unprecedented means.

The Prime Minister’s statement in question time yesterday to which I have just referred is no response to the charges which the Opposition makes about the issue which is now before the House. It is no response to the charge that the Labor Party President could have used the information in the interests of Bourkes Melbourne Pty Ltd or ACTU-Solo Enterprises Pty Ltd. It is no defence against the charge that the President of the Australian Labor Party could have used the information for his own personal financial gain or for that of his colleagues. The Treasurer, by his gross impropriety, placed a prominent Australian citizen in a position whereby he could have made unique monetary gain. The Treasurer told the House yesterday- at least he implied itthat Mr Hawke was treated differently because after all he is a member of the Board of the Reserve Bank of Australia. Once again this is no defence to the charge which the Opposition makes. At 12.30 p.m. yesterday I telephoned the Governor of the Reserve Bank, Mr Knight, concerning the leaking of Budget information to Mr Hawke. On the record, the Governor of the Reserve Bank stated to me that members of the Reserve Bank do not receive Budget documents and would not necessarily be in receipt of Budget documents by virtue of their office. Why is it that Mr Hawke was the only member of the Reserve Bank Board who was given this particular information in this particular way? If it was usual to give this type of information to members of the Board, why did the Treasurer give it to Mr Hawke alone? Clearly there is no defence on this score.

The Prime Minister also sought yesterday to draw an analogy between the information given to Mr Hawke and the way in which State Premiers are normally informed about the Budget. That analogy, characteristic of the manner in which the Prime Minister performs in this House, was false, misleading and mischievous. The Opposition has consulted with State Premiers specifically in respect of that statement by the Prime Minister. The Victorian Premier, Mr Hamer, has informed the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Malcolm Fraser) that he is unable to collect the Budget documents until such time as the Treasurer commences his Budget Speech. The Premier of Western Australia, Sir Charles Court, sent a telex to the Leader of the Opposition yesterday in the following terms:

I confirm my advice to you by phone this morning that the Budget Speech and papers were made available to us at the Commonwealth Treasury Perth office on a security basis 1700 hours WST (5 p.m.), which is 1900 hours EST (7 p.m.), on the day when the Budget was presented to the Federal Parliament.

The letters from the Prime Minister dealing with a number of special matters included in the Budget were delivered by courier to the Premier’s Department at 1600 hours WST (4 p.m.) which is 1800 hours EST (6p.m.)

Mr Keogh:

– Say that again?

Mr LYNCH:

-For the information of the honourable member, who would not understand the context of it anyhow, I point out that the Premier went on to say:

I understand the media have access to a copy of the Budget Speech and papers earlier than we do, but the media representatives concerned are locked into the premises where they have access to the Budget Speech and papers, and are not released until such time as the Budget presentation commences.

The Premier of Queensland, Mr BjelkePetersen, sent by telex a copy of a statement which he issued yesterday and which said in part:

The Premier . . . said today the Prime Minister and the Federal Treasurer . . . had misled Parliament over claims that the State Premiers had been briefed in advance on the contents of the Federal Budget.

He said there had been no such briefing, no State Premier had received an advance copy of the Budget nor had any State Premier been informed of the contents of Budget papers …

The Queensland Premier said the only communications received from Canberra were a number of letters which said that Commonwealth funds had been allocated or withheld from specific Commonwealth State projects such as the central Queensland Brigalow scheme.

But no Federal government- including previous LiberalNational Country Party ones- had told the Premiers in advance what the Budget strategy or policy would be and what changes in taxation or revenue raisings would be.

It is clear that the Prime Minister’s statement in regard to State Premiers’ access to Budget documents is false. It represents yet another he given to this House by the leader of this Government. The former Leader of the Opposition and Treasurer of the former Government, the right honourable member for Bruce (Mr Snedden), yesterday prepared a statement which sets out the practices adopted prior to the Whitlam administration. I seek leave to have that statement incorporated in Hansard.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

The Budget is a document which must be preserved with the greatest confidentiality before it is delivered in the House by the Treasurer. The security with which it is kept is strictly policed to prevent premature disclosure to any person who does not need to know, either as a decision-taker or a decision-implementor. The reason for the confidentiality is to prevent persons benefiting wrongly from prior knowledge. Those who are in possession of information relating to the Budget have a legal responsibility to maintain the confidentiality of the knowledge. It must not be disclosed to any person without a need to know in the course of his duties. Likewise that person would be under a legal obligation to preserve the confidentiality and honour bound not to use any information for personal advantage.

To this requirement I am aware of three exceptions.

The first is that a State may be informed of particular expenditure items contained in the Budget which affects that State and very often requires some contribution by the State towards the total expenditure. My recollection is that this has been done by letter which refers to the specific item and not to other aspects of the Budget.

Secondly, there is the well-known practice of the “lock-up” of persons, mainly journalists, who have access to the Budget speech and attached documents in order that their commentary can be made contemporaneously with the Treasurer delivering his speech. Persons in the “lock-up” are not released until 8 o’clock and undertake not to publish items in the Budget until it has actually been said by the Treasurer in the House. Arrangements are made for a “lock-up” in the States and the Budget speech and attached documents are sent to the Sub-Treasuries to conduct this process. Additional copies are available after 8 p.m.

Thirdly, during the period of the last Government, it was customary for the Treasurer to give a briefing to the joint parties on the contents of the Budget at 7.30 p.m., immediately followed by the Budget speech at 8 o’clock. Arrangements were usually made to give the Leader of the Opposition a copy of the Budget at some time between 7 and 8 o ‘clock immediately before the Budget ‘s delivery.

I am not aware of any occasion on which any person received a copy of the Budget speech before it was delivered at 8 o’clock, otherwise than as I have mentioned. I have no recollection of authorising the Premiers to be provided with Budget papers before s o’clock during my period as Treasurer.

Mr LYNCH:

– For the information of the House I quote from the statement the paragraph relating to information provided to State Premiers. It reads:

The first is that a State may be informed of particular expenditure items contained in the Budget which affects that State and very often requires some contribution by the State towards the total expenditure. My recollection is that this has been done by letter which refers to the specific item and not to other aspects of the Budget.

It is clear beyond doubt that the Prime Minister’s statement to the House yesterday in regard to the Budget information provided to the States was completely false. It is simply a further episode in the continuing chain of lies which the head of this Government has been prepared to perpetrate in this House.

I turn now to the comments made on this matter by the Treasurer. Yesterday the Treasurer told this House that the leaking of Budget secrets to Mr Hawke would facilitate trade union cooperation with the Government. He said:

There is more co-operation from the trade union movement because of the informed way in which Mr Hawke was able to articulate the ingredients of the Budget and the strategy into which it fitted; accordingly we were able to gain more support

In other words, this was a calculated trade-off by the Treasurer with the President of his own political Party. The Government decided to leak secret information to the head of the trade union movement in return for co-operation from that gentleman. It is an outrage for the Treasurer to seek to defend his position in this way. Why is it that the oil producers, the coal producers and the cigarette and beer manufacturers were not told of the Budget provisions relating to their spheres of interest, if the Treasurer is to go on in this reprehensible way? Why were the senior employers’ representatives not similarly informed? Why is it that Mr Hawke was not subject to the lock-up that applied to journalists? It is clear beyond any doubt that the Treasurer colluded with the President of the Australian Labor Party in giving him secret information which was available to no other person and has never been available to any other person in Australian history.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– Come on; put a bit of ginger into it.

Mr LYNCH:

– Honourable gentlemen opposite will hear more about Mr Khemlani as the days go on; have no doubt about that. The Opposition believes that this Treasurer should resign.

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– He cannot be trusted.

Mr LYNCH:

– He cannot be trusted in relation to the leaking of this sort of information. As the Treasurer is well aware, there are established precedents for this course of action in the Westminster system. Neither the Treasurer nor the Prime Minister has been able to advance any defence. Not only was the information leaked; it was leaked by the Treasurer deliberately, not inadvertently. The Treasurer stands guilty on his own statement. On Monday night Mr Carleton asked the Treasurer, on the Australian Broadcasting Commission program This Day Tonight whether he had told the Australian Council of Trade Unions before the Budget was presented. The Treasurer responded, and this is clearly set out in the transcript:

I certainly gave Mr Hawke a detailed briefing.

The Prime Minister yesterday was asked by the Leader of the National Country Party of Australia (Mr Anthony) whether he had recently emphasised that he demanded the highest standards from his Ministers and whether he regarded prior release of Budget details as being consistent with those standards. The Prime Minister responded:

Yes, I do, and so did my predecessors.

In other words, the Prime Minister had deliberately approved of the Treasurer’s action in leaking Budget secrets, without precedent, as former Treasurers who now sit on the Opposition side of the House have made clear. In a further question the Prime Minister was queried about his support of the Westminster tradition in these matters, and he said this:

Of course, I know the practice in Britain and I would follow it wherever the occasion arose in Australia.

Mr Killen:

– By accident.

Mr LYNCH:

– It was not even by accident. The Prime Minister went on:

Chancellor Hugh Dalton gave information to a newspaper reporter and the information was on the streets while he was delivering his Budget Speech. This is a completely different situation from where the information is given to Premiers and to a member of the Reserve Bank Board.

As this House would be very well aware, that analogy is false and misleading. It is not relevant whether the information leaked appears in the Press or whether it is given to one person in secrecy. Mr Hawke was placed in a position by the Treasurer to have a capacity to profit as a result of the Treasurer’s actions, and therein lies the essential difference.

In the United Kingdom the leaking of Budget information has entailed the most serious of consequences whenever it has occurred. I refer to the case of the British Colonial Secretary, James Henry Thomas, in 1936. The fact that large insurances had been taken out on Lloyds of London before the Budget that year pointed to a leaking of Budget secrets. A tribunal found that an unauthorised disclosure had been made by the Colonial Secretary to two of his friends. The Colonial Secretary took the traditional and only course of action open to him- he resigned from the Cabinet. More recently, as I have just mentioned, in 1947 there was the case of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr Hugh Dalton. The newspaper, the London Star, was published on the afternoon before the Budget Speech with a forecast of what Mr Dalton was to inform the House. Mr Dalton then took the honourable course of telling the House the next day that he had indicated to the lobby correspondent of the newspaper the subject matter contained in the Budget forecast. Mr Dalton then offered his resignation to the Prime Minister, Mr Clement Attlee. The resignation of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was consistent with the Westminster tradition and British practice. The resignation was accepted.

Mr Killen:

– Bill Hayden should do the same.

Mr LYNCH:

-Mr Hayden, the Treasurer, as I have mentioned before, should resign in line with this precedent. He should resign because he is unable to front up to the facts of what has taken place. The deliberate leaking by the Treasurer of documents to Mr Hawke provides very serious implications for those involved. I should mention here, because I have stressed that it gave the President of the Australian Labor Party the capacity to make financial gain, the closing times of the Australian stock exchanges. The eastern exchanges- Melbourne, Sydney and Brisbane- close at 3 p.m. The Perth Stock Exchange closes at 4.45 p.m. eastern standard time. The London Stock Exchange opens at 7 p.m. eastern standard time- more than enough time for a person with prior Budget knowledge to make huge profits. As the Prime Minister and the Treasurer should also know, there are extensive dealings between Australia and London even when the markets are not open. It is not without reason that the Australian stock exchanges adhere to very strict principles in this regard. I quote a statement given to my office yesterday by Mr John Valder, the Chairman of the Sydney Stock Exchange:

It is a fundamental principle of stock exchange trading that the public be informed immediately and simultaneously of any relevant information. The stock exchange would be greatly concerned if information leaked in one quarter- and consequently not available to all parties- was used for financial advantage.

If the Government’s legislation is any guide it allegedly shares that principle. I shall quote from clause 124 of the Corporations and Securities Industry Bill:

A person shall not deal in any securities of a prescribed corporation if he is in possession of information that is not generally available . . .

The penalty prescribed for that offence is $10,000 or imprisonment for a period not exceeding 2 years. In the case of a corporation it is a fine not exceeding $50,000. There is no doubt whatever that the Treasurer’s deliberate and direct action gave Mr Hawke, the President of the Australian Labor Party and a director of several commercial companies in this country- and through him to other people- an opportunity to make direct financial gain. The Opposition does not allege in this debate that Mr Hawke made personal financial gain. The point is, and the heavy emphasis is, that that opportunity was provided. Not only was opportunity for personal gain presented by the Treasurer’s actions but also a capacity for trade union enterprises to benefit at the same time was directly available.

The House is very much aware of the personal involvement of Mr Hawke in trade union business activities. The Opposition in no sense cavils at that fact in this debate. The information given to the President of the Australian Labor Party was also given, by virtue of the trade union movement’s business activities, to one of Australia’s significant commercial organisations. The royal commission has already made it plain that trade union business enterprises are in no sense incapable of dishonest practices. ACTUSolo Enterprises Pty Ltd, of which Mr Hawke is the chairman of directors, was censured by the royal commission for deliberately and knowingly misleading a Minister of the Crown. That is what is alleged by the royal commission; yet the same gentleman of course was directly involved, in an unprecedented fashion, in personal discussions with a member of the Minister’s staff or with a member of the Treasury in receiving information many hours before that information was available to anyone else in this country.

The Treasurer’s action in leaking information to the managing director of a company which was subsequently indicted by the royal commission is clearly beyond excuse. I reiterate that it is of no consequence that profit or illegal gain may not have arisen. The point at issue here is that profit could have been made and that the Treasurer should resign because of that simple fact. If the Treasurer had stated before the Budget that a new procedure was to be adopted whereby certain people would be confidentially briefed and if that matter had been made the subject of open disclosure by the Treasurer, this censure motion may not have arisen. But the public and the Parliament have been told after the event. Why is it that the Treasurer allowed the statement to be made on the television program? Was it in fact that he was simply concerned that yet another expose and scandal would break if the information was not deliberately leaked by him on television that night? It is a further example of a government trying to close up the cupboard before further skeletons rattle out in relation to scandals time after time.

The fact that Mr Hawke was given this information might never have become public except for the Treasurer’s inadvertent- I believe deliberate- admission on television. The Treasurer would do well to ask himself why the practice has been adopted that matters contained in the Budget should be confidential. This morning’s Australian Financial Review, in an editorial headed ‘Mr Hayden was wrong’ summed up the position in the following way:

On August 20 Australian stock exchanges saw millions of dollars slashed from the capitalisation of coal stocks.

Other companies, including market leader BHP, also suffered a decline in stock market prices.

Anybody with prior knowledge of the Budget delivered at 8 o’clock the previous night could have made themselves a killing on the stock market.

To assert that Mr Hawke is a man of impeccable integrity, as Mr Hayden did yesterday, is to beg the question.

The reason why budgets deserve security is not a matter of sentimental tradition nor anachronistic convention. It is simply that a Government’s economic measures carry with them the potential for enormous shifts in personal fortunes and any government with an ounce of common sense has a vested interest in guarding itself from any hint of malpractice.

The comments made by the Australian Financial Review have been reflected by every major newspaper which has commented on this issue. I quote what the Melbourne Age has to say on this matter this morning under the heading ‘ Treasurer Blunders ‘:

Mr Robert Hawke knew what was in the recent Budget more than four hours before it was delivered. He knew because the Treasurer (Mr Hayden) chose to let him know. It was an appalling decision on Mr Hayden ‘s part. What makes it worse is that in Parliament yesterday he claimed his action was justified, and that he would do the same again. Let us be clear on this. Mr Hayden was not justified in leaking the Budget details to Mr Hawke, and if he has any respect for the proprieties he will not repeat the action. He would be mad to try.

The leaking of the Budget to the President of the Australian Labor Party, a director of several commercial companies in this country and the managing director of a company which has been indicted before a royal commission, is but a further episode in a series of scandals, intrigue, deceit and dishonesty which have surrounded this Government’s term of office. This Government is the most dishonest and incompetent government which this country has ever seen. Let the public recall -

Mr Riordan:

– Prove it.

Mr LYNCH:

-What proof, the honourable gentleman asks. What proof? The honourable gentleman might do very well to recall the Murphy ASIO raids, the manipulation of the democratic process by the Gair appointment, the gross impropriety involved in the sacking of a Speaker of this House, the Philip Cairns affair, the Morosi affair, the constant leaking of documents from the Treasurer’s office and finally a matter which is before the Parliament at this stage, the loans scandal. I want to say to the House -

Mr Mathews:

– You have nothing.

Mr LYNCH:

– The honourable member might think we have nothing. That is what this Government has been saying about our case since it first started in December 1974. 1 say to the honourable gentleman who interjects that it took 6 months of inquiry to have the first Minister sacked. It took 3 months of further inquiry to have the second Minister sacked. I think we can wait some days before the Prime Minister himself resigns. The fact is that this Government stands condemned on this issue and on the other scandals that I have mentioned by the lies and deceptions which it has consistently used for the purposes of promoting its own political propaganda. The Prime Minister himself has consistently lied to this House. I regret to say, Mr Speaker, in this debate as I have said before -

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The Deputy Leader of the Opposition knows he is not allowed to make that statement, and he will withdraw it.

Mr LYNCH:

– I withdraw the word ‘lie’ and I say that I regret that the word of the Prime Minister of this country is no longer a word upon which this Parliament of the people can rely. He has been involved in untruth after untruth. He has been involved in distortion after distortion. He has compounded deceit upon deceit. We have had scandal after scandal.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable gentleman will withdraw that, too. If he tries to flout my rulings he will not continue to speak.

Mr LYNCH:

– What word am I being asked to withdraw?

Mr SPEAKER:
Mr LYNCH:

– Do you mean to say that I cannot use the word ‘deceit’, Mr Speaker?

Mr SPEAKER:

-Not in the manner in which you are using it.

Mr LYNCH:

– On what basis are you asking that I withdraw the word ‘deceit’?

Mr SPEAKER:

-I suggest that the honourable member will find that it is among the unparliamentary words.

Mr LYNCH:

- Mr Speaker, I will simply say that this Prime Minister -

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable gentleman will withdraw the word and then say nothing.

Mr LYNCH:

– I will withdraw the specific word ‘deceit’ if that is what you require, Mr Speaker. But I repeat, if I am unable to use that word, that this Prime Minister has been involved in distortion after distortion and in untruth after untruth.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I think that the honourable gentleman might withdraw that, too.

Mr LYNCH:

– I will not withdraw the word ‘untruth’.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I do not suggest that the honourable member withdraw the word ‘untruth’. I suggest that he withdraw the word ‘distortion’.

Mr LYNCH:

- Mr Speaker, I have never before been involved in a debate of this type in which the constraints imposed by the Chair do not allow me to tell the truth and nothing but the truth to this House.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable gentleman will withdraw the remark.

Mr LYNCH:

– I will withdraw the remark. Let me simply say that it is sufficient that I have made the appropriate points and the people know what the points are. So what does it matter, here, anyhow?

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! It matters that the standards of debate in this chamber have reached the gutter level. They will not stay there.

Mr LYNCH:

-Mr Speaker, I regret that this Parliament is becoming a forum in which the Opposition cannot get the truth over. This is one of the issues at stake.

Mr SPEAKER:

– There is no restriction on the honourable member but the rules of debate.

Mr LYNCH:

– As far as the debate is concerned, the Treasurer’s self-admitted actions are an indictment of this Government and of the Ministry. The Treasurer should resign and so should the Government.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The question is that the motion of no confidence be agreed to. Is the motion seconded?

Mr Nixon:

– I second the motion and reserve my right to speak. I do not want to be gagged off either.

Mr HAYDEN:
Treasurer · Oxley · ALP

- Mr Speaker, it might come as some sort of surprise to Opposition members that I have managed to withstand the devastating onslaught of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Lynch). On balance I have concluded that the country would be better served if I, the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) and the Government continue to stay in office. The alternatives are rather too grim to contemplate. I refer to the motion which has been moved by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. He said that the Government no longer possesses the confidence of the House. I think that that is pre-supposing the outcome of the expression of opinion in this House. I do not want to pre-judge it, but I think that I will be able to persuade enough support to maintain the confidence in the Government of this House. I think that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has colossal cheek to come into the House and talk about improper behaviour against all established principles and practices. This country is grinding to a halt because of the improper behaviour of the Opposition in the Senate in conflict with all established principles and practices. His words ring with as much conviction as the discordant peal of a cracked bell.

Let me come to the main points that I want to make. The first and the most important one is that I volunteered the information that I had given a detailed briefing of the contents of the Budget and of the strategy behind the Budget in terms of overall economic management- that I had volunteered that information in response to a question by a television interviewer on Monday night. If I had had an equally challenging and intelligent question from the Opposition in this House earlier, I would have volunteered the same sort of information. It is no fault of mine or the interviewer that the interviewer happened to be the first to have the intelligence to ask me this question.

Let me come to the pith of the reason for my arranging this detailed briefing of the President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions. The key element was wage restraint. The key element still is wage restraint in terms of the economic management of this country. It would have been easy for that Budget to have been misunderstood and being misunderstood, to have been misrepresented as an anti-worker Budget. It proposed increases in the prices of cigarettes, tobacco, beer and petrol and at the same time proposed a substantial reduction in company taxation. It would have been easy to have misrepresented that situation as a case where the worker paid for an easing of the tax burden of private corporations. Of course that was not the situation at all. In fact workers will be considerably better off as a result of the provisions of that Budget. The workers will be considerably better off as a result of the redistribution of benefits for which this Government has been responsible. Medibank alone represents an improvement of between $2 and $3 a week in the pay packets of wage earners- a tax free improvement in their spending power. We ought to bear in mind, as an aside, that the Opposition proposes to impose a levy on the community to pay for Medibank. This is an amazing turnabout on the part of the Opposition.

There were proposals in the Budget to introduce a new pay-as-you-earn income tax scheme- a complex scheme in itself, but a very worthy and important one. At the same time, there were no proposals for tax indexation. In those circumstances, it would have been easy to have had the whole concept, strategy and pitch of the Budget misrepresented and, accordingly, for the Government to have lost that crucial support from wage earners in the community. There can be no doubt that the steps that I took were outstandingly successful. As the Deputy Leader of the Opposition cares to resort to quoting newspaper editorials, let me quote the editorial in this morning’s Sydney Morning Herald, which states:

And adverse reaction from Mr Hawke would certainly have made the Government’s task much more difficult, if not impossible. In the event, Mr Hayden got largely the reaction he wanted. The briefing of Mr Hawke, whether a break with tradition or not, was a legitimate action for the Treasurer to have taken.

So, if it is a case of quoting newspaper editorials, there is a vote in favour of the action I took.

Let us weigh up the issues before us. Mr Hawke did persuade widespread support in the community by the action he took. I was confident that the action I took would be justified and that the integrity of Mr Hawke would guarantee the secrecy which I asked him to guarantee before I would arrange any such briefing. He has a record in public office as a member of the Reserve Bank Board. I recited yesterday the long list of decisions in which he was involved. He has been involved in most of the issues which have been discussed. These are issues in respect of which he, if he were a man lacking in integrity, could have misused that information or passed it on to some other person in order to make a colossal windfall gain. That could be done with respect to a variation in the exchange rate or a movement in interest rates. All of these issues represent an opportunity for someone who is so disposed to make an illegal windfall gain either as an individual or as a member of a corporation.

A number of aspersions have been made against the character and integrity of Mr Hawke and other people by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition here this morning. But let the Opposition produce one tittle of evidence to support these wild, extravagant, irresponsible allegations which its members are so prone to make in the course of their desperate grasp for power and their desperate efforts to justify the unprecedented action which they have taken and which is bringing this country to a halt. If it is simply a matter of a person’s having a business affiliation immediately casting doubt on himself if he is privy to confidential public decision making whereby, if he were so disposed, he could make significant personal gain, let us look at some of the people who are on the Board of the Reserve Bank of Australia with Mr Hawke.

The first person I mention is Sir William Gunn, K.B.E., C.M.G. He is the managing director of Gunn Development Pty Ltd. He is a director of Gunn Rural Management Pty Ltd. He is the chairman of Eagle Corporation Ltd, a director of Rothmans of Pall Mall Australia Ltd, a director of Walter Reid and Co. Ltd and a director of Grazcos Co-operative Ltd. There would be many instances in which Sir William Gunn, if he wished, could misuse the type of information to which he becomes privy as a member of the Reserve Bank Board and could stand to gain either as an office bearer in those companies or as an individual. There is no evidence that he has done so. There is no evidence that any other member of the Reserve Bank Board has done so. I mention Mr Hibberd, Mr Jackson and Sir William Pettingell- all estimable people, all people of integrity, all people who have discharged their functions in public office properly, as has Mr Hawke. There is no doubt that the efforts to invest in Mr Hawke the confidences of the Budget strategy were made for one purpose alone; that is, in the national interest to garner support for wage restraint and to ensure Mr Hawke was fully briefed and could accordingly project an accurate report of the purposes of the Budget, the strategy which was involved and in the course of this the advantages which lay in it for workers in the community.

In my Budget Speech I stressed at page 4 the significance of wages policy. I said:

The Budget is one major instrument of economic policy. Another major policy area concerns the growth in wages and salaries.

If wages and salaries continue to outstrip productivity increases, the productive capacity of the economy will decline and we shall all eventually be worse off.

It is too early yet to determine whether wage indexation will succeed in dampening the recent wage-price spiral. The signs are mixed. The Government intends to do what it can to make indexation work.

But if I expressed concern about the need for restraint on the wage push front the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Malcolm Fraser) excelled me many times over. He mentioned in about as many pages 8 times the need for the exercise of wage restraint. At page 5 1 9 of Hansard he said: … the explosion of wage and salary demands which have depressed company profits to the point where there are no longer sufficient funds to expand production and investment and create jobs.

At page 525 of Hansard he said:

Two important objectives would be advanced by our income tax proposals. The first is incomes restraint. Unless a policy of incomes restraint is successfully pursued, the damaging rise of costs throughout Australia will continue.

He shared my concern. It is a crucial feature of economic management at the present time. But then he went on with bitter irony in the light of the behaviour of Opposition spokesmen to say:

We would expect the President of the ACTU -

Mr Hawke, of course and the ACTU and the trade union leadership to play a national role in arguing for wage and salary restraint in the interests both of their members and all Australians.

This morning the Deputy Leader of the Opposition goes on to cast imputations on the integrity of Mr Hawke, to imply strongly that he has the capacity to be a crook if he is invested with any public responsibility. These are the people opposite who are proposing that there should be cooperation between the President of the ACTU, the ACTU, the more than 100 trade unions affiliated with the ACTU, the more than 1.6 million workers in unions affiliated with the ACTU and then go on to indulge in this offensive behaviour.

The Deputy Leader of the Opposition suggested that we should rely on the examples of precedents in the Westminster system in discussing this matter this morning. This is a rather remarkable proposition for him to put. When it suits members of the Opposition they resort to examples of precedent from the United Kingdom. They neglect to mention, however, that no House of Lords would ever reject a budget or delay it and indeed would not have the capacity to do so as the Opposition is doing at the present time in the Senate. But there is no analogy between the instances cited- that of Dr Dalton in 1947 or Mr Thomas in 1936. In both cases there was premature public disclosure and in both cases there was an opportunity for personal gain for individuals. In Dr Dalton ‘s case there was no evidence that the premature disclosure, which arose from a kerbside comment to a journalist shortly before he delivered his Budget speech and resulted in details of the Budget appearing in the papers while he was delivering his speech, had enabled any personal gain to be made. There is no doubt at all that in the case of Mr Thomas in 1 936 personal gain was derived.

But the question is why has this matter suddenly erupted in the Parliament at a time when the Parliament is in the grip of constitutional crisis, at a time when the Opposition has a special visitor- a privileged visitor; its star performer in Australia- Mr Khemlani. The reason is very simple, of course. The Opposition wants to shift the focus of public attention. It wants to blur the spotlight on its ace performer’s activity in the community. The Leader of the Opposition has made threats to the Government that it is his intention to have Mr Khemlani appear before the Senate, or is it Mr ‘Kilani’ as the Leader of the National Country Party (Mr Anthony) says in his difficult and painful diction? It will have the opportunity now that the Minister for Labor and Immigration (Senator James McClelland) has extended for a week the visa of Mr Khemlani. He can appear before the Senate. It is a matter for the initiative of the Opposition to ensure that he does appear and gives full details of whatever it is that the Opposition wants to produce. In the meantime, while the Opposition is trying to evade the real issues which are convulsing this country- the constitutional crisisand while the loans affair drags on in its wearisome and uninformative way, the only casualties of the Opposition’s irresponsible behaviour are the ardours of people crushed by the false innuendoes of the Leader of the Opposition and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and the loss of economic momentum which this nation is suffering.

Let us look at the instances of false innuendo and the besmirching of the character of the Deputy Prime Minister of the Australian

Government (Mr Crean), one of the most trusted and respected members of this Parliament, by the Leader of the Opposition, the man who speaks about integrity in government and proper codes of conduct, the man who talks of others as being deceitful. I regale the House again with his statement in this place on 16 October. He was talking about a document allegedly leaked to him, a certain confidential Treasury document leaked to the Opposition. Referring to the Prime Minister, he said:

Let me tell him that it is somebody who is sitting on the front bench at this moment. The person who made the document available did so because he believes that in the national interest the Opposition ought to have that information. He did it because he is a worthy person. But the Prime Minister needs to know whether he can feel confidence in the activities of all his Ministers. Would he believe that that matter would enable trust between himself and his colleagues?

If the Leader of the Opposition said that in a court dealing with petty police offences he would be charged with perjury. Can the nation have a Prime Minister or a claimant for the office of Prime Minister who would perjure his way to the Lodge?

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The Treasurer will withdraw that remark.

Mr HAYDEN:

– I withdraw it. If the Prime Minister presumptive will doctor evidence what confidence can there be in his team?

Mr Holten:

- Mr Speaker, you asked the honourable gentleman to withdraw and he did not.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The Treasurer withdrew the remark. If the honourable gentleman had been listening he would have heard him

Mr HAYDEN:

– I will withdraw it again. The honourable member for Indi (Mr Holten) probably woke up after I mentioned it. If the Prime Minister presumptive, the Leader of the Opposition, will doctor evidence, what confidence can there be in his team? He talked about the need to resign because of deceitfulness and dishonesty. There has been no more blatant case of falsified evidence in this Parliament than that statement by the Leader of the Opposition. If it is a case of resigning from responsible and honourable office, and the office of Leader of the Opposition is responsible and honourable, Mr Fraser ought to resign forthwith. If we are talking about people whose behaviour is questionable, let us talk about the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, familiarly known as ‘Phil the Fixer’ and, more recently, in the idiom of the times, as ‘the plumber’, the man who deals in stolen documents, the man who has falsified evidence in this Parliament at question time.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The Treasurer will withdraw that remark.

Mr HAYDEN:

– I withdraw it. As the House well knows, it was the Deputy Leader of the Opposition who produced a letter which I sent to the Prime Minister, a letter which went into several departments in the course of going to the Prime Minister, a letter to which he had no right and no lawful access. The remarkable part about that document was that it was a very simple machinery matter. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition, who is the expert in economic affairs in the Opposition ranks- the supreme expert bar the right honourable member for Lowe (Mr McMahon)- misunderstood the significance of the document. He alleged that we had forgotten to include in the Budget costings which were referred to in that little letter. How can the Deputy Leader of the Opposition claim any credibility as an alternative economic manager of the affairs of this nation if he did not understand that simple little fundamental of public finance?

I mentioned the falsification of evidence in the Parliament. We remember how the Deputy Leader of the Opposition on 21 October put a question to the Prime Minister based on a newspaper article wherein Mr Khemlani, the Opposition’s star performer, the man whom it wishes would go away at the present time, had asserted that Mr Tim Anderson had said that he had made a phone call to the Prime Minister. In the same newspaper article Mr Anderson denied that any such phone call had been made. But it never discouraged the Deputy Leader of the Opposition from making a completely false allegation in the Parliament. If the Leader of the Opposition and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in their desperate bid for power are prepared to produce falsified evidence in this Parliament, are prepared to use doctored statements, are prepared to use stolen documents, are prepared to be blatantly dishonest, how can they be taken seriously as leaders of the country’s affairs?

Now I come to the most startling instance of all, of the manufacture of evidence by the Opposition. I refer to the instance which occurred yesterday. I regret to say that it affects a man for whom I had developed a great deal of personal respect until yesterday- the honourable member for Wentworth (Mr Ellicott). I wish to quote from the transcript of an early afternoon interview which the honourable member gave after detailed consideration of the Khemlani documents, as we can call them. He said:

I can only say that there is no direct evidence in the documents I saw which involve the Prime Minister.

He said later:

There is no document either to or from the Prime Minister as such.

But when he returned to Canberra and consulted with the Leader of the Opposition he released what was termed a considered statement, or a more considered one. The statement was reported as follows: … his inspection of the Khemlani documents which he had seen yesterday strongly supported the continuing involvement of Mr Whitlam and his Government in obtaining overseas loans after May last and as late as September.

Let us see how the Australian Broadcasting Commission- and I know that the honourable member for Gippsland (Mr Nixon) will assert that this is further clear evidence of communist infiltration in the Commission’s ranks- reported the story in the Press statement which it sent from Canberra:

It’s fair to say that Mr Ellicott’s assertion that the Prime Minister wasn’t implicated in the Khemlani papers caught the Opposition leadership by surprise.

I might interpolate here that some would say: ‘Caught the Opposition Leader with his pants down’. The report continued:

So much so that Mr Ellicott was summoned to a meeting of the shadow Cabinet in Canberra this afternoon and later released what was called a ‘more considered’ statement, a statement in which Mr Ellicott says his inspection of the Khemlani papers strongly supports the continuing involvement of Mr Whitlam and his Government in obtaining overseas loans after May last and as late as September this year.

The statement went on to say:

The ABC’s political correspondent says Mr Ellicott’s ‘more considered statement’ was made at the request of the Opposition Leader, Mr Fraser.

So the honourable member for Wentworth returned to Canberra for what the Chinese- or should I say the mainland Chinese because we are always careful how we say this, are we notgently call thought rectification. He came back for ideological reindoctrination

I challenge the Opposition- and I say this quite calmly with complete restraint: Present Mr Khemlani before the Senate now; stop this farce. You have held up the affairs of the country this long. You are the people who have encouraged this man. You are the people who are presenting a crisis to the social and economic fabric of this nation. When Mr Khemlani appears before the Senate there will be interesting questions which can be posed to him, in the friendliest way possible of course. For instance, how does he manage to afford his lifestyle in Australia? According to one newspaper, when he was last here a few weeks ago he stayed in a $300 a day penthouse at the Hilton. How does he afford his expensive jetting? What about the high speed car chasesbut then they are at taxpayers’ expense. Although the country is going broke because of the irresponsible behaviour of the Opposition, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, who speaks about responsible behaviour much as people speak about bad breath or getting rid of communism or whatever it is, is able to waste the taxpayers’ money on this foolish charade of a high speed car chase in a Commonwealth car around Canberra.

Cameron Forbes raised some interesting questions about Mr Khemlani in view of the high life style that he has become accustomed to in Australia. Cameron Forbes, in the Age of 16 October, said:

Mr Khemlani is listed as an undischarged bankrupt under the name Tirath Hassaram. In a December 1971 hearing Tirath Hassaram put his debts at £Stg10,060. The Assistant Official Receiver claimed the figure was an under-estimate. … In 1964 his company was wound up with debts of £Stg39,000.

More recently I read in the newspapers that his associations with Dalamal and Sons had been sundered. It would be very interesting to know how this happy coincidence of Mr Khemlani ‘s return appearance in Australia was orchestrated and, more importantly, how the very significant costs have been met. The fact is that the Opposition’s star witness is now its major liability. As the honourable member for Wentworth said: ‘There is no direct evidence in the documents I saw which involves the Prime Minister’. The nation is increasingly disenchanted with the desperate efforts of desperate men in the Opposition who have endeavoured to pave their way to government with dishonesty.

The Leader of the Opposition claims that he is concerned as much about the forms as about what is done; yet he perverts every canon of proper parliamentary conduct. He seeks to shortcircuit the democratic process and diminishes respect for the institution of Parliament. What sort of principles does he really espouse? What sort of unswerving commitment does he have to the principles which he has enunciated publicly? There can be no better example than his statement of 6 February 1975. 1 would like honourable members to listen to this because it will endure in history. He said:

Bill Snedden has my full support. I repeat . . . I support the elected leader of the Liberal Party. Despite that there has been continued widespread speculation that I or colleagues of mine on my behalf are promoting a challenge to Bill Snedden. That is not so. There is no contest. The issue was decided in November.

What an exquisite pledge of fealty! A month later the political corpse of Mr Snedden lay discarded on the back benches of the Opposition.

But perhaps the honourable member for Moreton (Mr Killen) has the last word on the principles of the Leader of the Opposition. In an article in the National Times on 21 February 1972, with unusual insight for him, the honourable member for Moreton said, with reference to the undoing of the former Prime Minister of a former Liberal Government, Mr Gorton:

In March 1 97 1 , Malcolm Fraser resigned from the Gorton Government.

Mr Killen:

– Speak up.

Mr HAYDEN:

– I would feel embarrassed too, Jim. He said:

The ostensible reason he gave to Parliament for his resignation was that Mr Gorton did not repudiate a report involving Mr Fraser.

Views on that issue remain unsettled. But the really remarkable pan of Mr Fraser’s speech lay in his criticism of an incident that took place 8 months before his resignation-

That is a fine principle! It must have been delayed shock. The honourable member for Moreton went on to say:

If Mr Fraser had felt aggrieved by any action of Mr Gorton . . . then he should have promptly resigned. He chose not to. He let 8 months go by before voicing his complaint.

Mr Fraser chose to ignore a fundamental convention of government. The cosmetic of time may or may not hide the blemish.

The cosmetic of time may or may not hide the blemish of the way in which the honourable member for Moreton was able to moralise on that occasion. More recently he has moralised on proper conduct for the Senate. Then, realising the determination of the Leader of the Opposition in casting aside proper conduct in the face of constitutional convention established over 75 years, the honourable member for Moreton jumped on the bandwagon because there was a purse of profit, as a possible Minister of the Crown, to be picked up there. The Leader of the Opposition has shown himself to be without conscience or honour in his ambitious drive for power. In this place we are all judged by our actions. The Leader of the Opposition stands condemned for the dishonest way in which he has performed in his overweening drive to grab power at any price.

The real issue in this country at the present time is the constitutional confrontation which has been thrown up by the Opposition in the Senate and which, in its own way, is as powerful, as significant and as historically important as the confrontation between the House of Commons and the House of Lords over the Parliament Bill in 1911. Instead of resolving this issue, instead of facing up to the reality that the irresponsible behaviour of the Opposition is bringing this country to a halt, is precipitating a situation of social and economic crisis, the Opposition spends its time threshing about like a whale that has been beached, looking for some sort of escape from the trap that it has set for itself. There is not a tittle of justification for the Opposition’s distressing the nation any further. There is not a tittle of support for the phoney proposition which has been moved by the Opposition this morning. It is merely a camouflage effort to avoid the extensive humiliation that it is experiencing because its star performance, its visiting guest Mr Khemlani, has let it down so badly. It is not the intention of the Prime Minister, the Government or myself to resign as a result of this motion. I think the honourable member for Bonython (Mr Nicholls) would agree with me that we ought to test that assertion without delay.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I call the honourable member for Gippsland.

Motion (by Mr Nicholls) proposed:

That the question be now put.

Mr Nixon:

– We have been listening to the great white hope of the Labor Party.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Mr Nixon:

– Take another pill, Bill.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Question put:

The House divided. (Mr Speaker-Hon. G. G. D. Scholes)

AYES: 63

NOES: 59

Majority……. 4

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Question put:

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

The House divided. (Mr Speaker-Hon. G. G. D. Scholes)

AYES: 59

NOES: 63

Majority……. 4

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

page 2586

PETITIONS

The Clerk:

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

Air Training Corps

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 Air Training Corps be retained to develop airmindness and worthwhile ideals of service amongst Australian youths to foster leadership and the spirit of adventure.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that Parliament continue and actively promote the Air Training Corps of the Royal Australian Air Force.

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

Petition received.

Cadet Corps

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 decision to abolish the Naval Reserve Cadets, the Army Cadet Corps and the Air Training Corps is ill conceived. The Cadet Corps has much to commend it including stimulating an interest in Service life and providing an element of discipline so often lacking in the youth of today.

Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House take action to impress upon the Government the need to retain the Australian Cadet Corps.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Bonnett and Mr McVeigh.

Petitions received.

Cadet Corps

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 their great dismay at the decision of the Australian Government to abolish the Army Corps of Cadets from our Secondary Schools.

The enthusiastic acceptance by leading educators, those nearest to the secondary educational scene (our Headmasters),the approval and encouragement of thinking and caring parents and the dedicated support of those teachers involved (the Officers of Cadets) bear certain witness to the reliability of this activity as a character builder of our youth.

Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that:

Why, after a century of proven usefulness, would you destroy so well established an institution for good in our community?

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Donald Cameron and Mr Killen.

Petitions received.

Fraser Island

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 the natural environment of Fraser Island is so outstanding that it should be identified as part of the World Natural Heritage, and whereas the Island should be conserved for the enjoyment of this and future generations,

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

  1. that the Australian Government uses its constitutional powers to prohibit the export of any mineral sands from Fraser Island, and
  2. that the Australian Government uses its constitutional authority to assist the Queensland Government and any other properly constituted body to develop and conserve the recreational, educational and scientific potentials of the natural environment of Fraser Island for the long term benefit of the people of Australia.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Jarman, Mr Lamb, Mr Mathews, Mr Morris and Mr O’Keefe.

Petitions received.

Metric System

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

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

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

That the traditional weights and measures are eminently satisfactory.

Your petitioners therefore pray that the Metric Conversion Act be repealed, and that the Government take urgent steps to cause the traditional and familiar units to be restored to those areas where the greatest inconvenience and distress are occurring, that is to say, in meteorology, in road distances, in sport, 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 Crean, Mr Kevin Cairns, Mr Jarman and Mr Mathews.

Petitions received.

Income Tax

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 existence of a system of double taxation of personal incomes whereby both the Australian Government and State Governments had the power to vary personal income taxes would mean that taxpayers who worked in more than one State in any year would:

  1. be faced with complicated variations in his or her personal income taxes between States; and
  2. find that real after-tax wages for the same job would vary from State to State even when gross wages were advertised as being the same; and
  3. require citizens to maintain records of income earned in each State.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that a system of double income tax on personal incomes be not reintroduced.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Cope, Mr Garrick and Mr Morris.

Petitions received.

Home Ownership

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 implementation of the Report on Housing by the Priorities Review Staff will not ensure that the Australian community can secure living accommodation of its own choosing appropriate to its needs.

That many of the proposals positively discriminate against home ownership.

That the proposals if implemented would not encourage thrift and initiative but would further advance the philosophy of dependence upon the Government for basic services.

That the proposals are more concerned with redistribution of income than providing accommodation for the Australian community.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House will request the Government to take no further measures which will make home ownership unattractive to those who have a home and unachievable for those who have not.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr McLeay and Mr Street.

Petitions received.

Television Programs: Pornographic Material

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

That we strongly oppose the easing of restrictions on the importation, production in Australia, sale or distribution of pornographic material whether in films, printed matter or any other format.

That any alterations to the Television Programme Standards of the Australian Broadcasting Control Board which permits the exploitation of sex or violence is unacceptable to us.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government will take no measures to interfere with the existing Television Programme Standards or to permit easier entry into Australia, or production in Australia, of pornographic material.

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

Petition received.

Income Tax

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 if existing income tax laws were amended so that the State Governments had the power to vary the total amount of personal income tax there would be various undesirable consequences, including:

  1. it would be grossly disadvantageous for Tasmania and Tasmanians and would widen rather than lessen the differences in standards of living amongst the States;
  2. it would become difficult to ever introduce a successful program of personal tax indexation since a commitment by the Australian Government to tax indexation would mean little if State Governments themselves had the ability to increase income tax rates;
  3. it would open the way for State Governments to steadily increase income taxes and would therefore tend to increase the proportion of overall taxation in Australia raised through income taxes;
  4. it would mean that the Australian Government would lose the complete control that it has at present over the pattern of marginal income tax rates: this would further complicate the already difficult task faced by the Australian Government of formulating a wages and industrial relations policy which will meet with wide community acceptance;
  5. it would complicate the overall task of economic management for the Australian Government if State Governments had the discretion to move income taxes in an opposite direction to that judged desirable on economic grounds.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that powers to vary income tax will not be given to State Governments and that a system of double taxation will not be imposed on incomes.

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

Petition received.

Pensioners: Installation of Telephones

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

That the decisions of the Australian Government,-

  1. To depart from its 1972 election promise that basic pensions would be related to average weekly earnings and never be allowed to fall below 25 per cent thereof, and
  2. To increase postage costs and the costs of installation and annual rental of telephones,

Will seriously add to the economic burdens now borne by those citizens who are wholly or mainly dependent on their pensions.

Your petitioners are impelled by these facts to call upon the Australian Government as a matter of urgency to review the abovementioned decisions (a), (b) and to determine:

  1. That pensions be related to average earnings as promised by the Prime Minister in his 1972 policy speech, and
  2. That no charges be made for installation or rental on the telephones of those pensioners entitled to a PMS Card.

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

Petition received.

Fauna and Flora Reserve, Black Neds Bay

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled.

We, the undersigned citizens of Australia, by this our humble petition respectfully request that the Australian Government make available, either singularly or in cooperation with the State of New South Wales, finance to allow the purchase and dedication as a fauna and flora sanctuary with part reserved for recreational usage that parcel of land known as ‘Black Neds Bay’ being the estuarine swamp and salt marsh at the entrance to Lake Macquarie, New South Wales, together with the land along the southern shore of the entrance to Lake Macquarie to the east of ‘Black Neds Bay’ up to and including the headland known as Reids Mistake’, and your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Cohen.

Petition received.

Income Tax

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 undersigned persons believe that the $300 limit on income tax deductibility in respect of personal residential land and water rates is unrealistic and is a discriminatory income tax penalty.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the government will take steps to see that the aforesaid limitation is removed entirely or substantially increased.

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

Petition received.

Australian Government Insurance Corporation

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 establishment of an Australian Government Insurance Office will:

  1. 1 ) Further shrink the flow of funds available for finance for private enterprise in Australia.
  2. Will eventually lead to nationalisation of much of private enterprise in Australia.
  3. 3 ) Cause serious unemployment in the private insurance industry throughout Australia.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives rejects completely the Australian Government Insurance Office Bill 1 975.

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

Petition received.

Australian Government Insurance Corporation

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The humble Petition of the undersigned employees and agents of the Australian insurance industry respectfully showeth:

  1. 1 ) That Parliament should reject the Bill currently before it to establish an Australian Government Insurance Office.
  2. That while there is a need to establish in Australia a Natural Disaster Fund, to provide compensation for property damage and other losses resulting from disasters such as earthquakes, floods and cyclones, such a Fund can be established, as in other countries, using the medium of the existing private enterprise insurance offices.
  3. That a plan for such a Fund was submitted to the Treasury in October 1974.
  4. That no sound reasons for the establishment of an Australian Government Insurance Office (other than the desire to provide non-commercial disaster insurance and Australian Government competition with private enterprise) has been given by the Government.
  5. That there is already intense competition between the existing 45 life assurance offices and between over 260 general insurance companies now operating in Australia, and that further competition from a Government Office would only be harmful at this time.

  6. That the insurance industry is already coping with

    1. the effects of inflation,
    2. b ) increased taxation on life assurance offices,
    3. the effects of recent natural disasters,
    4. other legislative measures already in train or in prospect by the Government, e.g. the National Compensation Bill, a National Superannuation Plan and improved Commonwealth Public Service Superannuation.
  7. That as taxpayers your petitioners are greatly concerned at the huge costs (far more than the $2 million initial capital and loan funds which it is proposed will be allocated ) of establishing an Australian Government Insurance Office.
  8. That as employees and agents of existing insurance offices your petitioners fear for their jobs and their future prospects if the Parliament proceeds with the legislation.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House will reject the Bill.

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

Petition received.

Increased Telephone and Postal Charges

To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The Petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that the plan to increase postal and telephone charges will cause widespread inconvenience confusion expense and distress.

That there is no certainty that any significant benefits will follow the proposed increases.

Your petitioners therefore pray that the Government take urgent steps to ensure that the proposed postal and telephone charge increases are reduced.

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

Petition received.

Reclassification of Residential Land, Braddon, Australian Capital Territory

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

That consideration be given to Re-Classification of Sections 21 and 29 of Torrens Street, Braddon, A.C.T., from residential to small scale Commercial. The area is the Western side of the Street and South of the Pines in Haig Park, adjoining Lonsdale Street. Your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever Pray. We the undersigned, declare that the attached list of the petitioners is true and correct. by Mr Fry.

Petition received.

Appropriation Bills

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:

  1. Governments are elected for a three-year term of office, and have a right to govern so long as they command a majority of the House of Representatives.
  2. Governments are made and unmade in the House of Representatives, which is the People’s House, and not in the

Senate, where there are as many members for 500,000 citizens of Tasmania as there are for 5 million citizens of New South Wales.

  1. The Parliament should adopt the 1975-76 Budget by passing the Appropriation Bill Number One 1975 and the Appropriation Bill Number Two 1975.

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

Petition received.

page 2590

THE BUDGET

Suspension of Standing Orders

Mr NIXON:
Gippsland

-Mr Speaker, I move:

That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent a resolution by this House that in the future the confidentiality of the Budget should be strictly enforced and that no details of it should be conveyed to any person who does not have a duty to preserve secrecy.

Motion (by Mr Daly) proposed:

That the honourable member for Gippsland be not further heard.

Mr Nixon:

– I must lodge a protest at the continued gagging of this House by the Leader of the House.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member will not debate the question.

Question put:

That the honourable member for Gippsland be notfurther heard.

The House divided. (Mr Speaker-Hon. G. G. D. Scholes)

AYES: 63

NOES: 58

Majority……. 5

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Mr SNEDDEN:
Bruce

-The purpose in moving the suspension of Standing Orders-

Motion (by Mr Daly) put:

That the right honourable member for Bruce be not further heard.

The House divided. (Mr Speaker-Honourable G. G. D. Scholes)

AYES: 62

NOES: 57

Majority……. 5

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Motion ( by Mr Nicholls) put:

That the question be now put.

The House divided. (Mr Speaker-Hon. G. G. D. Scholes)

AYES: 62

NOES: 57

Majority……. 5

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Question put:

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

The House divided. (Mr Speaker-Hon. G. G. D. Scholes)

AYES: 57

NOES: 62

Majority……. 5

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

page 2592

OBJECTION TO RULING

Mr WENTWORTH:
Mackellar

– I move:

That the Speaker’s ruling be dissented from.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The motion is accepted.

Mr Whitlam:

- Mr Speaker, in accordance -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! A motion of dissent from my ruling is before the Chair.

Mr WENTWORTH:

-Sir, the procedures of this House should be -

Motion (by Mr Daly) put:

That the honourable member for Mackellar be not further heard.

The House divided. (Mr Speaker-Hon. G. G. D. Scholes)

AYES: 62

NOES: 57

Majority……. 5

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Mr KILLEN:
Moreton

-This malodorous Government must be brought to account -

Motion ( by Mr Daly) agreed to:

That the honourable member for Moreton be not further heard.

Question put:

That the Speaker’s ruling be dissented from.

The House divided. (Mr Speaker-Hon. G. G. D. Scholes)

AYES: 57

NOES: 62

Majority……. 5

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

page 2593

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

Mr WHITLAM:
ALP

– In accordance with the practice applying on days when want of confidence motions are debated, I ask that questions be placed on notice.

page 2594

DOUBLE DISSOLUTION OF PARLIAMENT

Mr WHITLAM:
Prime Minister · Werriwa · ALP

-For the information of honourable members I present documents relating to the simultaneous dissolution of the Senate and the House of Representatives by His Excellency the Governor-General on 1 1 April 1974. In accordance with my answer in the House on 30 July 1974, I deferred tabling these documents until the High Court had handed down all its judgments on the Bills passed at the Joint Sitting which followed the dissolution.

page 2594

RANGER URANIUM MINING PROJECT

Mr WHITLAM:
Prime Minister · Werriwa · ALP

-For the information of honourable members I present a memorandum of understanding relating to the Ranger Uranium mining project in the Northern Territory. Due to the limited number available, reference copies of this memorandum will be placed in the Parliamentary Library.

Mr Sinclair:

- Mr Speaker, may I ask that the Leader of the House move that the House take note of the paper. It would seem to be of some consequence and require debate.

Motion ( by Mr Daly) proposed:

That the House take note of the paper.

Debate (on motion by Mr Anthony) adjourned.

page 2594

TEMPORARY ASSISTANCE AUTHORITY REPORT ON WORK GLOVES

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
Minister for Manufacturing Industry · KingsfordSmithMinister for Manufacturing Industry · ALP

– For the information of honourable members I present the Temporary Assistance Authority Report on work gloves of leather or of composition leather.

page 2594

CITIES COMMISSION REPORT

Mr UREN:
Minister for Urban and Regional Development · Reid · ALP

– Pursuant to section 23 of the Cities Commission Act 1972-1973 I present the annual report of the Cities Commission for the year ended 30 June 1 975.

page 2594

QUESTION

STANDING ORDER 93

Mr WENTWORTH:
Mackellar

-Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order arising out of yesterday’s Hansard which has just come into my hands. I find that on 5 occasions there was a most grievous infringement of standing order 93, as is recorded in Hansard and as is obvious from the text of Hansard. Mr Speaker, I know that you made this error in good faith and that you did not realise the inadvertent error on your part, but the text of Hansard shows absolutely definitely that there has been a breach of standing order 93. Mr Speaker, perhaps I could refresh your mind in regard to it. Standing order 93 reads:

After any question has been proposed from the Chair, either in the House or in committee, a motion may be made by any Member, rising in his place, and without notice, and whether any other Member is addressing the Chair or not, ‘That the question be now put’, and such motion shall be put forthwith and decided without amendment or debate.

On 5 occasions, Sir, you permitted the motion ‘That the question be now put’ to be moved before the matter had come from the Chair. I do not suggest for one moment, Sir -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable gentleman is not in order in raising a matter the day afterwards on the basis of a written record. There are certain differences between actual proceedings in the House and a written record, and one is that a written record must have a sequence which is contained on paper. The occurrences in the House have to take place verbally and they can take place practically simultaneously, but they cannot be so listed. A point of order arising out of matters of that nature must be taken at the time and not on the next day of sitting or at some subsequent time.

Mr WENTWORTH:

-Sir, I am not taking that point of order at all; I am taking a different point of order.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Mr WENTWORTH:

-Sir, I have tried -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I am not going to argue with the honourable gentleman about yesterday’s proceedings. The honourable gentleman will resume his seat.

Mr WENTWORTH:

– I am not arguing -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable gentleman will resume his seat.

Mr WENTWORTH:

– I am not arguing -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable gentleman will resume his seat.

page 2594

THE PARLIAMENT

Discussion of Matter of Public Importance

Mr SPEAKER:

– I have received a letter from the honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:

The threat to the Australian Parliamentary system of government tactics designed to prevent debate on matters of significant public importance as well as restrictions imposed on other normally accepted parliamentary procedures.

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

Mr SINCLAIR:
New England

-Mr Speaker -

Motion ( by Mr Daly) put:

That the business of the day be called on.

The House divided. (Mr Speaker-Hon. G. G. D. Scholes)

AYES: 62

NOES: 57

Majority……. 5

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

page 2595

APPROPRIATION BILL (No. 1) 1975-76 [No. 3]

Suspension of Standing Orders

Mr DALY:
Leader of the House · Grayndler · ALP

-Imove:

That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent:

An Appropriation Bill No. (1) 1975-76 [No. 3] and Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 1975-76 [No. 3].

being presented together at this sitting and read a first time together and one motion being moved without delay and one question being put in regard to, respectively, the second readings, the committee’s report stage, and the third readings, of the Bills together, and

being considered in one committee of the whole.

The Leader of the House making one declaration of urgency and moving one motion for the allotment of time in respect of an Appropriation Bill (No.1) 1975-76 [No. 3] and an Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 1975-76 [No. 3].

Mr WENTWORTH:
Mackellar

– Mr Speaker, I do not know at this present moment -

Motion (by Mr Nicholls) agreed to:

That the question be now put.

Original question put:

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

The House divided. (Mr Speaker-Hon. G. G. D. Scholes)

AYES: 62

NOES: 57

Majority……. 5

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I suggest that the honourable gentleman might read the Standing Orders. He seems to quote them often enough.

Messages from the Governor-General transmitting particulars of proposed expenditure from the Consolidated Revenue Fund for year 1975-76 and recommending appropriation, and transmitting particulars of certain proposed expenditure from the Consolidated Revenue Fund for year 1975-76 and recommending appropriation, announced.

Declaration of Urgency

Mr DALY:
Leader of the House · Grayndler · ALP

– I declare that the following Bills are urgent Bills:

Appropriation Bill (No. 1 ) 1 975-76 [No. 3], and Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 1975-76 [No. 3].

Mr SPEAKER:

-The question is that the Bills be declared urgent Bills.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Allotment of Time

Mr DALY:
Leader of the House · Grayndler · ALP

-Imove:

That the allotment of time in connection with the Bills be as follows: For the second reading, until 2.15 p.m. this day; for the Committee stage, until 2.25 p.m. this day; for the remaining stages, until 2.35 p.m. this day.

This is the third time these Bills have been presented to this House.

Motion (by Mr Bourchier) put:

That the Minister be not further heard.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The question is: That the Minister be not further heard. Those of that opinion say aye; to the contrary no. I think the ayes have it. The question now is: That the motion for the allotment of time be agreed to.

Mr Daly:

- Mr Speaker -

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable member has been voted out.

Mr Daly:
Mr SPEAKER:

– I am sorry. The honourable gentleman will resume his seat. The question now is: That the motion for the allotment of time be agreed to. Those of that opinion say aye; to the contrary no. I think the ayes have it.

Mr Killen:

– The noes have it.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Is a division required?

MrKillen-No.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bills presented by Mr Hayden, and together read a first time.

Second Readings

Mr HAYDEN:
Treasurer · Oxley · ALP

– I move:

That the Bills be now read a second time.

These Bills now before the House, are in every respect similar to Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1975-76 and Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 1975-76 which were presented by me to the House on the occasion of the Budget on 19 August and again on 22 October 1975 following the unprecedented step of their deferral in the Senate on 1 6 October 1975. The details of the proposed expenditures were referred to in my second reading speeches on those previous occasions and I do not think it is necessary to restate them here.

In my Budget Speech, I outlined the economic policy background to the Government’s Budget proposals and announced at some length what those proposals were. On 22 October I reaffirmed the Government’s economic policy as reflected in those Bills, in this House. On both occasions the House has passed these important money Bills. The matters contained in them have been debated at length both here and in the Senate. Both honourable members here and senators have had adequate opportunity to examine exhaustively the expenditure proposals they contain.

The Bills I have now introduced, again seek the appropriation of $6,976, 1 1 9,000 in Bill No. 1 and $2,268,980,000 in Bill No. 2 for the services of the Government for the financial year ending 30 June 1976. The wide variety of expenditures for which appropriation is sought is set out in detail in the Second Schedule of each Bill. They cover matters such as: Salary and wages for public servants and other employees of departments and of statutory authorities; student assistance programs; health services, including amounts for the operation of the Australian Capital Territory and Northern Territory hospitals; employment training and assistance and expenditure on projects for the relief of unemployment; maintenance of Australian representation abroad; payments to international organisations; aid programs; grants for aged persons homes and hostels; defence services and the reconstruction of Darwin.

In answers to questions in this House my colleagues have pointed out the consequencesin terms of personal hardship and disruption- which continual deferral of these Bills will produce. In the circumstances therefore I again plead - (Quorum formed) Once again I make a plea to the Opposition that it draw back from the brink of economic crisis to which it is pushing this country. One does not like stressing too much the disastrous consequences- ‘disastrous’ is not too strong a word to use in these circumstanceswhich undoubtedly will flow from the chain of events which the Opposition has set in action by its behaviour in the Senate. If the momentum of that chain of events is to continue, I am afraid that many innocent people in the Australian community are going to be severely disadvantaged. There will be inflicted upon some of them the most severe forms of personal discomfort and disadvantage.

It is curious to me that an Opposition which proclaims outside this place that at least in some general or nominal way it represents primary industry and the corporate sector of the economy should take actions which will have the effect of severely disadvantaging both the primary industry sector and the corporate sector of the economy. Like other members in this Parliament I was present in Parliament last week at question time, as I mentioned a few minutes ago, when several of my ministerial colleagues pointed out to the Parliament the unpleasant consequences that are now in train. I am not suggesting that they may arise; they are now in train. We are moving inexorably towards a point where a severe crunch will be imposed on the community.

I understand that the next speaker in this debate is to be the Leader of the National Country Party (Mr Anthony) and I want to put a serious question to him. I ask him, in all candour, how he can possibly support the irresponsible behaviour of his colleagues in the Senate when he knows that primary industry is going to be so greatly disadvantaged. The last Minister for Northern Australia and present Minister for Agriculture (Dr Patterson) pointed out, when Acting Minister for Agriculture, that the beef export industry alone will come to a complete halt if there is not a flow of funds with the authority of Parliament. That flow of funds can occur only if the Senate desists from its behaviour. Why is Queensland, the most important beef producing State in Australia, to be disadvantaged in this way? What sort of opposition- or resentment if one likes to put it in a more positive sense- is it that the National Country Party has suddenly developed towards the State of Queensland that it wants to see the beef industry there brought to its knees? Literally thousands of people are dependent on the industry. I am speaking not just of the producers but of the processors and the people who service the industry or service those who work in the industry in one way or another in many large centres in Queensland. What is it in the mind of the National Country Party that has suddenly driven it to this late summer madness that it wants to bring the beef export industry throughout Australia but especially in Queensland to a complete halt?

Overall the economic effects are going to be quite severe. There is evidence that significant sectors of the economy have wound down. In some cases they have wound down their level of activity in a surprisingly rapid manner. The service sector, which I mentioned in this Parliament when introducing these Bills on a previous occasion, is already showing signs of this wind down. Theatres, restaurants and other places of amusement are finding that there is almost a collapse in the level of activity in their sector. This is important because this sector gives a lead to the flow on effects that are going to seep throughout the whole of the Australian economy. Consumers are suspending spending decisions. White goods are not moving from the floors of retail outlets as rapidly as they had been. This sets in effect a chain of consequences. Stocks which have been produced in expectation of a given level of activity in fact will not be sold. They will accumulate in the warehouse and we will get back to the problem of mounting inventories. In turn this impairs the level of optimism on the part of businessmen who must make investment decisions. They will not invest. Already they are suspending their investment decisions.

Mr Reynolds:

– They are not making Christmas orders.

Mr HAYDEN:

-As the honourable member for Barton has pointed out, Christmas orders have been suspended. It could be a very grim Christmas for Australia. It will be an extremely grim one unless the Opposition in the Senate desists in its unconstitutional irresponsible behaviour which can bring the Australian economy to its knees. We are in an unprecedented situation in which there is confrontation between the 2 Houses of Parliament. I argue, as I have argued many times before with complete justification, that the House of Representatives is the seat of government. There is only one government in the country, not two. There are not 2 chambers of government. There are not 2 Prime Ministers, only one. The Government is seated in this House of the Parliament. This is the House of the Parliament which is elected by popular franchise and which is more democratically representative of the 2 Houses.

The curious election arrangements for the Senate are such that regardless of the size of a State in terms of population the same number of senators are elected for each State. A small State such as Tasmania has the same number of senators as New South Wales which is the largest State in terms of population. In turn this leads to a distortion of democratic representation in the other House- in the Senate. In the last election this

Government obtained 200 000 votes more than the combined votes of all of its opponents in the Senate. In spite of that it did not get a majority in the Senate. I mention this to give a clear indication of the insupportability of any assertion that the Senate is a democratically representative House.

It is frequently asserted that the Senate is the States House, but long ago it ceased being the protector of the States and the representative of the smaller States. Indeed it was because the architects of the Constitution were keen to ensure that the small States had adequate representation and protection of their interests that the Senate was conceived in its present form, with its present system of representation. But if ever the Senate was the States House it certainly long ago ceased being such. The people in the Senate who are impeding the flow of business- the hostile Liberal and National Country Party senatorsare acting not according to the States’ interests but according to the stern discipline of the Liberal and Country Parties. In many cases Liberal and Country Party senators are behaving contrary to their own principles and beliefs. More importantly, they are behaving contrary to their publicly stated position in terms of the role of the Senate in its handling of money Bills such as the Appropriation Bills.

Some time ago the Minister for Labor and Immigration mentioned that a projection of unemployment for the January period suggested that the maximum level would be about 400 000. That would be the worst of the 3 usual categories of economic projects- the best, the worst and the intermediate categories. The worst projection is about 400 000 unemployed in that period. Already that projection is in error. Even now, if the Opposition draws back from the unpleasant activity which it has initiated in the Senate, the level of unemployment in January and February will be much higher. Because of their behaviour in the Senate Opposition members alone will be responsible. They will be the guilty people who will bring about that position. One tends to talk about unemployment because it is a more dramatic statistic in terms of measuring the level of economic activity, but the level of unemployment is only one indicator of the level of activity and in itself is an indicator of a reduction in activity in other sectors of the economy. If unemployment were to mount to that level, quite clearly the level of retail sales- (Quorum formed).

Mr Daly:

– Take your time, Bill. You have another half hour and I am enjoying your speech.

Mr HAYDEN:

– I am glad that someone is enjoying it. I am not sure whether I am. I am torn between 2 objectives: On the one hand to say the things I want to say, which will be helpful for the Government of course, and on the other hand to allow the Leader of the National Country Party (Mr Anthony) to say the things he wants to say, which will be even more helpful for the Government, especially if the public hears from him and more especially if the Liberals listen to him- that is, if they can understand him. Before I received assistance from the honourable member for Griffith (Mr Donald Cameron) I was pointing out that the course of conduct for which the Opposition is responsible in the Senate will lead to rather severe contractionary effects in the early new year, much worse than we could have anticipated even with the worst projections that we could have imagined. Even now, I repeat, if the Opposition draws back from the brink to which it has taken this country there will be a more severe crunch in the new year than we had anticipated. If it does not draw back, of course, it will be particularly severe.

I suppose from an economic management point of view it is a sad storm that does not have some silver in its lining somewhere. The Opposition is concerned about the level of the deficit as the Opposition interprets it and the effects of economic management reflected in the Budget. It has been putting the point that the deficit will be considerably higher than the $2, 800m which we outlined in our Budget papers. In fact, we are holding expenditures steady, and accordingly if the deficit is larger than the $2, 800m which we had suggested- I for one hope that it will be larger because it will indicate that we are being much more successful than we had hoped for when we put the Budget together.

Honourable members will recollect that the Budget projections, especially outlined in Budget Statement No. 2 of the papers attached to the Budget speech, indicated that we anticipated an increase in average weekly earnings of something like 22 per cent over the course of the year. For me this was a rather worrying projection but that is the way we saw the situation when we drew the projections together. There was a little hope that it could be a little lower than that with some luck. We have been even more successful than we had anticipated. At this point we suspect on our projections that the rate of increase in average weekly earnings could be as low as 17 per cent. It could even be lower if we have even more success than we had anticipated. I expect that it is fair enough to make the comment here that the Minister for Labor and Immigration (Senator

James McClelland) deserves commendation for the success he has been achieving in establishing a better working relationship with the unions and therefore -

Mr Anthony:

– Than the previous Minister? You are dumping him too, are you?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Innes:
MELBOURNE, VICTORIA

-Order! The Leader of the National Country Party will remain silent.

Mr Anthony:

– I beg your pardon. I was just trying to liven it up.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:
Mr HAYDEN:

– From the noise he made I thought it was feed time in the stables.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The Treasurer will direct his remarks to the Chair.

Mr HAYDEN:

-The Minister for Labor and Immigration deserves commendation for the effective way in which he has encouraged wage restraint to be exercised by the industrial movement. Of course in doing this- to take up the point of the interjection- he is improving on a base which was well established and which was being developed successfully by his predecessor the honourable member for Hindmarsh (Mr Clyde Cameron) who has the great distinction of having the new trade union college named after him. Perhaps the Leader of the National Country Party might like to reflect that the honourable member for Hindmarsh, who is the Minister for Science and Consumer Affairs, is held in such high esteem by the trade union movement that it spontaneously sought that the college should be named after him. In any case, as I was saying, the rate of increase in average weekly earnings has eased appreciably. We are having significant success on that front. Given the general economic climate in which we expected to be working, revenue collections will be less than expected and expenditure is being held steady. Clearly this means that the deficit in money terms may be larger than we outlined in the Budget.

Mr King:

– Finish up, Bill. You are really struggling.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Innes:

-Order! The honourable member for Wimmera will be struggling, too, if he does not cease interjecting.

Mr Sullivan:

– With you in the chair, I could believe it.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member will withdraw that remark.

Mr Sullivan:

– I withdraw it.

Mr HAYDEN:

– I should think so. I thought it was rather disgraceful.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– It was an absolutely disgraceful remark from the honourable member for Riverina. If he makes such a remark again, there will be one warning.

Mr HAYDEN:

– We are now in the curious situation that, because the economic circumstances have changed dramatically but not pleasantly or desirably, we could have a considerably lower deficit than would have occurred with the normal set of circumstances in which otherwise we would have been working. This arises very simply. At present revenue collections are proceeding, with company tax collections proceeding at the 45 per cent rate, not the 42 Vi per cent rate we proposed; but expenditure is being cut back quite significantly.

I will give one small illustration of this. I have available to me a spending authority called the Treasurer’s Advance. This is a spending authority which allows me to meet the cost of unexpected items- expenditure liabilities which might crop up in the course of the year or which were not foreseen at the time the Budget was presented. We are maintaining the Public Service. It is absolutely essential that the community services be maintained. They are crucial to the operation of our social framework. I am ensuring that the money available to me in the Treasurer’s Advance is used to pay the salaries of the public servants. We have to keep the Public Service functioning. An unfortunate effect of this situation is that a program such as the Regional Employment Development Program can no longer have expenses met from the Treasurer’s Advance. Because of the obstructionism of the Opposition in the Senate we cannot get the money out to the local authority areas. Rural areas are amongst the most affected areas, and one wonders what it is that has caused the sudden paranoic aversion on the part of the National Country Party to rural areas. It is about to destroy the beef export industry. It seems as though it is determined also to undermine the financial viability of local authorities, especially rural local authorities. One can see a severe crunch really stifling the activity of rural local government administration.

These are some of the problems which are cropping up; but, as I say, we are cutting back on expenditure. It is conceivable if the present crisis continues much longer that, as my friend the Minister for Administrative Services (Mr Daly) has pointed out, we may provide members of Parliament with an airline ticket to Canberra but not be able to provide them one to leave Canberra until the Appropriation Bills are passed. These are only small instances of the sorts of problems we have. Of course, some National Country Party members have one amazing capacity. Their intellectual vitality does not display itself in most areas, but when it comes to tax avoidance they are peculiarly successful. With the money they are able to save through tax avoidance, they may be able to afford their fares out of Canberra; but not many other people will be able to do this.

The most unfortunate aspect of the present situation is that the Opposition which so often proclaims- obviously on its performance nominally proclaims- a concern about convention, about the forms, about precedent and about following proper procedures is the first, when it suits it, to abuse those conventions, those forms, those procedures and those precedents. No one has corrupted constitutional convention more than it has. It operates happily with a stacked Senate. If it were not for the fact that the Senate has been stacked by the dishonest behaviour of Liberal-Country Party governments in Queensland and New South Wales the Opposition would not be able to get away with its present fiction whereby it argues that it is not rejecting the Appropriation Bills but merely delaying or deferring them. Of course that is a totally dishonest tactic but it is bred of necessity for the Opposition. It knows that it is in no position to move confidently for the rejection of the Appropriation Bills in the Senate because a few Liberal senators have indicated that they would not be prepared to vote for the blockage of the Appropriation Bills, that is, to reject them.

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– You are just talking out time.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Innes:

-The honourable member for Griffith will remain silent.

Mr HAYDEN:

– I would have thought that the honourable member for Griffith would be vitally concerned about these issues. A lot of people in his electorate will feel the crunch personallyshopkeepers who will find that spending is cut back, people in small retail stores, people concerned with consumer durables, small enterprises and public servants. He shows a distressing degree of indifference about those people. (Quorum formed) Before the call for a quorum I was drawing the attention of the House to the well known dereliction of electorate responsibility on the part of the honourable member for Griffith (Mr Donald Cameron) towards his constituents. He has the propensity to make the odd speech here and to talk for the people back home, as it were, but he does so with no ring of conviction and no ring of sincerity.

Mr King:

– I take a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. In view of the decision of the House earlier to the effect that this debate is going to be guillotined -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-There is no point of order. The honourable member will resume his seat.

Mr King:

– Does it mean that the Treasurer has unlimited time?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-The honourable member will resume his seat.

Mr King:

– No one else has.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– I name the honourable member for Wimmera.

Mr Anthony:

– Oh rubbish! Mr Deputy Speaker, I ask you to ask the honourable member for Wimmera to withdraw.

Mr Lucock:

– Let it go. Do not apologise. It is not worth it.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– I ask the honourable member to withdraw.

Mr King:

– I do not withdraw.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– I name the honourable member for Wimmera in the first instance and I then name the honourable member for Lyne.

Motion (by Mr Daly) proposed:

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

Mr Anthony:

– Disgraceful! You have prostituted the Parliament today.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– I ask the Leader of the National Country Party to withdraw that remark.

Mr Anthony:

– I withdraw that remark.

Question put. The House divided.

The bells having been rung-

AYES: 0

NOES: 0

AYES

NOES

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! Before I proceed to put the motion I think, in view of the heat of the moment, and as I have mentioned to the -

Mr Ian Robinson:
COWPER, NEW SOUTH WALES · CP; NCP from May 1975

– I cannot hear a word you are saying.

Mr SPEAKER:

– All right then, I will start again.

Opposition members- Good, good.

Mr SPEAKER:

– In view of the heat of the circumstances, before I put the question I give both honourable members an opportunity to apologise to the House. If they do not do so I will put the question.

Mr King:

– What I said a few moments ago I have no intention of withdrawing.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member is not prepared to withdraw. Does the honourable member for Lyne wish to speak?

Mr Ian Robinson:
COWPER, NEW SOUTH WALES · CP; NCP from May 1975

– I think it would be only fair if you informed the House more clearly of the proceedings before the House.You have given no indication of what you are asking the honourable member to withdraw.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Cowper will resume his seat. I offered the honourable member for Wimmera an opportunity to apologise to the House. He has declined to accept the opportunity. I offer the same opportunity also to the honourable member for Lyne who I think has been implicated in this.

Mr Lucock:

– With all due respect, Sir, I said: Do not apologise. It is not worth it’. I am afraid I cannot see that there is anything in that remark for which I should apologise.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I will deal with that later, but I think most likely it would be in the best interests of the House if the honourable gentleman were to apologise.

Mr Lucock:

– I apologise to you, Sir, for placing you in this position, considering my position in this House.

Mr King:

– A personal explanation, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER:

-No, not now. I have asked the honourable member whether he is prepared to apologise- I am not entitled to do that- and he has indicated that he is not prepared to do so. If the honourable gentleman is prepared to apologise to the Chair -

Mr King:

- Mr Speaker, I believe my position needs explanation.

Mr SPEAKER:

-No. The honourable gentleman will either apologise or resume his seat.

Mr King:

- Mr Speaker, I apologise for rising in my place at this stage. Seeing that I was taking a point of order earlier I have nothing to apologise for.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable gentleman will resume his seat. The question is that the honourable gentleman be suspended from the service of the House. (Mr Speaker-Hon. G. G. D. Scholes)

Ayes………. 61

Noes………. 53

Majority……. 8

(The honourable member for Melbourne having approached the Chair)-

Opposition members- Shame! Name him.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I suggest that members of the Opposition remain silent. I asked the honourable member to come to the Chair. He did not come of his own volition.

Mr Killen:

– Under what Standing Order did you ask the honourable member to approach you?

Mr SPEAKER:

-I suggest that I asked him on the grounds of common sense.

Mr Killen:

– You have no monopoly of that. Impertinence!

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable member has enough of that for the both of us.

Mr Killen:

– Gross dictatorship.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable member for Moreton will behave like a member of this Parliament and not like a larrikin.

Mr Killen:

– I have been here longer than you. Don’t you dare.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable member for Moreton will resume his seat while I am on my feet. If he thinks he can bluff me hewill be out of this chamber as quick as he can say Jack Robinson. There appears to be a campaign by some members of this chamber to stand over the Chair.

Mr Lloyd:

– Tell the Government members to shut up.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I warn the honourable member for Murray.

Mr Howard:

– The Chair has to obtain respect.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The result of the division is ayes 61, noes 53. The question is therefore resolved in the affirmative. The honourable member for Wimmera stands suspended from the House for 24 hours.

Sitting suspended from 1.8 to 2 p.m.

Mr ANTHONY:
Leader of the National Country Party · Richmond

– After the shameful performance of this morning when the Government tried to gag every speaker on the Opposition side of the House, I am glad to see that the Government’s conscience is pricked. It is willing to allow at least a few minutes for me to speak. The Treasurer (Mr Hayden) tried to filibuster out the whole of the time. But after a situation in which 2 members of this House were named and there was a complete uproar, I think the Government realised that the backlash from the Australian public to this jackboot type of tactic would be quite disastrous.

The Treasurer is certainly having a bad day. Not only has his performance been rather pathetic, but he has been exposed for one of the greatest improprieties that any Minister of the Crown could commit, that is, breaching the trust that is placed in him as the Treasurer of this country to keep confidential the secrets of a Budget. They are secrets which, if allowed to get into unmerciful hands, could allow a person to make quite a fortune. Yet this Treasurer was prepared to bow to one of the political powers that is his master and that is the President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions. He was endeavouring to curry favour where the power of the Australian Labor Party lies.

It is not the first time that we have seen this rather young, ambitious man hitch himself to power irrespective of what the consequences are for some of his colleagues round him. We saw the way in which the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) stabbed the previous Treasurer, the honourable member for Lalor, Dr Cairns, in the back. When the honourable member for Lalor made a speech of explanation in this House what came out very clearly was that the present Treasurer disowned him, was disloyal to him, and was willing to sign on with the Prime Minister in his tactics to get rid of the honourable member. Yet these back benchers of the Labor Party are prepared to sit back while this unscrupulous Prime Minister can manipulate any front bencher for his own ends- to protect himself and to cover up for his own gross vanity and for his massive ego. The Treasurer was part of this operation. No man has been more loyal to the Labor Party than the honourable member for Lalor. I have viciously disagreed with him but I have said on a number of occasions that I have respected his honesty and his integrity.

Mr Sherry:

– Crocodile tears.

Mr ANTHONY:

-The honourable member for Franklin is a deserter, too. He will rubbish the honourable member for Lalor. That is typical of him. The honourable member for Franklin will stand up for none of his colleagues. He sits beside the honourable member for Lalor in the back of the House but he will desert the honourable member if it is popular with his leader to do so. That is the sort of honourable member we have on that side of the House. They have no gumption and no stamina: It does not matter if honourable members opposite want to be sycophants or puppets standing back behind their Prime Minister. We are going to expose the Prime Minister to the Australian public. If Government supporters want him to smash their party then they should just let him be because we know where he is leading them. Every Government supporter knows it. They know that it is a fact that the Minister for Science and Consumer Affairs (Mr Clyde Cameron) said in their Party room a few weeks ago that every major crisis that has been caused, has been caused by the Prime Minister himself.

The Prime Minister’s word cannot be taken in this House. The honourable member for Lalor said on television the other night that the Prime Minister had lied. The Prime Minister, in speaking to the Appropriation Bills yesterday, presented the situation dishonestly. It was a phoney presentation because what he said was that the Senate was using its power to change the government. He was going to smash the authority of the Senate because it was doing this.

Government supporters- Hear, hear!

Mr ANTHONY:

– Of course Government supporters want a one-House Parliament; they want a totalitarian system. They are not going to get it because the Constitution is sacred to this country. The Minister for Northern Australia (Mr Keating) who is trying to interject will have plenty of time to make a noise.

Mr Keating:

– I will do you any day of the week, yard for yard, word for word.

Mr ANTHONY:

– Well why look so frightened?

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I suggest that the Minister for Northern Australia remain silent.

Mr ANTHONY:

-He ratted on the honourable member for Cunningham (Mr Connor) so one can imagine his being a little bit sensitive. What I like about members of the Labor Party is their keenness to get into the Ministry. They do not care who they rubbish in the process. If you are left behind like a corpse in the Labor Party, your colleagues will certainly tread over the top of you. What we have now is a situation in which the Prime Minister is deliberately misrepresenting this position and the authority of the Senate. The Senate has the right to reject or to block a financial measure. The effects are the same- it makes government unworkable. If that action has been taken by the Senate then any selfrespecting Prime Minister would automatically go to the people either to get confirmation or to be rejected. That is what this Government will not face up to. The Senate is not changing the Government. What the Senate is doing is giving the Australian people- our masters- the opportunity of deciding who should continue to run this country.

The Senate believes that this is a bad Government, that it is a Government not worthy of supporting any longer. So it has blocked the passage of financial measures. Yet we have this Government dishonestly trying to present to the Australian people the belief that it is the Senate which is going to cause hardship to the Australian people. How wrong! If I could use an analogy, it is a bit like blaming a judge for the hardship that he causes to the family of a criminal whom he had sent to gaol. The Senate is acting in a way which is trying to protect the interests of the Australian people against a disreputable government- a government which for reprehensible reasons should be compelled to go back and face the Australian people. But the Government is not prepared to do that. It is prepared to let finance run down. It is prepared to gamble with people and their jobs and to see those people go out of work.

Mr Lusher:

– The Government has nothing to lose.

Mr ANTHONY:

– It will lose in the long run because it will smash completely the whole Labor Party and its reputation for years to come. Government supporters stand there blindly and are led along by this Prime Minister who has already disowned two of their Ministers and said that those Ministers deceived this Parliament and lied to it. Yet on exactly the same grounds that he has sacked them on, he is not prepared to be judged himself. This is the situation that we face. Now what is the Government trying to do? It is obvious that the Prime Minister is playing the last card in the pack; he is trying to get a halfSenate election. It is the only action- a desperate action- that he can take at this stage. He would have to have a whole series of circumstances going for him to give him the chance of being able to control the Senate. The GovernorGeneral must be aware that it is a long shot for the Prime Minister to be able to get control of the Senate by a half-Senate election. There is only one way in which this issue can be solved and that is by the legal constitutional and logical way- an election of this House. If the Prime Minister wants to do so, he could have a half-Senate election at the same time which I believe is normal and proper or, if he has the courage, he could have a double dissolution. The Prime Minister has all the grounds to seek a double dissolution. But no, he is going to try to bulldoze his way through. He does not care whether people lose their jobs. If people are put out of work, the cause will be the actions of the Prime Minister.

We have only to observe the way in which the Government is managing its fear tactics. Its strategy is to continue to force its vicious vendetta against country people. It claims that meat workers will be put out of work and that the cattle industry will not be able to continue. Look, the Australian people are seeing through the Prime Minister. How much more can he be exposed than he was by the honourable member for Lalor who publicly called him a liar. I invite Government members to answer that charge. They have disowned this man who has done more for the Labor Party in the last decade than any other man, other than the Prime Minister. At least the honourable member for Lalor is respected right throughout the Labor movement. But Labor members are prepared to disown him because they are not game to stand up to the man who is leading them to disaster and destruction. That is what is happening. The Prime Minister will not even live up to his own words. We know that time and time again in the past he said that if a financial measure were to be rejected in the Senate there should be an election.

Mr Sherry:

– Rejected. Go on, reject it.

Mr ANTHONY:

-He said that indisputably on numerous occasions. The honourable member who is interjecting talks about rejection. The Government makes a lot about the question of rejection. What is the difference as far as the management of the Government is concerned between blocking such a Bill and rejecting it? There is no difference at all. But we are wise enough to know how unscrupulous this Prime Minister is and how far he will use such a rejection. He does not care at this stage because he has nothing to lose. He can harm the economy and harm the people, hoping that he can build up a reaction throughout the community which somehow or other may get him last minute support. Well, we are not going to allow the Prime Minister to have the pleasure of seeing us reject a financial measure and thus allow him to run the economy down while an election takes place. We have said quite clearly that as soon as the Prime Minister is prepared to announce the date of a general election the financial measures will go through. The Budget will be passed. There will be no hardship at all for anybody in this country.

Mr Sherry:

– Reject it.

Mr Hayden:

– That is not rejection of the Budget.

Mr ANTHONY:

-There is no doubt about them. Listen to them interject. They are certainly toey The people of whom they are frightened are the Australian electors. The people who are present in the parliamentary galleries today can see what sort of a Government they have. Government members are running scared. They have a Prime Minister who is desperately clinging to power as he sees it slowly sliding away from him. The Government is bringing forward every furphy that it can to try to protect itself. The Treasurer has used such arguments as the claim that if the Senate gets away with its present action we will have an election every 6 months.

If the Senate acts unwisely, by whom is it punished? It is punished by the Australian people. If it acts wisely, the government will have control of both Houses. This is what will happen if it has acted correctly and acted according to the will of the Australian people.

This is what Government members are frightened of. They know that, if a double dissolution is held the pathetic record of this Governmentnot only its incompetence but also its complete and utter dishonesty and its corruption- will result in the Government being devastated. The Government is playing for time in the hope that something will break to save it. Well nothing in the world can save this Government because it is in desperate trouble, having dashed all the hopes of loyal members of the Australian Labor Party throughout this country. These are the people who thought they were going to get a Government that would help them. But this Government is not a Labor government’s bootlace. It has betrayed those people who have loyally tried to support the Labor Party over the years. Accordingly, I move:

That all words after ‘That’ be omitted and the following words be substituted therefor

The passage of the Bill be deferred until a date for a general election be set as the Government has misled the Parliament and the people.

Nothing can describe the whole situation better than those few words. The Government tries to blame us for stopping the Appropriation Bills. It is trying to blame us for the hardship that is being caused and will be caused to people -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The time allowed for the second reading debate has expired. The question now is: That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr Sinclair:

– There is an amendment.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The amendment is not seconded. It is not before the House.

Mr Sinclair:
Mr SPEAKER:

-The right honourable gentleman did not sit down before the time allowed for the debate expired. I could not call for a seconder. The question now is: That the Bills be now read a second time.

Question put.

The House divided. (Mr Speaker-Hon. G. G. D. Scholes)

AYES: 62

NOES: 55

Majority……. 7

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Third Readings

Leave granted for third readings to be moved forthwith.

Motion (by Mr Hayden) proposed:

That the Bills he now read a third time.

Mr SINCLAIR:
New England

-The second reading debate on these Bills has been totally aborted because the Government has refused to present to the Parliament in a fit and adequate form one of the most significant of the measures that lie before the Australian people. The Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) has demonstrated repeatedly that he has little regard for the truth in this Parliament, even in the presentation of these Appropriation Bills. We have seen in replies given to the Parliament at question time the difference between the Treasurer (Mr Hayden) and the Prime Minister as to just what information was passed to the Premiers. The Prime Minister told us that the whole Budget had been passed to the Premiers. From the Treasurer we heard that perhaps it was not the whole Budget. The truth, of course, is that, as in past instances, prior to the presentation of the Appropriation Bills in this House only provisions relating to States grants were passed to the Premiers. That is a perfectly appropriate course. We have had the Prime Minister, however, alleging that that is not so.

We also have circumstances in which both the Prime Minister and the Treasurer have condoned the detail of this Budget, the one with which we are now dealing, being revealed to those who are outside the Parliament, those who are not subject to the constraints that are imposed on members of Parliament. We have the deplorable instance of one such man- the President of the Australian Labor Party and a director of 2 major public companies- being put in a position where, had he wished, he could have taken advantage of that prior information. These are all serious breaches of parliamentary tradition and practice. These Bills, in their presentation -

Dr Gun:

- Mr Speaker, 1 raise a point of order. Is it in order for the honourable member for New England to make statements like this when -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable gentleman will resume his seat.

Dr Gun:

-. . . as Minister for Primary Industry he told the honourable member for Angas about the wine excise -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I warn the honourable member for Kingston.

Mr SINCLAIR:

-That is another typical gross distortion of the truth. Unfortunately, the truth means little to members of the present Government Party. The circumstances of its present control of the sinews of this country reflect that the Government has lost the respect of the electorate and honourable members opposite are running scared. That is what this debate is about. That is why for the third time we are having the Appropriation Bills submitted to this Parliament.

This Government has created unemployment. It is engendering fear. It is promoting uncertainty. It has demonstrated total irresponsibility. Those things are all a total condemnation of the Government itself. Beyond that, it is prostituting the system of Parliament. I think it is important that the members of our community recognise just what is happening and the way that it is happening. They might be interested, if they turn to this week’s Economist, to see an article there which talks about the dangers to Australian democracy. It says:

The real danger to Australian democracy does not come from the way the opposition in the Senate has decided to use its dusty constitutional powers. It comes from those who want to take politics out of parliament and decide who rules, not through elections or a referendum, but through the brute power of a general strike. Mr Whitlam should make it clear that he is not among their number.

The power struggle in Canberra is not just about the survival of the Whitlam Government. The power struggle is about the nature of Australian democracy. The power struggle is about whether the people of Australia -

Mr Morris:

-Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. I draw your attention to the time.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I suggest that I have no need to look at the time.

Mr SINCLAIR:

– The power struggle is not between the other chamber and this chamber. The power struggle is about whether democracy itself will survive. The whole of the fabric of democracy has been subordinated by a government which, in the premature disclosure of Budget secrets to the President of the ALP, has disclosed to the Australian people where the real power in the country is being held. It is not the Parliament , that controls the Labor Party; it is the Australian Council of Trade Unions and the trade union movement. The premature disclosure of the most vital financial secrets of the country to the President of the ALP in a totally unprecedented and reprehensible manner demonstrates totally the way in which the ALP has sold its soul to an organisation outside the Parliament. The power struggle in Canberra is not just about the survival of the Whitlam Government. It is not a conflict between the Senate and the House of Representatives. It is about whether the Australian people, the Australian electorate, are to be given a chance to exercise a vote.

It is important, in examining the tyrannical exercise of the power of this present Government with its temporary majority to consider the sacking of the honourable member for Cunningham (Mr Connor), the sacking of the honourable member for Lalor (Dr J. F. Cairns), all the circumstances of their dismissal, the involvement of the Government in the ACTU-Solo Enterprises Pty Ltd oil deal and the circumstances of the premature disclosure of details of the Budget. The whole of the climate of what this Government is doing is totally reprehensible; yet now it is saying: ‘But really it is the Opposition that is creating uncertainty in the electorate’. We have had the recitation by successive Ministers of what might happen. Let every member of the Government be aware that we are quite prepared, because we have deferred the Budget, to reconstitute it the moment a date for a general election is set. There is no reason for anybody in the Australian community to be apprehensive about what is happening as a result of the Budget being deferred. We are totally against circumstances in which people are deprived of benefits they should receive because the Government will not answer to the people. Just where we are going depends on the Australian electorate being the people who ultimately determine what happens and where we go.

The Prime Minister claimed in a speech that 139 appropriation Bills passed the Senate when the government did not have a majority in the Senate. Surely that of itself demonstrates that the Senate is acting responsibly. He did not honestly explain, of course, that in respect of the passage of those 139 Bills the ALP Opposition was the minority Party with the Democratic Labor Party holding the balance of power. The point of it all of course is that the ALP has one standard of behaviour when it is in a position to take advantage of breaches of convention, but it has a totally different standard of behaviour when it thinks that it might in some way be affected. Make no mistake about it: Every one of those scared men on the other side of the House is running from the electorate. They are afraid to go to the people. That is what it is all about.

Why will the honourable member for Cunningham not tell us why he resigned? What is he afraid of? Is he afraid because the Prime Minister has ratted on him? Is he afraid to tell us the truth?

Why will he not be as honest and as forthright as the honourable member for Lalor, who came into this House and told us why he believed he acted in an upright and honest way? One can respect the honourable member for Lalor but not a man who is not prepared to come into this House and tell the people of Australia why he resigned. I believe that that of itself is reprehensible. That is the most extraordinary of the power changes that have taken place.

The honourable member for Cunningham cannot sit silently there without being condemned for his silence. It is important that each one of the members of the Australian community and of his colleagues who sit around him recognise that that man has said nothing to the Parliament. He is not prepared to answer to the people. He said that he told his own Labor Caucus. Of course, and this is the point, the Labor Caucus and the trade union movement outside Parliament are more significant than the people. That is what this is all about. The honourable member for Cunningham and the Prime Minister are not prepared to be answerable to the people of Australia. They are running from the Australian electorate. That is why we in this House are opposing this Budget and that is why it is being deferred in the Senate. It is being deferred there so that it can be reconstituted. None of the fear tactics that these little men in the Government seek to provoke will be successful.

It is important that the Australian people recognise the degree to which they are being misled by a government of this character. They are being led away from the true and accurate way in which a country should be led. I repeat that there are 3 significant charges that we lay against the Government. The first is the total illegality and impropriety of that original Executive Council minute giving authority to the honourable member for Cunningham to borrow a very significant sum of money- $4,000m. We were told originally that that loan was not going to attract commission. We see now from the telexes that have been published that the Government conspired to ensure that nobody would see the commission; the interest rate was to be loaded so that the commission would be written within that added interest charge.

The second of those charges relates to the way in which the Government has defrauded the Parliament in concealing a hidden payment of commission which supposedly, according to the answers given to the Parliament, would not be payable to any man. Yet the telexes demonstrate that the Government, with the knowledge of the Prime Minister because all those telexes passed across his desk, knew that a hidden commission was payable through an addition to the interest rate. The whole nature of those transactions was within the knowledge of 4 men. One of them has left the Parliament and gone to the High Court; two have left the Ministry; one remains as Prime Minister. The Prime Minister is involved yet he says that he knew nothing of the deals. What has happened to those documents that were in that Paris bank? What was the involvement of the Reserve Bank? Why and in what way were these overseas loan negotiations conducted?

It is not just those questions that have to be answered. What about the circumstances of the ACTU-Solo Enterprises Pty Ltd petrol deal? To what degree are Ministers culpable in having negotiated or having given prior knowledge to members of the directorate of that company which enabled them to take advantage of that deal? To what extent has the man who was secretary of the Australian Council of Trade Unions been made a scapegoat of the whole affair? It seems to me that the involvement of the Government in the ACTU-Solo affair was as reprehensible as anything involved in the loans affair.

The third charge is the absolutely deplorable behaviour of the Treasurer, condoned by the Prime Minister, in prematurely releasing Budget documents in a totally unprecedented fashion to the President of the Australian Labor Party, the master of the parliamentary members of the Labor Party. This man is a director of 2 public companies. Then we heard the reasons that were given, as my honourable friend the honourable member for Hotham (Mr Chipp) said. Why on earth was it that the Treasurer decided to reveal this only last Monday? Was it because the President of the Australian Labor Party had said that the answer the Treasurer gave in the House on 22 October was inaccurate and that more than those 3 men knew about that particular transaction? Honourable members will remember that the Treasurer said that only 3 men knew about it. Three men! The Treasurer said:

I suggest to all members of this Parliament that there must be respect for the personal integrity of members of Parliament or this system cannot function.

He said: ‘I have not spoken with anyone on this issue; there were only 3 men involved.’ Why did he say a few days later that in fact there was another who knew of it.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The time allotted for the third reading debate has expired.

Question put:

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

The House divided. (Mr Speaker-Hon. G. G. D. Scholes)

AYES: 62

NOES: 55

Majority……. 7

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Bills together read a third time.

page 2609

THE PARLIAMENT

Mr KILLEN:
Moreton

– I seek leave to make a statement.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Mr KILLEN:

- Mr Speaker, immediately before lunch, in the course of a division, the honourable member for Melbourne (Mr Innes) moved from his seat to your chair. In accordance with standing order 202 that no member may move from his place until the result of a division is announced and invoking, I submit properly, standing order 205, 1 draw attention to that fact. You observed that on the basis of common sense the honourable gentleman was entitled to so approach you. I questioned that, I thought in a respectful manner. I drew from you a form of words which said: ‘You are behaving like a larrikin’. Mr Speaker, if any member in this House transgresses against the Standing Orders there is an amplitude of powers at your disposal to so discipline him. Obloquy and calumny are not among them. I have never, and I do not, object to any acerbity of language. I ask you to withdraw the imputation.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable gentleman has either chosen or otherwise to leave out part of what I said prior to those remarks and that was that I had asked the honourable member for Melbourne to approach the Chair. If the honourable gentleman found the remarks offensive I would withdraw them.

Mr KILLEN:
Mr SPEAKER:

-But I would also ask the honourable gentleman to apologise for his own behaviour to me outside this chamber after the event.

Mr KILLEN:

– I will on the basis that you apologise for your behaviour.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable gentleman will now apologise to me for his behaviour outside the chamber in front of everyone.

Mr KILLEN:

– You repeated the insult outside -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable gentleman entered my chambers and began abusing me. I would ask him to apologise and I would suggest the incident can be forgotten.

Mr Bourchier:

– What has the incident outside got to do with you?

Mr KILLEN:

– I apologise -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I suggest that the honourable gentleman might learn something about the Parliament.

Mr KILLEN:

– Yes, and standing order 79- he is not the only one who has read them. I apologise for any observation I made to you outside the chamber. But I would think it becoming -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I will accept the honourable gentleman’s apology. I would hope that such an incident would not recur and that we will both be able to retain our tempers in the future.

Mr KILLEN:

– May I invite you, not out of any sensitivity of feeling -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I have already withdrawn the remark. I have told the honourable gentleman that we should both be sorry for our behaviour. I think that is a reasonable position for the Chair to take.

Mr KILLEN:

-May I take it that there is an apology for your behaviour outside too?

page 2609

REPATRIATION GENERAL HOSPITAL, GREENSLOPES, QUEENSLAND

Approval of Work- Public Works Committee Act

Mr RIORDAN:
Minister for Housing and Construction · Phillip · ALP

– I move:

That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1 969- 1 974, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the committee has duly reported to Parliament: Construction of a proposed multi-storey ward block, Repatriation General Hospital, Greenslopes, Queensland.

The proposal provides for the construction of a six storey multi-ward block designed to accommodate the requirements of 288 beds, kitchen and dining facilities, library, duty medical officers’ common rooms, convention room, staff change and amenities rooms, storage rooms and plant room. The estimated cost of the proposed work is $ 12.3m.

The Committee, in recommending the construction of this work, has concluded that there is a need for a new ward block at the Repatriation General Hospital Greenslopes to replace outmoded and substandard ward accommodation and associated facilities and that the new ward block should be located on the site presently occupied by 11 timber buildings. Upon the concurrence of the House in this resolution, detailed planning can proceed in accordance with the recommendations of the Committee.

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– As the work which is the subject of the motion is in my electorate I simply say that I welcome it on behalf of the people whom I represent. I am quite sure that the hospital will be a better place after the new construction is completed.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 2610

STATES GRANTS (CAPITAL ASSISTANCE) BILL 1975

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 28 August on motion by Mr Crean:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Dr JENKINS:
Scullin

-When this Bill was first introduced into this House and the Minister for Tourism and Recreation and Minister Assisting the Treasurer (Mr Stewart) made his second reading speech I felt that this was a matter to which I should speak. I think States Grants (Capital Assistance) Bills in recent years have given us some chance of examining the financial relationships that exist between the Australian Government and State governments. However, history has rather overtaken us in that period and one finds that this is certainly not a time when one can discuss the complexity of this relationship.

I commend the honourable member for Lilley (Mr Kevin Cairns) for his effort in the debate yesterday to relate his discussions to the point of this Bill. Many of the comments which he made had great relevance to it. However, there were some with which I do not agree and which I question. It seemed to me that he was conducting the debate in somewhat of a state of euphoria. He was conducting it in a circumstance where we are talking about financial assistance for the States at a time when his own Party has put forward the proposition that financial assistance to the States could best be satisfied by imposing a system of double taxation. I know that such a system was previously suggested in Victoria where an attempt was made to introduce what was the equivalent of another State income tax. This suggestion received a resounding raspberry from the Victorian public. The honourable member for Lilley forgot to mention that. He expressed surprise that the Minister in his second reading speech said that because we are in a period when we are trying to show economic restraint the adjustment was about 20 per cent. This is what would be needed to maintain the programs at roughly the same real level as in the previous year.

The honourable member for Lilley went on to complain about the lack of growth factor that was in that. The same honourable member belongs to an Opposition which has suggested that there should be a 12.5 per cent cut in government expenditure across the board. Yet there he is complaining that restraint is being shown in this area and that no allowance is being made for growth. I find it very difficult to understand why honourable members opposite follow these lines. We have had the experience, not only with financial Bills but also with other Bills, of the Senate in this Parliament and the last Parliament rejecting or unacceptably amending more Bills in 3 years than previously since Federation. We have had complete obstruction of Government programs in practically every field. We put the matter to the test in May last year and the Government was returned. There was equality of numbers in the Senate but a majority of votes for the Government party. Since then the petulant little boys, deprived of the toffee apple of government after 23 years, have been unable to adjust to the fact that they are in opposition.

I find it quite difficult, after a great deal of examination of Budget Paper No. 7, the details of the Bill and the Minister’s speech, to think it worth while that one can be discussing Commonwealth-State relationships under these circumstances where the Australian Parliament has been dragged down to such a level by a unrepresentative House. The program outlined in the Bill has evolved over a period of years. It is one which from the States’ point of view guarantees the availability of finance. (Quorum formed) The honourable member for Maranoa, in calling for a quorum, confirms the comments I was making about the Opposition’s obstructive and destructive attitude to financial legislation which is presently before the Parliament and how it has rendered superfluous any discussion of Commonwealth-State relationships. Let me return to the States Grants (Capital Assistance) Bill. This is one of the most important programs for the State governments. The Loan Council program represents the major source of funds for capital works for the States. Each State has autonomy in relation to the way in which it spends those funds. The important thing about capital grants is that they are capital grants and not loans. One can see the savings that must occur in debt charges. Let us look at what has happened under the present Government. I am afraid that I will have to cite some figures here. Taking capital grants as a proportion of the total works and housing program one finds that in 1970-71 it represented 24.3 per cent; in 1971-72, 24.6 per cent; in 1972-73, 25.3 per cent; in 1973-74, 26.7 percent; in 1974-75, 32.1 percent; and the present proposition represents one-third. So under the present Government substantial consideration has been given to the financial needs of the States.

Further than that, it should be recalled that in 1973 it was decided to provide advances for housing outside the Loan Council arrangements. These annual advances which have been determined by the Minister for Housing and Construction after consultation with the appropriate State ministries have meant a substantial, effective increase in the moneys available to the States. Of course, these advances to the State housing authorities are at low interest over a long period. I am disappointed in many of the Statesparticularly my own- which give no recognition to the assistance that has been given by this Government. I am fed up with seeing so many programs going on that have arisen out of a more enlightened attitude by this Government, ‘taxes at work’ and signs going up that suggest that these improvements and increases are due solely to State governments and not to any enlightened attitude or stimulation by the Australian Government. Despite obstruction on so many measures, this Government has been able to provide resources for the States to take action in many new areas, to provide services which have been required for decades and which were not even considered by previous governments. We heard loud blowing from my old friend and opponent, Sir Henry Bolte, when he was Premier of Victoria about the Victorian Railways and how he would be glad to get rid of them. What happened when the offer was made? There was a ‘thumbs down’ from the Victorian Government. At least the South Australian and Tasmanian Governments showed some wisdom in accepting the Australian Government ‘s offer to take over their railways which provide service particularly to outlying areas but which in themselves have caused a great deal of strain on State budgets.

I have been able to touch on some matters only briefly. I wanted to go further and have a look at the flow-through of this program to various authorities other than the State governments. I regret that the petulant actions of the Opposition in this House and in the Senate have stifled proper consideration of the financial arrangements between the Australian Government and the State governments, that they have made it difficult for further advances to be made, that they have further clouded the issue by holding over the head of the Australian people the threat of a system of double taxation whereby they will have to pay tax under what has become accepted as the Australian taxation system and the State governments will, as they wish, be able to impose extra taxes. I think that this would be a very retrograde step. I am sure that, when in a fullness of time this Parliament expires, if the Opposition puts forward that proposition it will receive a resounding ‘no’ to it. I trust that for the benefit of the States the Opposition will cease its obstruction and allow finances which will flow from this and other legislation to reach those areas where they will be of most benefit.

Mr MACPHEE:
Balaclava

-The honourable member for Scullin (Dr Jenkins) concerned himself with what he called ‘the obstruction of the Senate’. He said that the Government has had many aims for the States and the Senate has obstructed those aims. Of course, we know that it is fashionable to decry the fact that the Senate was designed as a States House. There is some validity in the criticism of the way in which the Senate has changed from its original intentions. But one has to ask: Is it proper for this Government or any other Federal government to become such a self-appointed expert on what the States require? Did the Government ask the States when it imposed its centralism? This Government decides what it wants to do and it tries to impose its will upon the States, and if the States or the States House resist they are accused of obstructionism, of obstructing the divine centralist will of this Federal Labor Government. Let the State governments- this is an important part of our philosophy- be judged by their constituents, not by this self-deemed enlightenment of which the honourable member for Scullin spoke- the self-deemed enlightenment of the present, or any other, Federal government.

Dr Jenkins:

– You would think they were fair boundaries in your State.

Mr MACPHEE:

-That is a separate question. The honourable member interjects about the distribution of boundaries. I am talking about the structure of States, not the distribution of Federal electorates within States.

Dr Jenkins:

– I am talking about the State electorates.

Mr MACPHEE:

-The problem of State electorates is one which varies from State to State. The honourable member for Scullin referred also to alleged double taxation as being the policy of the Opposition. This again is not the case. It might be worth while if I spend some time on the question of the Opposition’s federalism policy. Before doing so, however, I should like to say that this debate, though short, has been most informative for anyone interested in this subject.

It was begun yesterday by the thoughtful contribution of the honourable member for Lilley (Mr KevinCairns) in which, despite the rising tensions on other matters in this House, the honourable member explained the complexity of the problem of Federal-State financial relations.

Dr Jenkins:

– I accept that.

Mr MACPHEE:

-The honourable member for Scullin pays tribute to that and in his own speech also contributed to some understanding of the problems. Of course, this Bill arises from the present Federal-State financial relations. It is not a situation begun by this Government, but it is a situation accentuated by this Government which leads the Federal Government to have responsibilities to the States. They are reflected in this Bill from decisions of Premiers Conferences and Loan Council meetings. But the Premiers Conferences and Loan Council meetings of recent years have shown that the States do not have the financial resources to carry out their responsibilities. This, of course, is the nub of our problem. Even with prudent housekeeping, the States are unable to raise more money than they are required to spend. State governments, therefore, are dependent upon Federal financial support for the greater part of their Budget outlays.

This Government, the present Federal Labor Government, has used section 96 of the Constitution, which provides for specific purpose grants, in a dictatoral fashion to impose the will of the Federal Government upon the States- a purpose quite unintended by the founders of the Constitution. It is intended that a future LiberalNational Country Party government will make sure that section 96 grants are used for limited special purposes and not for a general imposition of the will of the Federal government. The way in which section 96 has been used by the present Government amounts to an unwarranted intervention in or interference with the autonomy of the States. It is not only the States which are affected; it is, of course, also local government. Local government is very much caught in the crossfire between the present Federal and State governments. What is required is a new policy of federalism. We require a new definition of responsibilities and resources of the 3 arms of government. We need to strengthen the financial independence of the States. Consequently the Opposition Parties, when returned to government, will introduce a system of revenue sharing which will give the States adequate funds to carry out their proper functions and their responsibilities. This will be done without the States being made dependent upon Bills of this nature.

This strengthened financial independence will have a direct relevance to local government.

After the provocation of the honourable member for Scullin, I should like to turn to the policy on federalism announced by the joint Opposition Parties. It has been published. I refer to pages 3 and 4 of the published document. Under the heading Revenue-Sharing Proposals and the sub-heading Permanent Share of Income Tax, the publication states:

The Liberal and National Country Parties propose to ensure the States permanent access to revenue-raising through personal income tax. In so doing, the existing rights of the less populous States will be fully protected.

Mr Dawkins:

– How?

Mr MACPHEE:

-By an equalisation formula which has been approved by each of the leaders of the Liberal and National Country Parties in the States. Each one of them has approved of this, with a designated and agreed share of personal income tax being provided. The policy document continues:

No State will be disadvantaged and the relative positions of the States will be preserved.

The Commonwealth will be the sole collecting agency. There will be a standard tax form, embracing uniform concessional allowances. Commonwealth and State taxes will be separately identified on one assessment so that the taxpayer can see the amount being levied by each form of government.

The new system is intended to ensure that the States will have substantially the financial capacity to meet their responsibilities.

In exercising their revenue-raising powers the States will be expected to accept responsibility to work in parallel with and not in negation of the overall economic management policies of the Commonwealth.

On the question of economic management, the policy document states:

To ensure full understanding and effective co-operation, the Commonwealth will convene pre-Budget meetings of the Premiers’ Conference in addition to other regular meetings of that body.

It is important to realise that in order to aid local government State grants commissions will be established. They w3l be needed to supervise the distribution of the revenue which we will guarantee to the States. The State grants commissions will replace the inappropriate and cumbersome local government activities of the Federal Grants Commission which is currently taking on an unreal task of trying to cater for the needs of more than 900 local government bodies. We also will replace, by virtue of the State grants commissions, the tied aid policy, the policy of aid with strings, of the present Government.

It is important to realise that the local government sphere is the hardest hit of all the spheres of government. It has problems of rigidity of funds and debt servicing. Of course, there are many new cost areas which flow from the policies of the present Federal Government. Local government at the moment relies heavily upon rates as the only real source of income. This is a very unpopular measure and of course a very political measure in which it is decided, according to when local government elections are to be held, just in what manner and to what extent rates will be increased. This means that at times of hyperinflation such as we now have the income of local governments is simply unable to cope with inflation. In fact local government income in relation to that of the Federal and State governments has declined very sharply indeed. Consequently local government requires a share of this growth tax, that is, income tax. On page 5 the Opposition Parties’ policy document on federalism states, with reference to local government:

The Liberal and National Country Parties also propose to earmark a fixed percentage of personal income tax for distribution through the States to local government. This percentage will be shown on the tax assessment.

The money is intended for two distinct purposes:

a per capita grant to ALL local government bodies, with a ‘weighted ‘ formula in contemplation; and

an equalisation or ‘topping up’ grant to be distributed through State Grants Commissions.

This will be a vital new reform for local government. Under these proposals, municipalities and shires will have revenues of known dimensions to assist forward budgeting. At the same time, they will have very much greater independence of action.

It is important again to remind the House of the difference in philosophy between the Government and the Opposition. In the eyes of the Opposition every sphere of government- Federal, State and local- should be fully responsible to its own constituents. The public surely is calling for an end to the buck passing of responsibility financially between the Federal and State governments. It is calling for an end to the sorts of criticism which have just come from the honourable member for Scullin. It is calling for an end to the begging bowl spectacle of the States coming to Canberra every year and asking for money and for the present Federal Government imposing its will even to the point of determining for which pedestrian crossings money will be made available, where traffic lights will be erected, and so on.

The State Liberal Party and National Country Party Leaders, as I have said, fully support the policy which we have espoused. They were consulted on it. They were part of its formation. They have also supported the equalisation proposals and they have supported the establishment of a very important body called the Council for Inter-Government Relations. This institution is designed to eliminate duplication and waste between the various arms of government. I read again from page 6 of the policy document. It states:

As a vital institution of co-operation within the various forms of government, we propose to establish a Council for Inter-Government relations.

This will be an independent statutory body of major status. Its membership will include nominees of Federal, State and local governments and also a number of citizens.

The Council will have wide-ranging advisory and investigatory powers. By reference from either Federal, State or local government, it will examine in depth the problems which emerge between the various branches of government and will consider the definition and rationalisation of functions.

Its recommendations and reports will be available to all areas of government.

That is not a mere cliche. That is not a flimsy promise to try to hold before electors. That is a genuine establishment of a mechanism designed to eliminate the inevitable waste and duplication that occur when the 3 arms of government concern themselves with matters which concern people. Increasingly, of course, local government bodies have gone well beyond servicing merely properties; they are servicing people. All arms of government are concerned with that. This Bill of course concerns the financing of services to people.

In conclusion, whilst the Opposition supports this Bill it deplores the manner in which FederalState relations have deteriorated in recent times under the present Government. We are most confident that our own federalism policy will restore responsibility and above all accountability to each State so that each State government is responsible to its own constituents, each local government body is responsible to its own constituents and so that all constituents of Australia can see precisely where their income tax is going, so that in fact it can be determined by active opposition spokesmen at local level, at State level and at Federal level how the 3 spheres of government should be judged on their performance. It is simply not enough for a Federal government to say: ‘We have decided what is best for the country. We have decided that we want to do this. We are sorry that the States do not want to go along with it. We are sorry that the Senate does not want to go along with it. We have decided what is best’.

As we have a federal system, regardless of how we would draw up the Constitution if we were drawing it afresh today, it is important that we recognise that it is a system with its own checks and balances, a system which with goodwill can work, a system in which the ultimate control is that of the democratic constituents, who can determine from their own assessment of how money is spent and how money is raised how the government of the day- local, State or Federal- is carrying out its responsibilities. Our policy restores accountability to all 3 spheres of government. We believe that it will improve efficiency, and we believe that that efficiency and the accountability will be for the benefit of all constituents in Australia.

Mr MORRIS:
Shortland

– I support the States Grants (Capital Assistance) Bill 1975. Its purpose is to authorise the payment of capital grants to the States in 1975-76 totalling $430.3m. This amount represents the grant component of the State governments’ Loan Council programs. ( Quorum formed)

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock)Before I call again on the honourable member for Shortland, I remind honourable members that when a quorum is called not only must they not leave the chamber but they are not supposed to move around the chamber once they have entered it or even if they were in it when the quorum was called. They must remain in their seats.

Mr MORRIS:

– I can understand the honourable member for Maranoa (Mr Corbett) calling a quorum since he has just returned from a long overseas trip at the expense of the taxpayers. He wants to make sure I have an audience when I have something to say in this chamber. The amount of $430.3m represents the grant component of the State governments’ Loan Council programs for 1975-76 and is equal to one-third of the total program- a slightly higher proportion than in 1974-75.

Before going on to answer some of the comments made by the honourable member for Balaclava (Mr Macphee) I take the opportunity to draw to the attention of the House the effect that the blocking of the Appropriation Bills will have on this legislation and the complementary services to be provided by this legislation. Honourable members will recall that on 14 October I asked several questions of the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) relating to the activities of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Lynch) earlier this year in respect of overseas loan negotiations. We have heard over the past weeks many challenges issued by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to the Prime Minister and other Ministers. Therefore I am pleased to challenge the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to come clean and answer the questions I am going to put to him.

The Australian public is gravely concerned at the shabby and sordid role that has been played by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and his faceless informants in the overseas loans debate. The Australian people are entitled to know where he is getting his alleged leaks, how much is being paid for them, who has been paid or will be paid and who has footed the bills. Mr Khemlani ‘s fortuitous arrivals in Australia recently were not coincidences. As a commodity trader with governments and government agencies around the world, he stands to lose a lot by collaborating in a political attack on the Australian Government. The doors to all governments and government agencies around the world are now closing to him, so he must have received an immense consideration to induce him to join in the charade we have seen from the Opposition. The Australian people are not fools, and they are entitled to know who brought Mr Khemlani to Australia, who organised his trips, what was the inducement and who paid it. I challenge the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to tell the Australian people the facts. Did the funds come from the same oil company to which the Prime Minister referred and which the Leader of the National Country Party (Mr Anthony) represents? Or did they come from Utah Mining Australia Ltd? Who provided the funds and the inducement?

Dr Edwards:

– I raise a point of order. My understanding is that the BUI before the House is the State Grants (Capital Assistance) Bin and I cannot see the relevance of the remarks of the honourable member to that Bill.

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

-I point out to the honourable member for Shortland that whilst in the States Grants (Capital Assistance) Bill there may be a certain opportunity to make some comment in regard to financial practices from the Federal sphere, I think the honourable member is going a little deeper and a little wider into certain aspects of the matter than can be justified by the legislation before the House.

Mr MORRIS:

-Mr Deputy Speaker, I appreciate your latitude and your breadth of understanding and I will endeavour to ensure that my remarks are relevant to the legislation before the chamber. As I mentioned at the outset, I want to relate to the chamber the effect that the blockage of the Budget would have on the items covered in this legislation and, therefore, at this early stage I want to point to the motivations behind the blockage of the Budget in another place and relate that to the impact that it Will have. Mr Deputy Speaker, in accordance with your ruling

I will ensure that I bring my remarks within the broad scope which you have indicated.

On 22 October I told this chamber that when overseas I was asked why the Australian Opposition was offering money for information and documents on Australian overseas loan negotiations. That matter is related to this Bill because the comment was made that one could get any kind of information that one wanted when one offered money for it. The Australian people would like to know the answer and I am sure that this chamber would like to know the answer. When the Appropriation Bills Nos. 1 and 2, which are inter-related with the legislation before the chamber, are blocked in another place the Australian people need to be told that I was also asked by a very responsible person why the Australian Government wanted to replace existing foreign equity in our resources with Arab equity. I replied that it had never been suggested by anyone in Australia during the overseas loans debate that existing foreign equity in Australia’s resources was to be replaced by Arab equity. I said that such a proposal was not nor never had been Australian Government or Australian Labor Party policy and that I could not understand how anyone in Australia or overseas could have gained that impression. In my view any Australian who conveyed that impression abroad was denigrating and misrepresenting not only this Government but also Australia. I challenge the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to tell the truth and to reveal who communicated that impression abroad, because it was another great lie like the great lie on Vietnam that the Opposition perpetrated.

The motives of those people who are blocking Appropriation Bills Nos. 1 and 2 in the Senate and their inter-relationship with the legislation before the chamber need to be questioned, as do the motives of those people who told overseas investors who wanted to replace overseas equity -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– Might I suggest now to the honourable member for Shortland that we might come back to the States Grants (Capital Assistance) Bill, the subject matter that is now before the House.

Mr MORRIS:

-Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. As the previous speaker took the opportunity to give an expose of the Liberal-Country Party’s policy on new federalism, I should like to take up a few of the points that he made in that contribution. He referred to the income tax proposals, but to put it- (Quorum formed). As I promised to say to the honourable member for

Lilley, Kevin Cairns and Khemlani would be a good partnership name over the door. The Opposition’s proposition on new federalism or new colonialism, as I prefer to term it, would result in the ultimate in quadruple income tax. All we have to take into consideration is, firstly, that there would be a federal income tax levy; secondly, there would be a State income tax levy, the amount of which the States would determine; thirdly, there would be another tax for local government; and fourthly, if we can place any credence on the suggestions of the Opposition spokesman on social welfare matters, there would be a separate tax for Medibank. So there we have a nice complicated income tax assessment with 4 taxes on it.

If we are going to question the motives of those people who blocked Appropriation Bills Nos. 1 and 2 in another place we should question their motives in telling people why equity in Australian resources is to be replaced by Arab equity. One needs to remember that a number of the services in Appropriation Bills Nos. 1 and 2 are complementary to the legislation which is now before the chamber. I refer to the $707m for Medibank; the $47.5m for payments to preschools and child care; the $108m for payments to hospitals and health services programs; the $64m for community health programs; and the $275m for urban and regional development programs. That was the note on which the previous speaker concluded- that there ought to be concern for local government in the financial problems that local government faces. If we are going to have that concern for local government, there ought to be concern in another place where the Opposition has a contrived majority. There ought to be concern to ensure that the Budget is passed so that the moneys can go through to local government to complement the funds that become available from the Grants Commission for the current financial year.

Mr Armitage:

– How did it contrive that majority?

Mr MORRIS:

– I think the honourable member ought to ask Uncle Joh how it contrived the majority. I want to mention also that when one looks at the motive for that and the motive for setting off abroad a story which is completely untrue and obviously designed to denigrate and damage the credit standing and the borrowing capacity of this nation abroad, one sees that those people who act in that way are acting to the disadvantage of this nation. In accord with that one needs to look at the leaking of Treasury documents and telexes and at the arrival of the honourable member for Lilley’s proposed partner. The newspaper advertisements are all part of a plot to usurp this, the people’s House. It is no more than a mad and desperate right wing rebellion against legitimate authority in this nation. I am sorry that people such as the honourable member for Lilley and others on his side of the chamber- men for whom I had some admiration as men of intelligence and principlehave surrendered those principles to overthrow all the rights of this, the people’s House, by an Upper House. I believe they will live to rue that decision.

Mr Graham:

– Who elects the Upper House?

Mr MORRIS:

– If the honourable gentleman does not know it is time that he was taught Who were the overseas financial investors with whom the Deputy Leader of the Opposition liaised? What was the purpose of the discussions? What was the content of the discussions? Who peddled the great lie abroad? Who paid the expenses of the liaisons? Who were the overseas financial investors with whom he was conferring? Who paid his expenses when he went abroad secretly? Who was the guilty man in the Public Service who leaked confidential Treasury documents to the Opposition and in so doing -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock)Order! I point out to the honourable member for Shortland that the practice is being adopted of mentioning something perhaps in passing. He is taking an inordinately long time to pass. I think perhaps that the honourable member might again have a look at the title of this Bill that we are now considering.

Mr MORRIS:

- Mr Deputy Speaker, I was being guided by your broad tolerance. I do not want to err, but just let me conclude the last point. I feel that whoever the person in the Public Service is who has seen fit to breach his oath it is a very serious matter not only for Appropriation Bills (No. 1) and (No. 2) and the services and operations of the departments concerned and this legislation but also for the Australian Public Service. Out of this the credibility and reputation of the Australian Public Service have been damaged.

Let me return to what the previous speaker, the honourable member for Balaclava (Mr Macphee), was saying in respect of State income tax or, as I prefer to call it and most Australians call it, a double income tax. Under a double income tax system as proposed and expounded by the honourable member obviously, because of population disparities, different States would levy different rates of income tax. With different rates of income tax taxpayers would be required to maintain records of income in each of the States in which that income was earned. A shift of population would follow from State to State depending upon the rate of income tax that was levied. There would also then be an incentive for people to try to show their major source of income in that State in which the rate of income tax was the lowest There is a very real and current example of the result of that kind of POliCY in the city of New York where, because of local taxes levied by that city, because of the wealth, because of the value of properties and because of the cost of providing services, people with the means to pay, with the capacity to pay, moved out of that city in years gone by into areas where the rate of tax was lower. Accordingly, people of lower income standing, people who were unemployed and people unable to earn higher incomes moved in. The result was that the demand for welfare services grew and the taxable or revenue capacity of the city dropped. The city of New York is now virtually bankrupt and eventually must become a charge on the federal system of the United States. That is a very good and very clear example of the ultimate result of the kind of tax propositions that the Opposition is putting to this nation.

Let us go a little further and look at the propositions for local government. Members of the Opposition are suggesting that the one body that has been established since Federation and the one body that has now had 2 years to collate information on the needs of local government and its various disabilities and revenue capacitiesthe Grants Commission- should be disbanded and carved up into half a dozen State grants commissions. Obviously those State Commissions could not have the broad view of national standards in local government The Opposition further suggests that assistance would then be granted to local government on a per capita basis. Per capita assistance to local government is quite ridiculous. The needs of local government are not dependent on population. The needs vary according to the area of the local council concerned, according to the income content of the population and according to the location of development simply within the council boundaries. To suggest that a per capita grant to local government would help to overcome local government difficulties is quite ridiculous, but then that is in accord with the Opposition’s attitude towards local government.

On every occasion since 1972- when I became a member of this chamber- when a matter has come before us that meant direct financial assistance to local government it has been opposed completely and vigorously by the Opposition. I refer to the referendum that would have enabled any federal government to provide financial assistance to local government. I refer to representation on the Loan Council. I refer even to the early debates on the Grants Commission. Assistance to local government must be on the basis of needs and not on a per capita basis. A per capita basis is simply a step backwards. If per capita were a workable proposition it would have been applied by the Grants Commission in its assistance to the States. It is interesting to note that since 1927 the equalisation grants for the smaller States have been based upon the equalisation principle and not on a per capita principle. I would like to conclude on the note that under the Opposition system obviously the small States of Western Australia, Queensland, South Australia and Tasmania would be severely disadvantaged. Therefore I do not think any real regard or serious consideration can be given to that idea.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

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

Mr McVEIGH:
Darling Downs

– I suggest to the honourable member for Shortland (Mr Morris) that he tell the whole truth when he speaks. I want to make only one comment on his speech. The people of Australia at a referendum decided that they were not going to trust this corrupt, inept government to distribute funds to the Australian people. They wanted -

Mr Morris:

– I raise a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I draw your attention to standing order 75. 1 find the words of the honourable member for Darling Downs offensive. I ask that they be withdrawn. I was the previous speaker. He has referred to me and I find his remarks offensive.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! I regret that I did not hear the actual words that were used by the honourable member for Darling Downs.

Mr McVEIGH:

– I said that the Government was corrupt. I did not imply that in regard to the honourable member for Shortland at all. If the cap fits he can wear it.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– I point out to the honourable member for Shortland that it has been the practice in the House that if no personal reference is made there is no requirement for a withdrawal.

Mr McVEIGH:

– The Bill that we are now debating is one of the machinery Bills that we discuss each year to allow the States to participate in the disbursement of funds from the national tax gathering machine- the Australian Government. The States Grants Capital Assistance program is one of recent times, having been started with an interest-free grant of $200m in 1970 by the Liberal-National Country Party government. At that time, honourable members will recall, much concern was expressed by all sectors of public activity in Australia at the growing indebtedness of the States as compared with the Commonwealth. The initiative of the Liberal-Country Party government was an honest attempt to ease the burden of interest and redemption payments on loan funds and it is true to say that from this initiative of a free enterprise government many advantages have flowed to the nation.

The overall Commonwealth-State relations need a re-examination in the light of modern trends and we applaud the initiatives of the Opposition in framing the policy of true federalism which in effect is a blueprint for co-operation between the 3 tiers of government- national, State and local. For the first time positive recognition is being given to the authority of the States in a meaningful spirit of federalism and accountability, for the spending and raising of money will rest to a marked degree with the people who are elected to fulfil the requirements of the Constitution as originally envisaged. We on this side of the House fully subscribe to the point of view that government must be brought as close as possible to the people and that the people who make the decisions are fully accountable to the electors for the decisions made.

It is true to say- and I say this in a spirit of constructive criticism- that in recent times too many decisions have been made by bureaucrats who are insulated from the public and who hide behind an insulated wall of non-responsibility. The nerve end of the Opposition’s policies on federalism is that our policies are aimed at a meaningful spirit of co-operation and to the provision of adequate safeguards to allow government for the people, by the people and not by the Public Service. At present, no doubt due to the dictatorial attitude of the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam ), the real spirit of federalism as envisaged by the founding fathers has reached a stage where, if one breathed heavily on it, it will break. It is that weak.

One must be critical of the stadium like attitude that prevails each year when the leaders of the States meet with the Australian Government leaders to thrash out the allocation of funds from the Commonwealth to the States in the various areas. This is to be deplored, because after much cut and thrust of debate the Commonwealth dictates what is or what is not to be given without taking due cognisance of the vital and immediate needs and requirements of the various States. The Australian Government, I submit, exercises far too much control in what was originally a theoretical exercise but has now developed into an ironclad arrangement wherein the Commonwealth has the final say because of the position of strength from which it negotiates.

The allocation to the States this year has not taken adequate account of extra amounts to cover inflation and also the need to provide improved and updated facilities. In all States there is an immediate need for capital expenditure on school buildings, police stations, railways and electricity works. It is interesting to note that the increase in the consumer price index has been of the order of 16 per cent to 18 per cent for each quarter as compared with the previous quarter in the period 1974-75. The increase in September 1974 from September 1973 was 16 per cent, in December 1974 as compared with December 1973, it was 16.3 per cent; in March 1975 as compared with March 1 974 it was 1 7.6 per cent; and in June 1975 compared with June 1974 it was 16.9 per cent. This is indicative of the increase in materials used in building other than house building as at June 1975, compared with June 1974. It is most enlightening

I now refer to a summary of results of the Australian Bureau of Statistics issued on 25 August 1975. That summary shows that prices of concrete mix, cement and sand were up 24.6 per cent in the 12-month period; cement products were up 25.6 per cent; bricks and stone 2 1.8 per cent; timber board and joinery 15.4 per cent; steel and iron products 18.3 per cent; aluminium products 18.9 per cent; plumbing fixtures 18.6 per cent; miscellaneous materials 20.1 per cent; electrical installation materials 6.2 per cent; and mechanical service components 16.5 per cent. Faced with these rising costs over which they have very little control, the States reacted to the proposals of the Commonwealth in a most predictable and just manner- with disgust. When proper allowance is made for the expected increases and also the lower labour output due to record industrial unrest and greater leave periods, it is readily appreciated why the States were most upset at the cavalier attitude of the Federal Government.’ The decisions of the Federal Government quite obviously went over like a lead balloon.

I read with a great deal of interest- the matter would be one of almost laughable proportions if it were not so serious- that the Australian Government’s best, albeit as the Minister for Overseas Trade (Mr Crean) stated in his second reading speech, very approximate, estimates of possible cost increases in the capital works field in 1975-76 was covered by a 20 per cent increase in allocations from the previous year. The Government quite obviously realises, as the Minister stated, that in the environment it has created, it is impossible accurately to plan ahead with any certainty. The Government’s plan to maintain the program at roughly the same real level as in the previous year is one that surely will backfire and be misplaced.

It is time that a sovereign State’s. request for capital funds should meet with an acceptable response from the financial controlling bodies of Australia. It is interesting to remind the House that the Queensland Government, a responsible government, sought increases of approximately 55 per cent in its basic loan borrowing allocation and semi-governmental debenture program. It pointed out that increases in the previous year had been insufficient to compensate for the effects of inflation and spiralling costs rapidly escalating under irresponsible Federal Government control. It said that the 1975-76 program should be increased sufficiently to catch up the huge backlog and to make allowance for the further cost increases confidently predicted in 1975-76.

The Commonwealth decision, however, not to go beyond the 20 per cent increase leaves the States and local authorities many millions of dollars short of what would be required to restore the volume of work to its previous level. Following the downturn in activity in the private sector, crushed by impossible demands and restrictions placed on it by an inhospitable Labor Government, the time was surely ripe to set the machinery going to provide more employment for the number of people being rapidly thrown out of jobs and to allow the total capital invested in the construction industry generally to be gainfully employed. It was a wonderful opportunity for the Commonwealth Government to take up the slack spots in our economy and in the employment areas by productive and constructive work of a permanent nature rather than using the stop-go methods employed under the various schemes to alleviate the unemployment position.

At a time when unemployment was running at 4.6 per cent of the total work force- it is estimated that 500 000 people will be out of work by June next year- it seems to me that it would have been eminently desirable for the Commonwealth Government to pump into the capital works of the States an increase in the allocation for capital assistance to allow existing State services to be continued and updated. The Minister, in his second reading speech, stated:

It should suffice to say here that the Government is convinced that an objective examination of the matter would show that the State governments and their authorities have been treated most handsomely indeed in the Budget.

I certainly take issue with this statement and in order to further my arguments and reinforce my statement, I refer to tables Nos. 8, 10 and 11 of Budget Paper No. 6 entitled ‘Government Securities on Issue at 30 June 1975 ‘.

An examination of these tables is a most enlightening one and serves to direct the attention of the Australian people to the real truth of the situation- the kernel of the matter- that the Australian Government debt has decreased in proportion to the debt applicable to State governments. I draw the attention of honourable members to table No. 8. It shows that in 1 95 1 the debt of the Australian Government was $3,777,098,000 and at 1 975 was $5,956,152,000-an increase of $2,179,054,000. The State debt in 1951 was $2,618,712,000 and in 1975 was a mammoth $1 1,813,759,000-an increase of $9,195,047,000. 1 submit that this is a disastrous situation when the debt of the States increases over that relatively short period of a country’s history by such mammoth proportions.

In 1951 the debt of the Australian Government per head of population was $448.49 and at the present time is $441.06. The debt of the State governments per head in 1951 was $312.45 and at the present time it has made a huge jump to $893.62. Obviously something must be done to arrest the continuing debt of the States. I believe that this could have been done by a greater capital contribution free of interest. Obviously the Australian Government has shown no interest in this matter. It does not care about the sovereign rights of the States and shows its lack of care by not doing anything meaningful and significant to overcome those huge cost increases with regard to the total debt of the States and the total debt per head of population in the various States. Obviously something must be done to arrest the continuing debt of the States. This could have been achieved by a greater capital contribution free of interest, following on the magnificent example of the Liberal-Country Party Government when it established this principle of capital assistance to the various States.

Table No. 10 shows that the interest per head in 1951 payable on the Australian Government debt was $ 12.06 and $9.64 per head was payable by the States. At the present time it is $23.32 in respect of the Australian Government and $56.28 in respect of the States. Again, these are figures which cause very great concern and give great alarm to the average person in the street who is very concerned at the ever-increasing debt that is being perpetrated on the Australian Government and the Australian people and the various State governments.

An examination of the average rates of interest payable as per table No. 1 1 shows that for many years the Australian Government interest rate was very low and has only increased in later years whereas there has been a steady yearly increase in the State rates. It is noted that the interest rate applicable in 1975 to the Australian Government is 4.94 per cent as compared with 5.26 per cent in 1974 whereas the States have shown a steady increase from 3.04 per cent in 1951 to 6.31 per cent in 1975. The average rate of interest payable to June 1975 is 5.29 per cent for the Australian Government and 6.30 per cent for State governments. This again indicates the significant trend of an ever increasing cost burden being placed on the State governments. I submit that a logical explanation for this trend is that we have a bureaucratic, dictatorial government which wants to concentrate and centralise all power here in Canberra. Obviously the States are discriminated against in the interest rates that are charged. I hope that, on our return to the government benches, we will make a thorough examination and overhaul the system1 so that the States are not discriminated against. The States have rights under the Constitution; but those rights can be torpedoed and sabotaged by a hostile centralised government which does not recognise the particular position of the States in a co-operative operative federalist system.

I turn now to the position of local government. Once again a most depressing picture is presented. The latest available figures indicate that the outstanding debt of local government is continuing to rise and now stands at well over $2,000m. The real problem of local government is inflation and its effect on capital works which, in effect, are the lifeblood and mainstream of local government initiatives and endeavours. One area which does deserve closer examination is the agonising position of rural ratepayers who under the present system are being grossly discriminated against. Of course, many arguments can be advanced as to relieving the burden of financing local government that is borne by ratepayers. We of the Opposition have spelt out our thrust in this matter in our policy on federalism which was so well presented by the honourable member for Balaclava (Mr Macphee) and the honourable member for Lilley (Mr Kevin Cairns). I fully support the point of view that they put, just as I uphold the Opposition’s policy on federalism.

The rural ratepayer is at a distinct disadvantage when compared with the city ratepayer who is regularly reimbursed for cost of living increases and the effects of inflation by decisions of arbitration courts. His set income allows him to meet any increases in rates in line with those cost increases. He is insulated and protected. However, the rural ratepayer is not assured of a regular income. His crops can be destroyed by frost, by flood or by hailstorm. His income from beef, for instance, can be reduced drastically by matters over which he has no control. His position is aggravated by an unsympathetic government which obviously will not do anything to help him. In many instances the rural producer does not know how much his net income will be until the cheque is finally received for produce sold. In rural industries such as wool, meat, fruit and dairying, there is a decline in income. Consequently, many of these producers have extreme liquidity problems in paying their rates. This is an area in which much investigation in strict justice could be carried out to seek to alleviate the problems of the rural producer who has no set income and who is subject to tremendous pressures from seasonal changes in the economy and changes in overseas prices.

Many of the smaller rural areas have added disadvantages insofar as the cost of sewerage services is higher to them as they are not able to participate in the schemes to sewer areas of larger populations. I submit that an extra allocation could be made to help rural local authorities to develop sewerage schemes or septic systems. If that were done, elderly people would not have to go to the large city areas when the time came for them to retire, but could retire in the areas in which they are known and to which they are deeply attached. It is to be hoped that initiatives will be undertaken to allow sewerage services to be part and parcel of the quality of life of people who live in the smaller country towns.

Ratepayers, who are also taxpayers, I submit, can no longer be expected to provide out of their own resources approximately 80 per cent of the current receipts of local government. Local government must obtain its rightful share of national income as well as grants from State and federal governments for specific purposes. Roads, bridges and sewerage are still required in many areas of Australia. The pittance given to the States by this Bill will not contribute in a significant way to solving the great problems faced in these areas. Action by a concerned Federal government, with adequate consultation with the States and respecting the right of local government to fulfil its role as the government closest to the people, is the only way in which the people of this nation will be able to enjoy the quality of life which they so richly deserve. Implicit in this statement is the proposition that this can happen only under a free enterprise government. In 3 short years the Australian Labor Party has led this nation along only one way, and that is the way to ruin and to destruction.

It is to be regretted that, in the final analysis, the services that should be given to people locally have not been able to be provided, because of the economic and fiscal policies of the Australian Government. True it is that many plans to update and to improve facilities are on the drawing boards. Local authorities are keen to get out and to develop these essentials; but they find that, because of the rapid escalation of costs, what they believed would be possible in the next financial year has to be postponed. The situation is then reached that continuing pressure on a cost-plus basis is exerted in respect of such activities, with the result that it obviously would appear to many local authorities that it is practically impossible to plan ahead with any degree of certainty that their aims and ambitions will be fulfilled. Such a state of affairs is to be regretted. I do hope that the Federal Government will take heed of the warnings that have been given to it by many excellent people over the period that it has been in office and that it will consult -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Drury:
RYAN, QUEENSLAND

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

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 Stewart) read a third time.

page 2620

STATES GRANTS (HOUSING ASSISTANCE) BILL 1975

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 27 August on motion by MrRiordan:

That the Bill be now read a second time. (Quorum formed) .

Mr McLEAY:
Boothby

-Mr Deputy Speaker, the Bill now before the House seeks to authorise the Treasurer (Mr Hayden) to make advances to the States for the purpose of welfare or government housing. I move the following amendment:

That all words after ‘That’ be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: ‘whilst not declining to give the Bill a second reading the House is of the opinion that the reduction of $20.8m for welfare housing is a breach of the undertaking given by the Australian Government not to reduce the advances to the States below the 1974-75 level and that many low income families will be needlessly disadvantaged as a result’.

One of the things which I find absolutely incredible in respect of this Budget is the cutback in expenditure in 2 areas- housing and assistance to industry. In the Budget there is an overall increase of 22Vi per cent.

Dr Edwards:

– What was the second area?

Mr McLEAY:

– Assistance to industry. The point is that there is an overall increase of 22lA per cent in the Budget, yet there has been a cutback in expenditure in these 2 areas, housing and assistance to industry. I believe housing is of fundamental importance to every Australian. Assistance to industry is assistance to private enterprise which is the only area which provides employment in this country. Expenditure in both these areas has been cut back. I think it is madness in any Budget -

Dr Edwards:

– No concern for Australians.

Mr McLEAY:

– There is no concern for the people who want to work or for the people who want to provide for themselves and their families. There is no concern for the people who are on low incomes, who are underprivileged or disadvantaged and who will seek what is commonly known as welfare housing. So we deplore this aspect of the Budget. This is one of the reasons for our amendment. The amendment deals with the reduction amounting to $20.8m in welfare housing. The overall cutback in housing expenditure in the Budget is $69m or 10 per cent of last year’s expenditure. It is a very significant cutback. But the cutback in the area of welfare housing, which is what we are talking about today, amounts to $20. 8m.

Mr Riordan:

– That is not true.

Mr McLEAY:

– The Minister interjects and says it is not true. He has been saying this for some considerable time. It seems to me that basic English in this Budget describes what is a cutbacka reduction. In reply to the Minister I refer him to question No. 2913 on the notice paper which asks whether he had said that advances for the States welfare housing programs will not be less than in the previous financial year. He said he did say that. The second part of that question asked why advances to 3 States had been cut back. I could read the answer into Hansard but there is no sense in wasting time. The answer really was a series of paragraphs of complete gobbledegook. The Minister did not deny that allegation at all. I would like to demonstrate how impossible it is to deny it. In Queensland there has been a reduction of $ 12.8m on last year’s expenditure.

Mr Riordan:

-Queensland got an advance in June.

Mr McLEAY:

– Once again I appreciate the interjection. The Minister says that Queensland received an advance in June, and that is set out in the second reading speech. Perhaps I could deal with that at this stage. Let me refer to what the Minister for Housing in Queensland and the Treasurer in that State had to say about this socalled advance that Queensland got in June. Quite clearly there has been a cutback on last year’s expenditure in Queensland amounting to $12.8m and an amount of $4m in Western Australia and Tasmania. The Minister in some obscure way says there have not been cutbacks. I say that is quite ridiculous. This is what the Treasurer of Queensland had to say:

The reduction in the Queensland allocation compared with 1974-75 is iniquitous.

That is a pretty strong word. He said that Western Australia and Tasmania- the other 2 States that have had their allocations cut back- will speak for themselves. The Treasurer went on to say:

There is absolutely no reason why Queensland should be penalised for additional allocations during 1974-75 while New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia receive the same as last year. The Commonwealth may attempt to justify this by saying that Queensland received $6.4m in June 1975.

Mr Riordan:

– That is right.

Mr McLEAY:

– The Minister says: ‘That is right’. That is in fact the way he attempts to justify this reduction. It was only $6.4m. I am quoting the Minister responsible in Queensland. He said:

This is totally irrelevant-Queensland sought the money in March 1975. The delay from then until June arose from the Commonwealth ‘s own processes.

The Prime Minister had said that his Government ‘would pay for every Housing Commission house for which the Queensland Government could let a contract’. To approve the resulting allocation and then to debit it against the next year’s allocation to such an extreme degree is a play of words.

I believe this is deception at its worst.

Dr Edwards:

– That would not be new for this Government.

Mr McLEAY:

– It is not new for this Govern.ment but in fairness to this Minister I do not include him in the category of a deceptive Minister. He will probably pick up the disease if he stays in the Ministry for long but up to this time he has shown resistance. However, he did have something to say which tied him in with this whole sorry business. I think we must make some excuse for him because he has not been in the Ministry for very long and he has to make up for the sins of his predecessors and of the Prime Minister. At the housing Ministers’ Conference in Brisbane in June this year- I do not know how new he was then but he had not been in office very long- the Minister said, as recorded at page 84 of the report:

The funds that will now be available to Queensland and Western Australia are clearly advanced on the basis that they will be considered in the light of next year’s commitment in the same way as funds that have been made available to the other States will have to be considered next year in the light of what has been achieved and what has been made available in the last year.

It seems to me that the words ‘in the same way’ clearly link the June allocation to the earlier allocations to the other States, but the other States have been treated differently.

Mr Riordan:

– No they have not; exactly the same.

Mr McLEAY:

-The Queensland Minister went on to say:

Insofar as Queensland is concerned, the June allocation was required to meet Housing Commission cash commitments pursuant to the Prime Minister’s promise and was fully expended by 30 June 1975- it did not provide finance for 1975-76.

Mr Riordan:

– Why do you not read what the Queensland Minister said at the same conference?

Mr McLEAY:

– I am quoting the Queensland Minister. The point is that we are saying that in this Budget assistance for welfare housing has been decreased. The Minister in some way says that it has not been decreased. I refer him to page 55 of the Budget Speech under the heading of ‘Housing’. In respect of advances to the States for housing there is a table there setting out advances for 1973-74, 1974-75 and 1975-76. The final column of that table indicates by a minus sign or a plus sign whether there has been a decrease or an increase. According to the Budget Speech there has been a decrease in advances to the States amounting to $20. 8m. That is set out in the Government’s own Budget papers, particularly Budget Paper No. 7 headed ‘Payments to or for the States and Local Government Authorities’ and in respect of which we have just been debating legislation. That document clearly sets out on page 68 that in round figures New South Wales last year received $125m and this year it is to receive exactly the same amount. Victoria received $99m and this year it is to receive the same amount. Last year Queensland received $44m and this year it is to receive $32m. If honourable members look at Budget Paper No. 7 they will see there is no doubt that an allocation is reduced by the amount of an advance that is made to a State.

We of the Opposition have worked out what this will mean to the end user, the low income earner, the disadvantaged, the underprivileged and so on in the States. Consider this cut back of $20.8m. Consider last year’s commencements and allow for a 20 per cent inflation rate. I do not know whether the inflation rate will be 20 per cent by the time we come to the end of the year but the inflation rate is down a bit at the moment. I will bet dollars to doughnuts that it will go back up again. However, allowing for 20 per cent, we have worked out that there will be a loss not only in Housing Commission homes but also in homes for low income people built through the Home Builders Account. There will be a loss of 4500 homes compared with last year as a result of this cut back of $20.Bm

In the second reading speech of the Minister for Housing and Construction there were some things that I would like to dispute. One, in particular, is relevant. The Minister has been going all over the country saying things, although perhaps not as often as his predecessor, about how much more money this Government has spent than we of the Opposition spent when in Government.

Mr Riordan:

– Well, that is true.

Mr McLEAY:

– It is true. In his second reading speech the Minister said that in 1974-75, the year just ended, advances were 2 ‘A times more than was spent on welfare housing in 1971-72 when we were in Government. I have done some calculations and it is true that when we were in Government we spent in those 2 years about $161m, or we advanced that much, for public housing. This Government has advanced $364m, which is 2’A times the sum advanced in 1971. However, in 1971 when we were in Government we produced 15 337 homes with welfare money and this Government has produced only 15 228.

Mr Riordan:

– Wait until you see the figures for this year.

Mr McLEAY:

-It achieved that result with 2 1/4 times as much money. The Minister should not talk about what may or may not happen. I would rather see satisfactory results. It is no comfort to any of us to see people without housing.

Mr Riordan:

– I am sure you would like to see satisfactory results.

Mr McLEAY:

– I am pleased to hear the Minister acknowledge that point. No one should go around the country saying how much money they have spent unless they can say how much they have produced. In fact the Government has produced slightly less than we produced when we were in government.

Dr Edwards:

– Costs have been going up at a fantastic rate.

Mr McLEAY:

– Costs have been going up for 2 years.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

- (Mr Dury)-Order I think we will get along better and it would be much fairer for the honourable member for Boothby if interjections ceased on both sides.

Mr McLEAY:

-Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, but actually I appreciate the support that honourable members are giving me. It is refreshing to have some sort of conversation with a Government Minister without being at one another’s throats.

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

– Oh, get on with it.

Mr McLEAY:

– We have heard such a lot of garbage today and we have been treated so badly here today that the honourable member should be grateful that now we do not debate in a sour manner as we would be entitled to do. I want to pass on from that point and perhaps be a little less friendly in the cause of truth and justice. The Minister and his predecessor, especially his predecessor, promised time and again that there would be no cut back in welfare funds. I am sure the Minister will not mind if I quote from his address on 9 July to a branch of the Real Estate Institute of New South Wales. I am not certain that the Minister addressed that gathering or whether he arranged for someone to deliver his speech. The Minister said:

The Prime Minister -

Obviously the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) is also implicated- has also indicated to the States that the Government will maintain at least the same level of expenditure under the States’ Housing Agreements as in 1974-75. The question will receive further consideration in the Budget context.

He went on to say other things but that is a straight out promise by the Minister, with the authority of the Prime Minister, that there would be no cut back in spending. I have not spent much time getting all the Press releases and all the references because there are quite a few of them but the Minister will remember putting out a Press release on 20 July in which he rejected complaints by State Housing Ministers. The heading of that statement referred to that point. The Minister said:

Advances by the Australian Government for the States’ welfare housing programs in 1975-76 will not be less than in the previous financial year . . .

We really could not get anything clearer than that statement. I have had some correspondence with some of the State Ministers, as I said earlier. I have had correspondence with the Queensland, New South Wales and Victorian Ministers and also I have some material from the South Australian Minister. This correspondence is not all from Governments on our side of politics. I want to place on record what the Minister for Housing in New South Wales had to say. He said:

The initial problems began when the Prime .Minister, at the Premiers’ Conference on 19 June 1975 broke with past practice and declined to disclose the amount of welfare housing funds being made available to the States, indicating at that time that the details of fund allocations would be announced ‘in the Budget context’. He did indicate then that the funds would be no less than last year-

These are not my words, they are those of the Minister for Housing in New South Wales and he is indicating what the Prime Minister said. He continued: but later informed the Premier not to rely on any specific amount from Commonwealth funds.

The Minister went on to say that this has placed the whole of the Housing Commission construction program in jeopardy. It has placed the construction program of every housing authority in the country in jeopardy. I have no doubt that the Minister for Housing and Construction agrees. Equally I have no doubt that he would like to be able to get more funds for welfare housing but he has some pretty tough nuts to crack in the Cabinet. I want to refer again to what the Prime Minister said at the Premiers Conference on 7 June because it is highly relevant to this debate. He said:

We then look forward in 1974-75 to the completion of considerably more dwellings in the public sector than in 1 973-74. 1 should also say that, in the light of development in the industry as a whole as the year unfolds, including the availability of resources for housing construction and the ability of the States to put further funds to productive use in welfare housing, we stand ready to consult further with the States on the provision of additional advances.

Does the Government still stand ready to consult with the States? I know that the New South Wales Minister for Housing has begun an unusual liaison with one of the building trades unions and I know that he intends to see the Minister about raising more funds. I trust that he will have some success. I must not let the former Minister for Housing and Construction, Mr Les Johnson, escape without some reference. At a conference in October 1974 he gave the Housing Commissions some considerable encouragement by saying:

The State housing authorities should endeavour to maintain, for the next 2 quarters, the housing construction programs they nominated in May 1974 and that the Australian Government was prepared to review the need for further advances for the housing authorities during the next 3 months in the light of the capacity of each housing authority and the state of the industry.

Subsequently, in December 1974, the then Acting Prime Minister, the now deposed Dr J. F. Cairns, one of the honest men in this Parliament, confirmed and endorsed what the then Minister had said. So we believe that the promises were undoubtedly given and were undoubtedly broken. We do not blame this Minister because we realise it must be a tremendous embarrassment for him. He in fact is simply carrying the can for the rest of the Government.

I think we all realise that the effects of this cutback will be felt very severely in the low income earner area of our society. There is not time to quote all the material which the State Ministers have provided. However, the Victorian Minister is concerned about production. I would like to quote something which he said in a letter to me:

Because the Commonwealth Government supported the proposition that we should pull all stops out and spend to the limit of our ability, we are now geared through the Housing Commission to expend Slum a month on welfare housing . . .

This is in Victoria. He went on to state:

We have been allocated the same amount of money as last year, which is S84m less than we sought.

In our belief early this year the Commonwealth would honour their promises -

This is another Minister saying that there was a promise- of unlimited funds for housing we - that is, the Victorian Governmentcommitted to tender $46m worth of funds out of the 1 97 5-76 allocation to the Housing Commission.

I will not read much more of what he had to say. But the position is that the State of Victoria now has $ 1 2m left for welfare housing and at the rate of $ 10m the State is not going to be able to keep going for very long. I am quite sure that the Minister realises the significance of these figures. This shows how seriously the State Housing authorities are disadvantaged. I make the point that the Victorian Minister has stated that his Government’s housing program would come to a stop in six or eight weeks.

Mr Riordan:

– In six to eight weeks? Surely it would be longer than that.

Mr McLEAY:

– To be fair, I will quote what he said:

This program will bring the government housing program to a stop and when added to the sorrowful situation at present existing in the private sector it does mean that the building industry both in government and private sector level has passed the stage of being on its knees because it will now be flat on its face.

He was saying that the building industry was very nearly settled. He went on to refer to a government supported factory-built homes proposition operating in Victoria which will have to be wound down.

The New South Wales Minister has made similar remarks about the problems in that State. Normally the Housing Commission in New South Wales calls for tenders based on 120 units a week, which means an annual program of 6000 units. The Housing Commission has found it necessary to reduce that to 30 units a week, which means an annual program of 1500 units. I will not waste too much of the time of the House reading some of these other quotes because I am sure that the Minister is very well aware of them. But the New South Wales Minister chose to make a point which I think is of some significance to the people of New South Wales. He said:

An additional and equally disturbing factor is satisfactory tenders for approximately 1034 dwelling units which were already on hand, but for which contracts had not actually been signed, will now not be proceeded with and the successful tenderers have had to be advised in writing to this effect.

That is his concern. It is certainly of concern to us. He also went on to refer to the stock of rental accommodation. In fact all of the State Ministers with whom I have had any contact- which is all of them- indicate that the waiting lists for housing commission or housing trust accommodation are expanding very rapidly. The Federal Minister may remember saying just two or three months ago that there were 93 000 people on the waiting list. That is something that his predecessor used to say all the time. In fact, he started off saying it just after the 1972 elections. He has been saying it ever since. But the true position is that the waiting lists numbers 120 000 applicants. This number has in fact gone up 20 per cent since Labor has been in office. I think that we will find that such surveys as the Henderson report and plenty of others indicate that that really is just the tip of the iceberg, that there are a great many more people without suitable accommodation who are not on the waiting lists.

In the moment or two left to me can I just say that these views are not confined simply to

Liberal or National Country Party Premiers or Ministers for Housing and Construction or Treasurers. In my own State of South Australia the Premier of a Labor Government has been as vehement in criticising this cut-back as any of the Liberal Party or National Country Party Premiers or spokesmen. On 20 August, just a few days after the Budget was announced, a newspaper article reported Mr Dunstan as having said:

The Federal Budget would mean an inevitable increase in unemployment in South Australia. . . . Homebuilding here -

That is, in South Australia- would be seriously hit, and the dropping of State unemployment relief schemes would mean a lot more people out of jobs by October. . . .

Of course, that is what is happening. The report continued: … the only way to avoid this was increased activity in the private sector and he could not see that happening. ‘Housing is a really big worry’, he said. ‘The Budget has hit us harder than other States because we spend very much more than other States on public housing.

I do not know whether that is true or not, but every State leader is concerned to put his own State point of view. Each Premier and each Housing Minister believes that he has had a worse deal than anybody else. Welfare housing, to use that general term, has probably nowhere else in Australia been promoted as successfully as it has been in South Australia. This situation has been the same whether the State has been run by Liberal Party and National Country Party governments or Labor governments because the State Housing Trust has done a tremendous job. The article then quoted Mr Dunstan as saying: ‘As people in S.A. rely very heavily on public housing, it is going to have a very serious effect.

Among other things he is reported as saying: ‘There will be a marked reduction in the number of houses built with State bank loans.

This is perfectly obvious, as I mentioned earlier. The article also reports him as saying: ‘It is very hard to see -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Drury:

-Order! The honourable member’s time has expired. Is the amendment seconded?

Dr Edwards:

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

Mrs CHILD:
Henty

– It is always very interesting to hear the comments of the Victorian Minister for Housing in regard to allocations that come from the Federal Government. If we take these comments in conjunction with the comments made by the Victorian Minister for Education we find that there is very skilful misrepresentation by both gentlemen of the amounts of money they receive. For some odd reason they seem to be unable to understand that if one maintains the level of spending one has maintained it. They always claim that there has been a cut. The Victorian Minister for Housing has been bleating for the last 8 months that he is going to have to close down the Holmesglen factory. I tell him now, as I have told him before- and I tell the Opposition- that if he ran the Holmesglen factory efficiently we would save a lot of the Australian taxpayers’ money that goes to the State for housing. The factory has never run to capacity. Because it is not run to capacity the end production, the concrete units that come out of it, are extremely costly.

The honourable member for Boothby (Mr McLeay) compared figures. He quoted a figure of $163m with which the Opposition was concerned when it was in office. He compared this figure with the value of the houses which we had built I draw his attention to the correct figures. I do not know from what he was quoting. But the correct comparison is approximately 15 000 for the Liberal-Country Party Government in 1971-72 and 22 340 for this year under this Government. This shows an approximate 50 per cent increase. I think that the honourable member’s figures are out of date and I suggest that he have them checked.

When the Opposition talks about how many houses can be built with a certain amount of money, it never considers the cost of land. The cost of land has escalated in every State, except South Australia, to an extraordinary degree. The Federal Government cannot control the cost of land, and the State Liberal governments will not attempt to control it. I would have been happier to hear the honourable member for Boothby advising his counterparts in the States to do something about controlling the appalling price of land, because if there is one single thing that is putting home ownership beyond the reach of young married couples, taking into account the rate of inflation, it is the price of land. This is particularly so in Victoria. The honourable member for Boothby also referred to a $20m cut in the allocation to the States. He cannot have his cake and eat it too. The Government has maintained its spending on welfare housing. Last year the States received an extra $ 10m, making a total allocation of $374m. In June this year they were advanced $10m, which made a total of $3 84m. This year they have received $364m. If one adds to that the $ 10m that was advanced in June one sees that the Government has maintained its spending.

I am always pleased to be able to support the Government’s initiatives on housing because, of all the problems which my constituents in Henty bring to my office, the largest single problem is housing. I notice that when the honourable members opposite talk about housing they always talk about money; they never talk about people. That seems to be one of the odd quirks about members of the Opposition. The honourable member for Boothby said that the private sector is in trouble. I pointed out to him that it will be in even deeper trouble as a result of the action of the Opposition in the Senate. Those people who have accepted Government tenders and who are waiting to be paid for them will go bankrupt while they are waiting to be paid. It will not be this Government’s fault if they become bankrupt; it will be because the Opposition has chosen to tread a path that is very dangerous for it and that could cause chaos and destruction to the private sector of the building industry.

No other problem causes people more misery than inadequate or over-priced housing. A home is basic to our security. We build our whole way of life on it. This Government attaches great importance to welfare housing. The amount of $364m- it is really $374m- has been allocated for welfare housing in accordance with the 1973-74 Housing Agreement. The distribution is given in the second reading speech of the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr Riordan) so I will not go through it. A comparison with the figure of $ 1 6 1 m for 1 97 1 -72 -the last year of the Liberal-Country Party Government- shows that this Government gives priority to housing for people who cannot afford to buy or build through private tender. The $364m represents a real increase in spending, even allowing for inflation. The Government is looking for further improvements in the provision of welfare housing. It is interesting to note that a significant recovery is apparent in the private home building sector. Approvals for private dwellings in the June quarter exceeded 30 000, compared with 24 000 in the December quarter. I am sorry that I do not have with me the figures put out recently in Victoria which show an even greater increase that is on the way. The private sector was starting to pick up and to get into operation until recently when it was dealt this last body blow by the Senate. (Quorum formed)

I thank the Deputy Opposition Whip for providing me with an audience. The advances to the States are apportioned by consultation between the Minister and the various State Housing Ministers. The State Housing Minister in Victoria claims that this Government itself has apportioned the money for this State and has apportioned it in such a way that the Housing Commission will be disadvantaged. I repeat that this Government does not apportion the money. It is done by consultation. This was done by agreement. Victoria asked that 70 per cent of its allocation go to the Housing Commission, which is an increase on last year, and that 30 per cent go to the home builders account, which is a decrease on last year but which was its choice. Victoria is maintaining its grant at the same level as last year and has no right to continue to threaten to close the Holmesglen construction factory because the Housing Commission money has been cut. By its own wishes, the allocation that has been maintained has been split differently and a greater amount is going into Housing Commission spending. I also repeat, because it may get through eventually, that if the Victorian Government ran its factory efficiently it would achieve value for the dollar. Perhaps the members of the Victorian Government have never been in the position of working in a factory where every month people are threatened with the sack. If they had, perhaps they would give some security to those who have worked for many years in the Housing Commission and the Holmesglen construction factory and who have given very good service. The end product depends upon the flow-through in factories such as Holmesglen. (Quorum formed) Evidently Opposition members who have not been in the House all day are more intent on stifling debate on the States Grants (Housing Assistance) Bill than on listening to it.

However welcome more money may be to all the State housing commissions, that is not the basic reason for the lack of housing available at reasonable rents. More money will not cope completely with the welfare housing problem. Its roots go very deep and go back into the years when the Liberal-Country Party Government was in power, uninterrupted, for 23 years. That Government did not even get down to the basic problem or the need for providing welfare housing. During its 23 years of office- I repeat, uninterruptedit did not even get down to the basic problem of attempting to harness the price of land. One big thing that sends the price of a house sky high is the uncontrolled price of land. In Victoria as I am sure is the case in other areas, it is the developers who jump onto the land and send the price skyrocketing. It has also been the practice in Victoria that enormous tracts of land are bought by the Housing Commission out of taxpayers money at greatly inflated prices and the only people who make any profit out of this are certainly not the people who should be benefiting from the welfare housing but the developer.

The State control or lack of control is responsible for the tremendous increases in the price of land. The crocodile tears that come from the Opposition concerning housing for the old people or for young couples do not impress me at all. Members of the Opposition should look at their track record. It is there for everyone to see both in the Federal and the State sphere. There has been no move from honourable members opposite or from their State counterparts to hold the price of land from escalating. There are large waiting lists in Victoria for Housing Commission homes. One waits for 2 to 2Vi years if one has 5 children or more, and one waits for 4 years if one has fewer than 5 children. The real tragedy lies with those who cannot find adequate housing. It is people we are talking about here really and people’s lives, not the actual houses. Real tragedy results from paying high rents. In practically every other sphere wages have kept up with prices but certainly not in rents. Most families which are paying rent are paying one-third of their take-home pay in rent and no family budget can cope with this.

Much more welfare housing should be available. If the past governments, State and Federal, had set their sights on the provision of welfare housing in their long terms in office we might now be able to hold our heads up as some of the Scandanavian countries can and say that we can provide housing for those who cannot afford to provide it for themselves and we can provide it at a rent they can afford to pay. The provision of housing needs planning, thought and understanding. One needs to know the problems. One needs to see the suffering and the misery caused by inadequate housing. One needs to care about the people and their problems. We have to face our problems in Australia and overcome our past apathy and dedicate our efforts to caring for those who need help.

I reject the idea that has been put forward by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Malcolm Fraser) that people have to learn to stand on their own 2 feet and provide for themselves. It may be news to the Opposition but many people just cannot do this. I sincerely endorse the desire of most people to own their own homes but for many it is just not possible and for many it is just not practical. The families which because of their jobs have to move regularly, rent their homes because it is more practical. As well, many older people who move from family homes into units or flats prefer to rent. We need to provide a diversity of welfare housing to suit all age groups and all aspects of living. Of course families do better in houses where there is a garden for the children to play in and marriages fare better when the family is adequately housed. Inadequate housing causes stress on marriages. We, as representatives of the Australian electorate should maintain our concentration on making welfare housing available. It will be a great contribution to the quality of life for our constituents. I commend the Minister and the Bill to the House.

Mr Kevin Cairns:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

-This is a very sad measure because the Government has decreased in a significant way the amount of funds which it will provide for welfare housing. Forget all the argumentation that has been put forward and the argumentation as to amounts of money. Let it be quite clear: The amount of real assistance to housing and to the area of welfare housing, which is only part of the market, has been decreased by an effective 20 per cent. So what has happened is that after the riot of extravagance for a year or two has come the pinch of want. That pinch has been applied with respect to housing and the places in which Australian families and households live and develop. That proposition and that fact are contrary to the whole Australian tradition. The fact that it has occurred ought to be recorded and recorded rather sadly. Nowhere is it made clearer than in the publication that came out earlier today in relation to building approvals for Australia up to September this year. Even in the field of government housing approvals over the last 2 months, for August and September of this year, have been something like 40 per cent to 50 per cent below what they were for the same 2 months of last year.

While there may be argumentation by the Government that it has in fact kept up the level of assistance in welfare housing to States, the States obviously do not feel free enough to be able to keep up the level of approvals at which houses will be commenced and at which houses will be completed as in the previous year. The cut that has occurred could not occur only in one State; it has occurred over the lot because the magnitude of the decline is too great. In August and September last year more than 2600 approvals were given for government dwellings. In August and September this year the figure is 1560. That is a significant decline and it has to be explained. One feels rather sad that the explanation for it lies in some words which the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr Riordan) uttered. He had not been in his position very long but the words tumbled out. All the State Housing Ministers know that a promise which was made to them has not been kept. I shall read the Minister’s words. They are very important. They are convoluted. He was a new Minister. He did not know the consequences of what was being said. I shall read the one long sentence. He said:

The funds that will now be available to Queensland and Western Australia are clearly advanced on the basis that they will be considered in the light of next year’s commitments in the same way as funds that have been made available to the other States will have to be considered next year in the light of what has been achieved and what has been made available in the last year.

That simply means that a promise made in one year was to be kept in respect of the next year. What has occurred is that the promise has not been kept. It is as simple as that.

Mr Riordan:

– They were told when they got the money what the position was and they acknowledged.

Mr Kevin Cairns:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

-I am just going on the words which have been uttered. The words came out and they had no meaning. But of course it was quite legitimate that the Minister should use those words because previously during the Queensland State election campaign- the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) campaigned there strongly but he did not do very well- the Prime Minister made some comments and the Minister supported him in his statement 6 months later. The Prime Minister said that his Government would pay for every Housing Commission house for which the Queensland Government could let a contract. That is a proposition made with respect to one State which has had a real and significant cut in its allocation of funds. There were 2 statements, the statement of the Prime Minister when the Minister for Housing and Construction was a backbencher and the statement of the Minister made 6 months later. There is no retreating from the words even though $360m is being made available in money terms for this purpose this year. The rate of inflation with respect to capital dwelling expenditure calculated from the national accounts is of the order of 20 per cent up to June. If one deflates that figure of $360m one will see that what has been given is $290m in 1974-75 dollars, not $364m or anything like it. So there has been a real and a calculated drop in welfare housing.

Mr Riordan:

– How much -

Mr Kevin Cairns:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

– The approvals which have been given -

Mr Riordan:

– How much -

Mr Kevin Cairns:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

– The Minister wants to interrupt, does he?

Mr Riordan:

– I want to know how much you gave when you were the Minister.

Mr Kevin Cairns:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

-When I was Minister for Housing the waiting list was small and the whole housing market was infinitely better. We appreciated and knew that one cannot insulate a housing market from the rest of the economy. If one makes an economic mess- a fiscal mess, a monetary mess- housing is such a great sector of the economy that one cannot insulate the totality of it from what is happening elsewhere in the community. We are not going to have -

Dr Gun:

– You have shifted your ground.

Mr Kevin Cairns:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

-I have not shifted my ground at all. What must be realised is that we cannot have a well housed and a contented people who are significantly unemployed. We cannot have a well housed and a contented people when the value of the take-home pay and of the dollars that go into each household has decreased. The value of take-home pay decreases even under wage indexation. So they all hang together and they go together.

A very good piece of advice was given in the Priorities Review Staff report on housing. I know that the Minister for Housing and Construction and the honourable member for Boothby (Mr McLeay) have criticised the report, as they deserve to in many respects, but there are some very significant and good parts of that report.

Mr McLeay:

– It is not all bad.

Mr Kevin Cairns:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

-There are some very good parts of that report. A comment on page 55 is worth bearing in mind. It states in reference to housing:

Funds are too fluid for there to be any mileage in substantial attempts to insulate housing from the rest of the economy. Such smoothing as is possible can be effected under existing powers via consultation, guidance, lending etc between authorities and financial institutions.

A sentence on the previous page is full of meaning. Speaking of financial institutions lending for housing it states:

Stability here would bring a much greater measure of stability to the housing industry.

It all hangs together. We cannot hope to insulate one part of it from another. If the private sector goes down there is a greater demand in the public sector. If the private sector retreats because of a monetary and financial mess the capacity to take up the slack in the public sector retreats. So it is impossible to insulate one from the other.

This is the kind of thinking that has bedevilled and led the Government- and regrettably split the Labor Party- to such a continued series of errors in respect of housing. Three or four years ago the Labor Party had scheme after scheme with respect to housing. Let me go through some of them. Twelve months before the 1972 election it had the celebrated scheme for a 2 per cent reduction in interest rates. Money was going to be made available from all kinds of financial institutions at 2 per cent less than the going rate. Of course it had a dreadful set of circumstances then. The long term bond rate was 6% per cent. That scheme failed and it was dropped because it was found that it just would not work. In fact, were it to have been put into operation it would have forced up the cost of money and the cost of interest rates more than otherwise would have been the case. That scheme was dropped.

There was another scheme whereby money was going to be made available from savings banks, particularly the Commonwealth Savings Bank. A rate of 3% per cent was mentioned. That scheme was dropped because it was a failure. Then the Financial Corporations Bill was passed in this House last year. Part of the propaganda with respect to it said: ‘Give us the power over all financial institutions, give us power over banks, give us power over financial corporations, give us power over building societies in the States, give us power over all the non-bank financial institutions and we will bring interest rates down’. That is one of the statements that was made continually.

Dr Gun:

– Who said that?

Mr Kevin Cairns:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

-A multitude of your Ministers. They said: ‘Give us this power and we will bring the cost of money down. We will make it available for you’. Of course the cost has not come down to a significant extent and it is not going to remain down, because the Government has forgotten that if it interferes in this area something will break out elsewhere. That is essentially the error that has been made by the Government continually in the housing field. It always has a nice scheme but never one that works. The mortgage insurance scheme was one which was promoted by a newspaper proprietor who now does not find very much satisfaction with the Labor Party. It was always a mess because it was unfair to people. The Government, having introduced this as a principal policy in 1972, having repromoted it in 1974, is now leaving the limits at levels that are becoming quite inadequate and meaningless, compared with real wages and the cost of housing. That scheme, put up by a party bent on welfare, was designed to assist those who built the most expensive houses, who saved the least and who negotiated the highest interest rates on money. It failed.

We see that over the years there has been a basic lack of understanding of what is involved in housing. An unalterable social obligation was taken on when a new era of housing was undertaken in Australia. It was held to be undertaken, quite honestly enough, by a Labor government. It was undertaken in the years towards the end and just after the end of World War II. The unalterable social obligation was that homes for people to own would be available to those who wanted to own them and homes for people to rent would be available to those who wanted to rent them. That obligation undertaken in 1945, like the obligation to secure full employment in Australia also undertaken in 1945, has been put aside. They have both been callously disregarded by the Government.

The tragedy is that thousands and thousands of Australians are hurt. The tragedy is that thousands of young people recently married or contemplating marriage or hoping to form a family and set up a family are disadvantaged. Unless housing is adequately cared for and there is an understanding of the processes whereby it can be cared for, these people are hurt. If there is any area of social obligation which is as sensitive as any other, I believe it is the field of housing. You have an independently minded people and a people willing to make their own decisions only if they live in a substantially home owning Australian community. The two go together. Like the undertaking concerning full employment, the obligation concerning housing has been swept aside. It has been forgotten. It is nonsense for any government to talk about welfare and say that it is a welfare government when these 2 very basic social obligations have been forgotten.

I know there are socialists in this world. Some are great reformists; some are complete socialists. One of the less creditable socialists, a theorist, was Proudhon. One can only feel that the Government is a little bit like Proudhon, whose attitude was that socialism means that property is theft. It seems to me that the Government is carrying that dictum into housing and what households should mean and what they are in Australia.

There has been a continual list of failures. I put one proposition to the Government Parts of the Priorities Review Staff report are excellent. Parts of that report make it quite clear that substantially it is a flow of funds that is important in terms of housing, and one of the most important areas which is responsible for the flow of funds involves the savings banks. The Commonwealth Savings Bank is the most dominant bank in this field. I put something to the Government which I have not been able to understand since July 1973 when a list of severe monetary policy measures was put into operation by the Government. The Commonwealth Savings Bank, compared with other savings banks, has consistently held less of its assets in housing than have either the private savings banks or the State Savings Bank of Victoria. What has happened unfortunately is that the Commonwealth Housing Bank has allowed itself to become an instrument for the maintenance of the monetary policy of the Government. It has been engaged in security buying and selling and has been concerned with the loan market, inscribed stock and so on.

The Commonwealth Savings Bank ought not to be an arm of the monetary management of this country, as other banks are. It was set up with a different charter and for a different purpose. I shall give 3 sets of figures because they are quite important. At August this year the Commonwealth Savings Bank had 33.4 per cent of its assets in housing. All the other private savings banks had an average of 38.5 per cent of their assets in housing. The State Savings Bank of Victoria had just on 35 per cent of its assets in housing. So continually one feels that the Commonwealth Savings Bank is misconstruing the purposes for which it was instituted and is doing so especially in respect of this field of endeavour.

I shall make a final point which should influence the Minister. If one looks at the administration of housing policy by States, those States in which the Commonwealth Savings Bank dominates the savings bank field are obviously the most susceptible. The 2 States in which the Commonwealth Savings Bank dominates the savings bank field are New South Wales and Queensland. In each of those States the Commonwealth Savings Bank has either a little under or a little over half of the total market. It can operate as an effective oligopolist. I ask the Minister to investigate the administration of the Commonwealth Savings Bank policy in respect of housing Australia wide and to explain what has happened since July 1973. We should remember that that Bank is vitally concerned with housing and was set up as the people’s bank. Those who would normally obtain their housing finance from that Bank ought not to be the victims of its administration of monetary policy.

There is a warning in the Priorities Review Staff report about this administration of monetary policy. People who desire housing and who want to form homes and families ought not to be made the first and the most lasting victims of monetary policy. I know the Minister will be sympathetic to that matter. I know that the Minister desires to do all he can in this field. We know that he made one or two mistakes in June this year. A promise tumbled out from a new Minister who was entranced with the position that he held. But we forget that. We ask him to look at this field to see what he can do concerning the flow of funds between institutions concerned with housing in Australia and certainly to remember above all that we will not fix up the housing problem totally unless we fix up a distressed, alien and very severely disadvantaged economy.

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

Mr OLDMEADOW:
Holt

-We have recently had the benefit of reading the comprehensive and detailed Henderson Report on Poverty in Australia. That excellent document throws light on a subject which previous governments have preferred to brush under the carpet. Even the briefest glance at the section of the Henderson report dealing with housing leads one to the conclusion that for the lower income groups there is always a housing problem. In boom periods those economically deprived people cannot afford houses and in periods of recession they are the people who become unemployed and are still just as far from adequate accommodation for themselves and their families.

I do not propose to go into the detailed recommendations of the Henderson report as they affect housing. Suffice it to say that this Government has recognised the problem and has been trying to do something constructive about it since it came to office. The figures of money paid by this Government to the States for housing, compared with those of the previous Government speak for themselves. If we look back at the advances made to the States for welfare housing by the Australian Government we find a dramatic jump in the year 1973-74, the first financial year this Government was in office. The following year saw an even greater increase from $218.65m to $385.4m. In this financial year the amount allocated is $364.6m. Bearing in mind the $ 10.4m advanced in June 1975 on the basis that it would be taken into account in this year’s allocation- the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr Riordan) advised the State Ministers of that fact- the advances in 1975-76 will be maintained at the greatly increased 1974-75 level. The last 2 years’ allocation will be 2lA times greater than the allocation for welfare housing from State loan funds in the last 2 years of the previous Government, which were $161.5min 1971-72 and$163.2min 1972-73.

Mr McVeigh:

– Are they constant figures?

Mr OLDMEADOW:

-They are the figures which reflect quite clearly that it is 2V4 times as much. One cannot account for that with inflation or anything else. In spite of the substantial advances in the 1975-76 financial year, already many State Housing Ministers have been squealing about a drastic cutback. If we take my State of Victoria as an example, Mr Dickie has been vociferous in his cry of a drastic cutback. The claim is patently untrue. This year the Victorian Government, under the provisions of this Bill, will get $98. 1 5m- exactly the same as last year. However, as honourable members are aware, this money is shared between the State housing Authorities- in Victoria, the Housing Commissionand the home builders’ account. On the decision of Mr Dickie and with the agreement of this Government 70 per cent- $68. 7m- was allocated to the Housing Commission which is $6.9m more than last year’s total.

There are of course, very good reasons why the amount of money allocated for welfare housing this year does not follow the dramatic increases of the past 2 years. One of the reasons is just the point that I have made- the dramatic increases of the past 2 years. It would be economically irresponsible to continue the increases in the government housing sector at that rate at present. The second reason is that there is now strong evidence of a recovery in the private home building sector. That has been by no means a sudden and dramatic recovery; surely nobody would want that. But it has been a recovery at a steady pace, which is what the Budget is aiming at. The September figures for building approvals reinforce the Government’s strategy in this year’s Budget. Dwelling approvals in September this year at 13 513 were 19 per cent above the August level of 1 1 375. In seasonally adjusted terms the increase in total dwelling approvals was less pronounced at 10 per cent. However, the September 1975 figure was the second highest figure recorded since July 1974. Also, the allocations for 1975-76 are limited by the general budgetary constraints and they are designed to bring about stability and control of inflation.

It is difficult to reconcile the amendment presently before the House, which has been moved by the Opposition and which is critical of the amount of money being allocated in this Bill, with the statements made by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Malcolm Fraser) in relation to the Budget. He then spoke of the need to cut back $ 1,000m in Government spending. He was very careful not to be too precise about where this money would be cut back. He gave some examples, such as doing away with the Australian Legal Aid Office and the like. But what about the other $500m which was mentioned? I think we can go back to the track record of the previous Government to see what concern it had about welfare housing. We can be fairly sure that one of the casualties would be welfare housing. In spite of this, the substantial advances in the 1975-76 financial year will allow State housing authorities to complete more welfare dwellings than has been the case for many years. That is what this Bill is all about.

The question is, of course, whether all these housing authorities will use this money to its greatest advantage. In my home State of Victoria I fear- in fact I know- that this has not always been the case. I wonder whether if the $98m that the Victorian Government will be allocated under this Bill will be squandered in the same way as the previous grants which have been allocated. Some may take exception to the word ‘squandered’, but I am mindful of the fact that the Victorian Housing Minister and his departmental officers have not always used this money wisely. Time and time again we have seen the Victorian Housing Commisssion paying highly inflated prices for land which, had the Commission moved a little earlier, would have been bought much more cheaply. Time and time again we have seen that the people who are benefiting from this are the developers and not the people whom we are aiming to help with welfare housing- the poorer people in this community whom we are trying to assist to get homes.

Time and time again the Victorian Liberal Government has rejected suggestions to freeze land prices, which it has the power to do. The suggestions have not been heeded. Indeed, had the Victorian Liberal Government and the parties in opposition in this Parliament had the political and economic foresight they claim to have, they would have supported this Government’s referendum to control prices and incomes and we would not be faced with the inflationary situation which bedevils this country today. At a recent meeting in my electorate a woman speaker brought up the question of the present policy of the Victorian Housing Commission in building homes costing $30,000 and the difficulties faced by people trying to buy them. There is nothing wrong in building homes costing this much, but the incredible thing about all this is that if a person is within the financial range to be eligible for one of these homes he cannot afford it and if a person has the money to be able to afford one of these $30,000 homes he is not eligible according to the Housing Commission regulations. In Victoria the needs test eligibility limit at present stands at $130 a week for a family with up to 2 children, while in New South Wales the figure is $133.71 a week.

In all fairness, it should be reported that the Victorian Minister for Housing, Mr Dickie, issued a denial of this in a letter to a local newspaper. He said:

The Liberal Government in Victoria is terribly proud of the fact that since coming to office in 1 955, their policy of home ownership has been instrumental in nearly 45 000 of the 85 000 home units which have been built by the Housing Commission being sold to eligible applicants. It has been the Socialist Government in Canberra . . . which has unfortunately forced upon the Liberal Government in Victoria policies whereby there are now extreme restrictions on home ownership. It has been the policies of the Socialist Government in Canberra that has forced the cost of housing built by the Housing Commission to a figure now in the vicinity of $30,000 . . .

There is more to the Housing Minister’s letter, but that is the essence of what he had to say. It is significant that the Victorian Housing Minister does not specifically rebut the charge that these $30,000 homes are beyond the reach of most Housing Commission applicants. It is equally significant that the Housing Minister makes no reference to the singularly inept way in which the Victorian Housing Commission has gone about acquiring land for these homes. One could give many examples in my home city of Dandenong of land being purchased at peak prices. (Quorum formed)

Before I was interrupted by the honourable member for Griffith (Mr Donald Cameron), who seems particularly concerned that honourable members should be present to listen to speakers from this side of the House but who is equally determined that no one should listen to anyone on his side of the House, I was talking about the Victorian Housing Minister and the inept way in which the Victorian Housing Commission has gone about acquiring land for the homes that it builds. The Commission has paid fantastically high prices when it could have imposed a ceiling, had it wished. It has bought land in the area of Packenham- just alongside my electoratewhich is said to be flood prone. The Victorian Housing Minister also makes no reference, in his terribly proud letter which I read to the House a moment ago, to the fact that there is a 4 to4½ years waiting period for Housing Commission homes. He also makes no reference to the fact that, when people were crying out for homes, in the private sector considerable speculative building was going on in the heart of Melbourne; skyscrapers were going up on just about every piece of land in the city. Now we are faced with a situation in which there are literally hundreds of acres of vacant office space in the city of Melbourne. It might be added that the people who own these places are content to let them remain vacant. It is cheaper, in terms of taxation, for these places to remain unoccupied than for the owners to have to pay taxes on the rents.

I must confess that I can see nothing of which the Victorian Housing Commission can be terribly proud in seeing building materials, which at that time were so sorely needed for home building, being diverted into useless and vacant office blocks. This whole matter of welfare housing is of considerable importance to me. It comes close to home because it is one of the most important of the problems that exist in my electorate of Holt, which is one of the fastest developing outer metropolitan areas. Let me add one point. One of the great needs in areas such as mine is the need for emergency housing, such as overnight accommodation, housing for a week or a fortnight- any sort of housing and for a variety of reasons. I am quite certain that, if we had the full co-operation of the Victorian Liberal Government and its Minister for Housing instead of the frustration we experience now, much of the misery occasioned by this housing shortage could be overcome. I welcome this Bill because it approves more than $364m for welfare housing. It is my earnest hope that it will be used by State governments to its greatest possible advantage.

Mr McVEIGH:
Darling Downs

-The Australian Labor Party’s program for housing has been improvident in execution, dismal -

Motion (by Mr Nicholls) put:

That the question be now put.

The House divided. (Mr Speaker-Hon. G. G. D. Scholes)

AYES: 61

NOES: 51

Majority……. 10

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative

Question put:

That the words proposed to be omitted (Mr McLeay’s amendment) stand part of the question.

The House divided. (Mr Speaker-Hon. G. G. D. Scholes)

AYES: 61

NOES: 52

Majority……. 9

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Original 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.

Motion (by Mr Riordan) proposed:

That the Bill be now read a third time.

Mr McVEIGH:
Darling Downs

-The Labor Party’s program for housing has been incompetent in execution, dismal in theory and disastrous in practice.

Motion (by Mr Nicholls) put:

That the question be now put.

The House divided. (Mr Speaker-Hon. G. G. D. Scholes)

AYES: 61

NOES: 52

Majority…….. 9

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a third time.

page 2634

INCLUSION IN HANSARD OF UNREAD MATTER

Mr SPEAKER:

-I have to inform the House that the Government Printer has advised that the incorporation in Hansard of tabulated material submitted by the honourable member for Darling Downs (Mr McVeigh) would present technical problems and unduly delay the production of the daily Hansard. I have therefore directed that it be not included.

page 2634

ADJOURNMENT

Motion (by Mr Daly) proposed: .

That the House do now adjourn.

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

-Mr Speaker -

Motion (by Mr Daly) agreed to:

That the question be now put.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

House adjourned at 5.45 p.m.

page 2635

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS UPON NOTICE

The following answers to questions upon notice were circulated:

Mount Cotteril Park and Recreation Area (Question No. 2359)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Urban and Regional Development, upon notice:

  1. Is consideration being given to the proposal to preserve an area of land at Mt Cotteril as a park and recreation area.
  2. If so, who is involved in the consideration of this matter, and what progress has been made.
Mr Uren:
ALP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. The future use of the Australian Government land at Mt Cotteril (Rockbank) known as the former O.T.C. Receiving Station site is under consideration by my Department in consultation with other Australian Government departments.

In order to determine the best use of the property investigations are being carried out to determine whether there is any Australian Government or community requirement and in addition the State has been approached to ascertain whether it has an interest.

This action is in keeping with my Department’s efforts to ensure that all Australian Government lands are used to facilitate the implementation of Australian Government policies for the maximum benefit of the whole community.

Australian Brick Industry (Question No. 3097)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Manufacturing Industry, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Further to the answer to question No. 429 in which he indicated that Official estimates of expected demand and expected levels of employment in the brick industry for the next 5 years are not available, what is the reason that the estimates are not available.
  2. Can he provide any estimate in answer to this question.
Mr Lionel Bowen:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) Occasionally in the context of specific investigations of industry sectors the Department of Manufacturing Industry may make estimates of expected demand and employment in particular industries, but it does not normally prepare such estimates across the range of Australian manufacturing production. It has not been required to prepare such estimates in the case of the brick industry.
  2. I am advised that the Department of Housing and Construction has prepared some relevant estimates. The estimates provided by the Department of Housing and Construction of the cumulative demand for bricks in each State for the S year period ending 1 979 are as follows:

The Department of Housing and Construction has also provided advice that given a continuation of past trends it is expected that the level of employment in the brick industry over the next five years will not differ greatly from those levels which have been experienced in the industry in recent years. This is attributed firstly to a programme of modernisation at a number of existing brick works and secondly, new plants being constructed now are far more capital intensive and thus more labour saving than were their predecessors.

The Australian Prescriber (Question No. 3214)

Mr Lloyd:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice.

  1. What is the expected print run of the Government’s new drug journal The Australian Prescriber.
  2. What is the estimated annual cost of producing, printing and mailing this publication.
  3. Has the Government considered using the existing medical and pharmaceutical journals for distributing additional drug information without this additional cost.
  4. 4 ) Who will receive the publication.
Dr Everingham:
Minister for Health · CAPRICORNIA, QUEENSLAND · ALP

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

  2. The estimated annual cost of producing printing and mailing six issues of the journal per year is $ 1 33,000. Three issues only will be produced in the 1975/76 financial year. This compares with an estimated $66,000 a year for 1 1 issues per year of the Adverse Drug Reactions Bulletin (45 000 copies per issue), an estimated $35,250 a year for three issues of the British Prescribers’ Journal (25 000 copies per issue), and an estimated $28,500 a year for Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee circulars, all of which will be incorporated in the Australian Prescriber.
  3. Yes. But it was considered that existing journals would not provide a sufficiently objective and independent medium for the service to medical practitioners that the Government considers my Department should provide. The Australian Prescriber, with its independent Editorial Board, will provide a regular, balanced, objective review of management and medication which, it is hoped, will lead to acceptance of the journal as authoritative in its field. It will replace the Pre.scribers’ Journal which has been well received but has less scope for an Australian emphasis, and the Adverse Drug Reactions Bulletin, which has stimulated awareness and reporting of side effects of prescribed drugs.
  4. Doctors, pharmacists, dentists, medical teaching staff, medical libraries, hospital matrons and senior tutor sisters, medical students in their final three years, pharmaceutical companies, and member countries of the World Health Organisation.

Foreign Language Publications (Question No. 3308)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Minerals and Energy, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) What publications are produced in foreign languages by the Department or authorities under the Minister’s control.
  2. What is the general nature of the publications.
  3. In what languages are they published.
  4. When were they first published in this way.
Mr Crean:
Minister for Overseas Trade · MELBOURNE PORTS, VICTORIA · ALP

– The Minister for Minerals and Energy has provided the following answer to the right honourable member’s question:

  1. to (4) See the answer provided by the Minister representing the Minister for the Media on 4 December, 1974 (Hansard, page 4590).

Foreign Language Publications (Question No. 3310)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) What publications are produced in Foreign languages by the Department or authorities under his control.
  2. What is the general nature of the publications.
  3. In what languages are they published.
  4. When were they first published in this way.
Mr Daly:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) to (4) See answer provided by the Minister representing the Minister for the Media on 4 December 1974 (Hansard, page 4590).

Foreign Language Publications (Question No. 3313)

Mr Snedden:

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

  1. 1 ) What publications are produced in foreign languages by the Department or authorities under his control.
  2. What is the general nature of the publications.
  3. In what languages are they published.
  4. When were they first published in this way.
Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– The answer to the right honourable member’s question is as follows: (1)1 refer the right honourable member to the Prime Minister’s answer to question on notice No. 3304. (Hansard, 15 October, 1975 page 2 188).

Foreign Language Publications (Question No. 3319)

Mr Snedden:

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

  1. 1 ) What publications are produced in foreign languages by the Department or authorities under the Minister’s control.
  2. What is the general nature of the publications.
  3. In what languages are they published.
  4. When were they first published in this way.
Mr Lionel Bowen:
ALP

– The Postmaster-General has provided the following answer to the right honourable member’s question:

  1. 1) to (4) I refer to the answer provided by the Minister representing the Minister for the Media on 4 December 1 974 (Hansard page 4590).

Aboriginal Sporting Activities (Question No. 3008)

Mr Hunt:
GWYDIR, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice:

Will he supply details of all payments from the vote ‘Other Services- Support for Aboriginal Sporting Activities’ during 1974-75.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: . A total of $355,056.36 has been paid from the vote ‘Other Services-Support for Aboriginal Sporting Activities’ during 1974-75 made up as follows:

Details of individual grants are available from my office should the honourable member require them.

Interdepartmental Committees (Question No. 3164)

Mr Kerin:
MACARTHUR, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. 1) In view of his earlier answer that the compilation of a full list of interdepartmental committees would involve time and expense which he was reluctant to authorise, has the Royal Commission on Australian Government Administration, as part of its research program, compiled a list of interdepartmental committees active in the period 1 June- 30 September 1974.
  2. ) If so, will he seek the public release of that list.
Mr Whitlam:
ALP

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

  1. The Royal Commission on Australian Government Administration has prepared a list for research purposes of interdepartmental committees active in the period of 1 June- 30 September 1974. The Chairman of the Commission, Dr H. C. Coombs, advised me that the labour involved in compiling the list was considerable.
  2. ) Dr Coombs has provided the following information:

Aboriginal Arts and Crafts Pty Ltd (Question No. 3253)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice:

  1. What support has been provided by the Australian Government to Aboriginal Arts and Crafts Pty Ltd in each of the last 5 years.
  2. What has been the total annual turnover at each of the offices of the company in each of the last 5 years.
  3. How many people are employed at each office.
  4. Does he have any information relating to the annual turnover of each of the retail outlets for Aboriginal artefacts which he listed in reply to my earlier question No. 2847.
Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

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

  1. The financial assistance given to Aboriginal Arts and Crafts Pty Ltd over the last S years has been as follows:
  1. ) The Annual turnover of each of the offices for the last 5 years:
  1. No information is available regarding the retail turnover of each of the outlets listed in answer to question 2847, but it is estimated that the total Australian market has a retail value in the vicinity of $800,000 p.a. in its present state of development.

Foreign Language Publications (Question No. 3320)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) What publications are produced in foreign languages by the Department or authorities under his control.
  2. ) What is the general nature of the publications.
  3. 3 ) In what languages are they published.
  4. When were they first published in this way.
Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

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

  1. to (4) I refer the right honourable member to the Prime Minister’s reply to question number 3304 Hansard, 1 5 October, 1975, page 2 188.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 29 October 1975, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1975/19751029_reps_29_hor97/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant