House of Representatives
30 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 2641

PETITIONS

The Clerk:

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

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: that the Australian Government uses its constitutional powers to prohibit the export of any mineral sands from Fraser Island, and 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 Berinson, Mr Mathews, Mr Millar, Mr Morris, Mr Wallis and Mr Wilson.

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 for 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 Bonnett and Mr Killen.

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:

That the Australian Government reverse its policy to disband the Royal Australian Naval Reserve and Naval Cadet Corps and also that the training programme within these units be revised in order to provide a more accelerated mobilisation if Australia is threatened by war.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Australian Government will take the necessary remedial action.

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

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 McVeigh.

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. Nationalise the Insurance Industry.
  2. Trade unfairly.
  3. Add to the taxpayers burden.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives rejects completely the Australian Government Insurance Office Bill 1975.

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

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. 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 1975.

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 citizens of Australia 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. 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.

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

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

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. Increase Bureaucracy at the time when Government spending should be curtailed.
  2. Shrink the flow of funds to the private sector.
  3. Eliminate private insurance of Australians.

Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives rejects completely the Australian Government Insurance Office Bill 1975.

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

Petition 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 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. byMrHodgesandMrMcLeay.

Petitions received.

Universities: Research Grants

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

That the undersigned believe that the proposed reduction in Government spending for research in Universities under the Australian Research Grants Committee will, if implemented, result in

  1. 1 ) Serious decline in the standard of education offered by Australian Universities.
  2. Unemployment.
  3. Deterioration of the working conditions of employees of Australian Universities, and
  4. Loss to the community of the benefits of a significant proportion of the total of Australian Research.

And that the undersigned therefore ask that the amount of money made available for research in Universities through the Australian Research Grants Committee be immediately increased so that research in 1976 may be funded at least at the level of support in 1975.

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

Petition received.

Pensions: Telephone 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:

  1. That the decisions of the Australian Government- 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. b ) 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 dependant on their pensions.

Your petitioners are impelled by these facts to call upon the Australian Government as a matter of urgency to review the above-mentioned decisions (a) and (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 charge be made for installation or rental on the telephones of those pensioners entitled to a P.M.S. card.

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

Petition received.

Tertiary Education Assistance Scheme

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

  1. 1 ) That the Federal Budget for 1975-76 recently brought down by the Australian Government grossly neglect? the needs of students dependent upon Government assistance through the Tertiary Education Assistance Scheme.
  2. That a majority of students financed by this scheme are unable to cover basic costs of living.
  3. That persons receiving unemployment benefits are granted an allowance which is $7 greater than the student allowance.

Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the allowance granted to students under the Tertiary Education Assistance Scheme be increased.

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

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. byMrCoates.

Petition received.

Income Tax: Land and Water Rates

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.

Increased Postal and Telephone Charges

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

That we wish to protest most vigorously at the proposed increases in postal and telephone charges.

Your petitioners most humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled will take immediate steps to:

Diminish the size of the increase or, if possible, leave charges as they are.

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

Petition received.

Electoral Division of Kennedy: Television Service

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

That-

  1. 1 ) we have been without a television service since the introduction of television into Australia in 1956,
  2. we have been seeking such a service for many years without success and
  3. we are one of the few remaining areas of Australia not enjoying what is now considered a normal facet of Australian life.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House will take action which will require the Australian Broadcasting Control Board to take immediate steps to provide the electorate of Kennedy with a television service, where it is not now provided.

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

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 300 000 citizens of Tasmania as there are for5 million citizens of New South Wales.
  3. The Parliament should adopt the 1975-76 Budget by passing the Appropriation Bill Number One 1975 and the Appropriation Bill Number Two 1 975.

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

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 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 Morris.

Petition 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 Oldmeadow.

Petition received.

Taxation

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 reintroduction 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 afler-tax wages for the same job would vary from State to State even when gross wages were advertised as being the same.
  3. be forced to maintain separate records of income earned in each State.

Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that present uniform income tax be continued and that double taxation not be reintroduced.

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

Petition received.

Australian Labor Party

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

  1. That certain members of your House have signed a pledge as a condition of their endorsement by the Labor Party at the Electon at which they were elected to your House.
  2. That this pledge may constrain them to vote in this House in a way which could be at variance with the national interest.

Your petitioners therefore pray that your House will express the opinion that, if in such case the national interest is in conflict with the pledge, members of your House will consider that the national interest takes precedence.

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

Petition received.

page 2645

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

page 2645

QUESTION

BUDGET BRIEFING

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
WANNON, VICTORIA

– I ask the Treasurer: Did the Prime Minister give his prior approval to the special Budget briefing given to Mr Hawke? If not, will he say when and how the Prime Minister was informed that the briefing had taken place and at whose request did Mr Hawke ‘s Budget briefing take place?

Mr HAYDEN:
Treasurer · OXLEY, QUEENSLAND · ALP

– I take full responsibility for the briefing which Mr Hawke received, and the action I took is well justified. There was no release prematurely of the information which flowed from that briefing. I want to be clear on that and have it clearly stated on the record. I accepted full responsibility for the actions I undertook. I mentioned it to the Prime Minister on the afternoon of the date on which the Budget was delivered.

page 2645

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN BROADCASTING COMMISSION

Mr SHERRY:
FRANKLIN, TASMANIA

– I ask the Minister for the Media: Has his attention been drawn to reports that the Australian Broadcasting Commission is engaged in distortion and manipulation of news during the present political crisis? I also ask the Minister: Is it a fact that the Australian public are being subjected to a devious and obviously a master plan of deception on programs emanating from ABC radio and television?

Mr Nixon:

– I will answer it for you.

Dr CASS:
Minister for the Media · MARIBYRNONG, VICTORIA · ALP

– My attention has been drawn to the remarks by the honourable member for Gippsland. I am not quite sure what the honourable member intends to answer. Whether or not he said what he is reported to have said, a report has appeared in the newspapers. I will not necessarily suggest that that is what the honourable member did say but since it is a view that seems to have some currency at times I shall attempt to answer it. I think it illustrates the rather odd situation that if there is a Press report- I include radio and television in the same way- if there is a media report which is in some way complimentary to us we are all absolutely certain that it is completely correct and totally unbiased. We are all the same. However, if any one of us makes a bit of a slip in the eyes of the reporter, again irrespective of the medium, we are convinced that it is a totally biased report against us. That is a failing that we all have, of course.

In the present situation, my guess is that if any psychiatrist reads the newspapers carefully, that is the news reports and then the editorial comment, he will suggest that the newspapers are suffering from schizophrenia because the news reports often do not tie up with the editorial comment. If the claim that the honourable member has been criticising the ABC is correct, it is understandable. The ABC is a government instrumentality albeit it has statutory independence. Nonetheless one does not have to be too naive not to realise that governments can persuade in the sense that they can be bloody minded about, for example, applications for increased funds for the budget. So quite clearly the ABC could well feel pressurised. If the honourable gentleman is exerting this sort of pressure I think it is a bit unfair. I suggest that it may well make the ABC unhappy. It is not the sort of pressure he could put on to the other sections of the media, the Press, because they are not dependent upon him for their support. I think it is a far fetched suggestion to imply that somehow or other deep in the bowels of the ABC there is a little cell working away systematically to distort the news reportage and somehow or other to paint the Labor Government in glowing terms consistently and the non-Labor Opposition as an utter monster. My guess is that the ABC often succeeds in displeasing both sides of the House because it is attempting to be as impartial as is humanly possible.

page 2645

QUESTION

BUDGET BRIEFING

Mr LYNCH:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA

– Does the Treasurer recall saying in his Budget Speech that recovery in the private sector is essential? Why did the honourable gentleman not provide a Budget briefing to a person such as the Director-General of the Associated Chambers of Manufactures of Australia so that in terms of the theory which the honourable gentleman proposes in relation to briefings of this type the Director-General might be better able to ensure that the Budget was accepted by business men?

Mr HAYDEN:
ALP

– This is an interesting proposition put by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. While it has much interest for me, I do not think I care to expand the number of people who would be allowed to have this briefing. It seems, from the way in which the question has been put, that it is not so much a protest that the briefing took place but a protest that the DirectorGeneral of whatever organisation it was that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition mentioned was not included. So it seems that in a less than subtle way the attacks on Mr Hawke take on a form of union bashing, for which the honourable member was well known when he was Minister for Labor in a previous Liberal-Country Party government. I find it remarkable that the Leader of the Opposition, in his speech to this Parliament on the Budget, should have laid stress on the need for wage restraint if there was to be an economic recovery, if the private sector was to get on to its feet, and that he should have topped this assertion off with a claim that success could be achieved only through co-operation with the President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions and with the ACTU, and that then both he and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition should have presented statements in this Parliament which clearly implied that in their view the President of the ACTU was a crook. I reject those implications.

page 2646

QUESTION

BUILDING INDUSTRY: BUDGET FUNDS

Mr KEOGH:
BOWMAN, QUEENSLAND

– My question is directed to the Minister for Housing and Construction. Has any concern been expressed by representatives of the building industry about the effects on the industry of the Senate refusal to pass the Budget? If so, is this concern justified and does the Government have any plan to maintain the industry if the Budget is not approved?

Mr RIORDAN:
Minister Assisting the Minister for Urban and Regional Development · PHILLIP, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Many builders, and construction companies particularly, are expressing their serious concern at the wanton vandalism being exercised or threatened to be exercised by the Liberal-Country Party Opposition. Even this morning there was a report from the Director of the New South Wales Branch of the Master Builders Association expressing concern about the serious effects that will flow to the building and construction industry if this Budget is not approved and approved quickly. The facts are beyond dispute. The total amount of investment expected in the housing and construction industry this year is $9,500m. Of that, $4,500m will be financed by government contracts and goverment work in one form or another. The amount at risk in the Budget is $ 1, 050m.

Mr Garland:
Mr RIORDAN:

-The honourable member for Curtin says that it is rubbish, which illustrates the depth of the ignorance which is permeating the Opposition. It is at least a ray of hope that members of the Opposition do not understand what they are doing- hopefully that is the position- because if they look at the facts and look at what effect their action will have they will see that what they are doing is kicking the life out of an industry when it is down. That is what they are doing and that is what they have to face up to.

The building and construction industry has gone through a severe recession. It is now showing signs of coming out of the ressession If $ 1,000m worth of investment is cut off or unreasonably deferred or delayed it will have not only a very serious effect on this industry but also a secondary and snowballing effect through the economy generally. For example, this $ 1,050m represents a little over 10 per cent of the total investment to be made in the building and construction industry this year. If this investment is cut off it will mean inevitably the retrenchment, the dismissal of between 50 000 and 60 000 construction workers. It will have at least the same effect on those who supply the industry; for example, those engaged in the supply of bricks, timber, steel, glass and the other materials used, those engaged in the transport industry in carrying those goods to building sites, and those engaged in furnishings and other woodwork used to fit out those buildings. Already delayed are contracts worth $7.693m. That includes only those works which are individually worth more than $100,000. Some honourable members may be interested to note that it also includes the amounts for contracts worth $2m which were to be let in the Northern Territory.

The short answer is that there are disastrous effects. Chaos is facing the building industry. It is all very well for a rich farmer from Victoria to laugh and joke about the plight of the building industry. He has no concern, but he might have some concern shortly when he finds his bull being held up on his farm rather than being shipped through the Victorian meat works.

page 2646

QUESTION

ROYAL COMMISSION ON PETROLEUM

Mr SINCLAIR:
NEW ENGLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES

-Does the Prime Minister predicate his endorsement of the action taken by his colleague the Treasurer in prematurely releasing the Budget Papers to the President of the Australian Labor Party on the fact that the President of the ALP, he says, is an honest and upright man and a person of whose integrity he has no doubt? Is he aware that the President of the ALP last night in a television interview said that the findings of the royal commission with regard to the ACTU-Solo Enterprises Pty Ltd oil purchase were demonstrably wrong- wrong in fact after fact after fact? Is the Prime Minister still endorsing totally the findings of the royal commission? If not, and if he is having second thoughts, will he use his best endeavours to ensure that his colleague the honourable member for Cunningham presents his evidence before the royal commission in the same manner as the

Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate has requested so to do?

Mr WHITLAM:
Prime Minister · WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I endorse what my colleague the Treasurer has said yesterday and today about the briefing given to the President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions on the afternoon of the day on which the Budget was delivered. I did not see television last night because I was delivering the John Curtin Memorial Address at the Australian National University and dining there beforehand. It was a great address, relevant to present circumstances and in particular establishing, as John Curtin established in an earlier October- in 1941- that it is the House of Representatives that makes and unmakes governments. Although Curtin for the first 2 years of his government did not have a majority in the Senate nobody took the least account of that fact. I make that passing explanation for my failure to have watched television last night.

Nevertheless, what I have said about the royal commission on petroleum, in particular on its findings on the question of the ACTU-Solo matter which was referred to it by the Government, stands. I have said for the last 3 weeks, or more that if any honourable gentlemen have any complaints about that finding, if they want to put arguments to the royal commission or if they want to tender evidence, oral or written, to the commission, they should do so. They are certainly free to do so and I would think that they are bound to do so. Quite belatedly the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, who I gather still retains the position of shadow Attorney-General- there has been some doubt over the last few days and weeks but as far as I know he is still acknowledged by his Leader to have that position- is seeking to appear before the royal commission. This seems to me to be the proper course to take. I have said it all along. Liberals take a long time to catch up. I hope the Deputy Leader of the National Country Party will not take it amiss if I say that in these matters we no longer take him particularly seriously, because, as was the case with an earlier Bourbon, his reputation has been destroyed by the affair of the diamond necklace.

page 2647

QUESTION

CONSUMER PRICE INDEX

Dr GUN:
KINGSTON, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I ask the Treasurer whether he has noted a claim that the Government has cheated over the consumer price index. Has he also noted a claim that the true increase in the consumer price index was 2.9 per cent of which increased health costs contributed 2.1 per cent? Are these claims correct?

Mr HAYDEN:
ALP

-I did notice the Press statement released by the Honourable A. A. Street M.P., shadow Minister for Labor at present anyway. He probably will be shuffled a little later when the change of leadership takes place on the other side. The honourable member said that the Government is cheating over the consumer price index figures by eliminating from the index the cost of health services. First of all I think it should be clear to the House that the Government has nothing to do with the composition of the index or the way in which the calculations are made in association with the index. Those things are done by the Australian Government Statistician who is a statutory officer with complete independence in these matters. I think it inappropriate for members of the Opposition, as is their wanton way these days, to attack the integrity of public servants who are discharging honourably and properly the responsibilities of their office.

The practice of the Statistician in this matter is exactly the practice he has followed for many years and that is that the cost of health services which is included in the CPI calculations is the total cost minus the cost met by the Australian Government. Medibank in fact is not in any demonstrable way at all adding significantly to inflationary costs. In fact the evidence so far is that Medibank has been cheaper than would have been the previous system of private health insurance on projections which were taken out by the Department of Social Security. As a colleague of mine, the Minister for Tourism and Recreation, pointed out a week or so ago, the estimates of the outlay for July-September for Medibank were $106m. In actual fact the outlay was only $84m. So effectively there was a saving of $22m

Accordingly it is nonsense for members of the Opposition to suggest that Medibank is contributing in some sort of outrageous way to inflation. It is not only outrageous of them to do so; it seems inconsistent. After opposing Medibank they now mock themselves by proposing not only that they support it but they would introduce a levy on all taxpayers in the community to pay for Medibank. As their opposition to this form of taxation has been one of the major planks on which they have fought several elections I wonder how they will feel as we remind the public from time to time- as I assure honourable members opposite we will- that Opposition members have now turned their coat and now intend to do all those terrible things to the Australian taxpayer that they said we would be responsible for. I ask the community how seriously people can be taken who change their minds so frequently and so easily and who are so inconsistent in their statements of commitments in public office.

page 2648

QUESTION

MONEY SUPPLY

Mr ERWIN:
BALLAARAT, VICTORIA

-I ask the Treasurer: Was supply of money granted until 30 November as budgeted for by the Government? If that is the case, why has the Government been broke in many areas since August?

Mr HAYDEN:
ALP

– We have not been broke in many areas since August, but the country is being bankrupted by the behaviour of the Opposition. Perhaps this is as appropriate an occasion as any, in case I do not get another appropriate occasion- I was hoping the Leader of the Opposition would give it to me- to remind members of the Opposition that they have been very keen in recent days to point out that we should heed the warnings of the attitude of our masters in the electorate, the people in the Australian community. I hold up for the view of the Leader of the Opposition and all Opposition members a headline showing what the views of their masters are. It shows that 70 per cent of the Australian community say: ‘Pass Supply’. Their masters even in their own organisation, the LiberalNational Country Party, say that supply should be passed. They say that the Opposition is behaving improperly. It is indisputable that the economy of this country is taking a shattering body blow. Right now we are receiving reports that by and large retail business is suffering the worst setback to sales that it has ever had at a point when the seasonal pickup moves towards its peak for the year. It will be a black Christmas. I repeat: Why do members of the Opposition not listen to their masters when 70 per cent of them say: ‘Pass Supply’.

page 2648

QUESTION

ATTORNEY-GENERAL’S DEPARTMENT

Mr CROSS:
BRISBANE. QLD

-I ask the Attorney-General: How does the Opposition’s unprincipled decision to defer the Budget affect the workings of his Department?

Mr ENDERBY:
Attorney-General · ALP

-The honourable gentleman directs attention to the effects of the continued refusal of the Liberal and National Country Parties in the Senate to pass the Budget. There can be no doubt that if that refusal continues it will have a serious and disruptive impact on the administration of justice throughout Australia. The money that is in Treasury, that in the normal course of events, on the passing of Supply, would be paid out is used to pay witnesses’ expenses in courts functioning throughout Australia all the time. It is used to pay fees for barristers; it is used to pay the costs associated with the sittings of royal commissions and inquiries; it is used to pay the salaries of judges and the people who work with judges during the sitting of courts that go on circuit; and it is used to finance the reporting of court proceedings. All these are basic elements in the administration of justice.

If the refusal continues and persists, if it is taken much longer to the extreme, there can be no doubt that it will have a serious and disruptive impact on the administration of justice in Australia. It would mean- and any person familiar with the working of the system of justice would know- that prosecutions could not be launched, that government departments, government agencies, if sued, could not be represented in the courts of Australia. All in all, it would have a very serious consequence for the whole administration of justice. Here in the Australia Capital Territory it could mean for example, in the short run, the early discontinuance of the system of night courts which provide such a ready and amenable system of justice, bringing justice to the people who need it. It would mean a cessation of the funds that go to supply legal aid throughout Australia- for the Law Society schemes as well as for the Australian Legal Aid Office. It would curtail drastically the operations of the Australian Law Reform Commission. It would contain to a very serious degree the operation of the Institute of Criminology. Honourable members will recall the enactment on a free vote on the Family Law Bill that went through this Parliament a little while ago. It would certainly seriously impinge on the operation of that Act and the coming into being of the Family Court of Australia.

page 2648

QUESTION

SUPPLY

Mr LUSHER:
HUME, NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question, which is directed to the Treasurer, is supplementary to the question asked by the honourable member for Ballaarat. Did the Government obtain all the Supply it requested from the Parliament earlier this year to cover the Government’s services and commitments until the end of November? Is it a fact that many line items are already fully expended and that no funds are available for many programs and services as a result of over expenditure by the Government? Is it a fact that this bankruptcy is totally unrelated to the question of the passage of the Budget? Will the Treasurer confirm that, regardless of the passage of the Budget, this Government is actually out of funds in a range of areas due to its own mismanagement? Is the Budget issue a massive cover up for the Government’s own financial problems?

Mr HAYDEN:
ALP

-First of all, if we accept the proposition from the honourable member that we have enough money to last until November, there are the problems after November. Even if the Opposition were to be successful in forcing an election, the election would go well beyond November. One cannot conceive that they would honestly argue- I would not say that that would stop them from acting- that they would allow the Budget to pass, because the Leader of the Opposition has said that one of the major issues upon which an election would be fought and should be fought is the failure of the Budget- a Budget which he upheld a few weeks ago, a Budget which has not come into operation yet, a Budget which, in fact, if Appropriation is not passed in the Senate in the near future, will increasingly become irrelevant because of the disastrous effects which the behaviour of the Opposition in the Senate will have on the Australian economy. Supply has been passed to 30 November. I have said often enough that we are in a position to finance our operations very largely till about then. There have been some areas of unexpected cost increases and some new areas of financial liability which have had to be met. It happens from time to time that these things occur. They occurred under previous governments and they will continue to occur in the future.

We have found for instance in the area of the Advance to the Treasurer, in relation to which I have authority to spend money to cover those unexpected cost increases, that we have had to apply considerable austerity to make sure that we maintain the Public Service functioning in order, in turn, to maintain essential services in the community. Without an adequately, efficiently functioning Public Service, the whole system socially and economically would quickly collapse. Accordingly we have had to establish priorities as to how money from the Advance to the Treasurer is spent. We are finding, especially in rural areas, where outlays to cover programs being funded under the Regional Employment Development scheme are involved, that those schemes have had to be suspended at least insofar as we are able to pay for them.

page 2649

QUESTION

TASMANIA: EFFECTS OF PROPOSED DOUBLE TAXATION SCHEME

Mr COATES:
DENISON, TASMANIA

– Has the Treasurer seen the reported comments in Hobart of a Canadian professor on inter-governmental relations that Australia should not leap into a StateCommonwealth tax-sharing arrangement and that such a scheme would not work as easily in Australia as some people think? What would be the effect on Tasmania of a scheme of double taxation on personal incomes?

Mr HAYDEN:
ALP

– The proposals of the Leader of the Opposition for double taxation so that people in States will pay not only a Federal tax but a State tax would be a crippling blow against the State of Tasmania. This proposal would mean that that State would have to try to raise additional finances by imposing a second tax on the residents of that State. Last financial year, Tasmania received general purpose funds from the Australian Government at the per capita rate of $546.95, which was $273.95 above the allStates average. In other words, Tasmania received $1 10.14m more than it would have received if it were reimbursed at the national average rate.

The clear implications of the proposals of the Leader of the Opposition are that the States would be reimbursed at the national average rate. This means that the State of Tasmania would somehow have to cover the gap, according to its greater needs- it has clear disadvantages in population size, the level of industrial development and so on- by imposing an additional tax. It is notorious that when this system operated up to the time of the Second World War the less populous States were those most seriously disadvantaged by that second tax.

It is easy to gauge the effects of this sort of discrimination. Tasmania does not have the same tax-raising potential as other States. For instance, the New South Wales Government could raise more than $1.8m from a simple levy of $ 1 on each taxpayer in that State. To raise the same amount in Tasmania, the Tasmanian Government would have to impose an individual levy- a levy on each taxpayer- of $12.58. This is the sort of discrimination and disadvantage that Tasmania would have to suffer if the Opposition was ever to be successful in introducing its proposals.

page 2649

QUESTION

WHITLAM MINISTRY: GIFTS

Mr GRAHAM:
NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is addressed without notice and with reluctance to the Prime Minister of Australia. It relates to the statements by the Minister for Transport involving the honourable member for New England. I ask the Prime Minister whether he would provide an itemised list of all gifts received, related to the service of the Government, by his Ministers of State and their families, having regard to the circumstances referred to by the Minister for Transport. 1 refer to himself, his family, and all the Ministers of State and their families. I am quite sure the honourable gentleman will understand exactly what I mean.

Mr WHITLAM:
ALP

– I am always happy to see the honourable gentleman in the House and to receive his questions. This is clearly a question which ought to be placed on notice, because I do not have these facts offhand. I have answered previous questions on this matter. In particular, I remember informing honourable gentlemen that there had been many official gifts given to me and that I had usually given them to public institutions such as the National Library. In fact, the National Library put on a display of those gifts, following the answer to that question, and received a very great number of callers. I received no complaints. My wife, for instance, like all launching ladies, received a present when she launched a ship, the Australian Emblem, in Japan a few months ago. I believe that every woman who launches a ship- from the Head of State, the Queen, downwards- receives a gift.- 1 will, if the honourable gentleman places the question on notice, see whether I can compile a list of ships which have been launched by Ministers’ wives over the last 3 years or the previous 23 years.

Mr Jacobi:

– Twenty-six years.

Mr WHITLAM:

– I said the last 3 years or the previous 23 years. I am not altogether surprised at receiving a question on this subject. The gift that my wife received is in my office in Parliament House at this moment. I take it that the honourable gentleman who put the question to me will not be particularly surprised if I say that I do not expect that he would have received in the past or ever expect to receive in the future many requests to enter the Prime Minister’s suite. I am very happy to invite him there at the moment. It will be a long time before anybody who sits with him or in front of him will be entering that suite except by my invitation. So accordingly I extend the invitation to anybody who wishes to come. When my wife was approached on the form of gift which she might be prepared to receive or happy to receive she replied that she would like it to be something which symbolised the culture or history of Japan. The shipbuilders responded appropriately by giving her a replica of a famous Japanese temple. It is an ornament which I think would very appropriately repose in the Prime Minister’s Lodge. If, however, our successorsthe Haydens or the Bowens, whoever they arewould prefer that it should not be on display in the Lodge my wife and I shall be very happy to have it in our retirement home for the rest of our days.

page 2650

QUESTION

LEBANON

Mr HURFORD:
ADELAIDE, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

-My question is to the Prime Minister. Has he any information to give to the House about the tragic situation in the Lebanon and in particular to those many fine people of Lebanese origin in Australia who are so worried at this time?

Mr WHITLAM:
ALP

– I share the honourable gentleman’s concern about the situation in the Lebanon. The situation is all the more tragic because the Lebanon has been the most tranquil part of the Levant for generations past. The Lebanon has been a model of a society in which people of different religions- people who have held differing religions for a thousand years in that area- have still been able to respect each others views, to prosper among themselves and to provide commercial and cultural services abroad to an extent that no other country in that region has been able to provide. Moreover, many Australians, not only those of Lebanese or Arab origin, “have come to appreciate in recent years the opportunity to visit one of the most compactly beautiful countries in the world.

The Australian Embassy in Beirut is now suggesting to Australian citizens in Lebanon who seek the Embassy’s advice that they consider leaving Beirut unless they have overriding reasons for remaining. If the fighting in Beirut gets much worse the Embassy may have to make a more general recommendation. I hope that Australian citizens in Lebanon will give heed to the Embassy’s advice. While the Embassy will do what it can to assist Australian citizens in whatever circumstances may develop, and we have been looking at possible arrangements for some time, it is clearly better for Australians to make their own plans in good time and while circumstances allow.

Mr MacKellar:

– Would the Prime Minister table the documents?

Mr Whitlam:
Mr Malcolm Fraser:

– Under the Standing Orders it has to be claimed that a document is confidential if it is not to be tabled. It has not yet been claimed that this document is confidential.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Does the Prime Minister claim that the document is confidential?

Mr WHITLAM:

OVERSEAS LOAN RAISINGS Mr MALCOLM FRASER-My question is directed to the Treasurer. I refer to the fact that the Treasurer presumably has studied in particular detail the Government’s files in respect of overseas loan raisings. Is he prepared to give his personal assurance that all relevant documents relating to this issue have been made available to this Parliament?

Mr Whitlam:

– They are meeting at 1.30 to make up their minds.

Mr HAYDEN:
ALP

– Yes. These matters occurred before I became Treasurer. I suggest that the Leader of the Opposition puts his question on notice. I also suggest that if he is going to be guided by the advice of the National Country Party, as he so proudly proclaims, he should look at the latest opinion polls. He is down 18 points in about one month after receiving advice from Mr Anthony. I think he ought to look for better issues.

page 2651

QUESTION

EARLY CHILDHOOD SERVICES PROGRAM

Mr INNES:
MELBOURNE, VICTORIA

– I address my question to the Minister for Manufacturing Industry, who assists the Prime Minister in respect of early childhood services. Is he able to give the House any information on the effect of delay in the passage of the Budget on the Government’s early childhood services program?

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
Minister for Manufacturing Industry · KINGSFORD-SMITH, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-The delaying of the Budget will have serious effects on the childhood program. Firstly, the Commission cannot be established because there would not be any appropriation for it. Secondly, there will be some 6000 teachers not paid. There are 185 000 children already getting the benefit of this program and that benefit will cease if this money is not made available. In addition, there are some 1000 capital projects which have been approved. A substantial number of these building projects already are under way and many of them are in the design stage. Therefore we can see that it will have a very serious effect on the building industry. We promised to fund all the State governments next year to the extent of 75 per cent of their approved costs. We are now in the position of having to tell the Premiers that we cannot continue that obligation. It is a most serious matter and it is affecting every child under the age of five.

page 2651

QUESTION

HONOURABLE MEMBER FOR LALOR

Mr ANTHONY:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Is the Prime Minister aware of statements last week by the honourable member for Lalor that the Prime Minister’s attitude to him had been totally unjustified, totally unfair and totally unreasonable? Will the Prime Minister re-state to the House that his action against the honourable member was totally justified, totally fair and totally reasonable?

Mr WHITLAM:
ALP

– I gather that the right honourable gentleman is relying on some programs on Channel 9, the repeat network. I have previously answered a question on this matter and I spoke on it on 9 July. I refer the right honourable gentleman to both statements.

page 2651

QUESTION

HOSPITAL FACILITIES

Mr BENNETT:
SWAN, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

-My question is directed to the Minister for Health. I note that under the Government’s hospitals development program increasing emphasis is being given to the provision of hospital facilities in outer metropolitan suburban areas. Could the Minister inform me and the House of the areas currently being given priority and what steps are being taken to meet the hospital requirements of new and developing outer suburbs? Further, will the Minister indicate how these plans will be affected by the delay in Supply?

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

– When this Government came to power hospital facilities were badly located. They were too narrow in their purpose and too expensive in operation. There was a gross inadequacy of beds in outer metropolitan areas where population is expanding. As a result of the Australian Labor Party Government’s initiative in introducing the hospitals development program, planning has been advanced for need areas such as Westmead, Campbelltown, Gosford-Wyong, Port Kembla-Shellharbour and Wollongong in New South Wales, Sunshine in western Melbourne and Mount Gravatt in south-west Brisbane.

The Hospitals and Health Services Commission has identified other areas of need which still have to be negotiated with the States and brought to their attention for planning. These include peripheral areas of Perth, north and west Melbourne, south Sydney and south Brisbane. The eastern shore of Hobart will also achieve a higher priority because of Australian Government help. These projects would inevitably be delayed by a Liberal-National Country Party government. They would not have the priority this Government will give them.

The Leader of the Opposition has indicated in both his federalism and company tax proposals that he favours a laissez-faire approach to budgeting. He would court the private sector and cut back the growth of specific purpose funds to the States. This would seriously curtail the Federal Government’s role in hospital planning and development and support private hospitals in preference to public hospitals. While waiting with bated breath for another slip of the honourable member for Hotham’s tongue from which to piece together the Opposition’s health policy, this is the only conclusion we can draw. This laissez-faire formula is short-sighted and it would fragment our Federation. The Fraser federalism formula would be a great leap backward in meeting Australia’s health care needs. The Australian Government has a responsibility to help provide fairly distributed and accessible health facilities for all Australians, not just those fortunate enough to live in affluent, established suburbs where most outer city hospitals were built before this Government came to power and launched a national hospitals and health services commission. If Australians were beguiled into buying a Liberal-National Country Party government such a government would downgrade public health facilities as part of its incestuous romance with the private sector. It would favour private practitioners and institutions and scarcity and accessibility for the rich before the sick. The overall health care available to the average Australian would suffer from just one more example of the Opposition’s well established elitism.

Our joint hospitals works councils which are now operating smoothly in every State have cemented Federal-State relations. We allocated $108m this year to develop public hospitals and committed ourselves to at least the same sum for further years, while the previous Government had no program of hospital development. Our record could never be matched by the Opposition on its previous form or on its platform.

Mr Graham:

- Mr Speaker, may I ask for the withdrawal of the phrase ‘incestuous romance’. It is highly offensive and grossly vulgar. I believe that the Minister should withdraw it.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I am not aware that the Minister referred to the honourable member for North Sydney.

page 2652

QUESTION

BUDGET BRIEFING

Mr Eric Robinson:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

-I ask the Treasurer: Is it a fact that the Government has in previous years allowed representatives of employer organisations who have been traditionally expected to make public comment on the Budget into the pre-Budget lock-up with media representatives in the various capital cities? Why is it that on the morning of the Budget this year an official of the Sub-Treasury informed the Chamber of Manufactures in Brisbane that the representatives of employer organisations were to be specifically excluded from the lock-up this year? Did the Treasurer issue that directive? How does he reconcile it with the decision to give the President of the Australian Council of Trade

Unions and the Australian Labor Party a special early afternoon briefing without the security of the lock-up?

Mr HAYDEN:
ALP

– I am not sure whether they were or were not excluded. I will find out and I will let the honourable member know. I will put this information in the record of the Parliament. There were problems this year as a result of the increased numbers of people claiming to be representatives of various bodies who wanted to be included in the lock-up. This increase applied certain pressures on the amount of space available. That is the answer to that part of the question.

I do not retreat at all from what I have done in arranging the pre-Budget briefing for the President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions. I make no apologies for it. I am encouraged by the editorial in the Sydney Morning Herald yesterday which endorsed what I have done. It was not a matter of briefing the President of the ACTU so that he could be articulate on the Budget for the sake of some sort of fixed position debate on the media later that night but as a matter of great national responsibility. If we were not to restrain the push on the wage front the economy would have been irretrievably undermined. Mr Hawke’s role there has been outstandingly successful. It has been of great value to this community.

The point which people in the Opposition ranks have lost sight of is that the purpose of trying to achieve restraint- we seem to be successfully achieving it- on the wages front was to benefit the corporate sector or the private sector of the economy. If there is any doubt about that honourable members may discard my words and look at the words of the Leader of the Opposition. In his reply to the Budget, in roughly 8 pages of Hansard, he mentioned the need for wage restraint about as many times, indicating that if the economy was to be restored to a viable state there would be a need for the exercise of restraint on the wages front.

I do not retreat at all from what I have done. I believe that it was a wise action. I believe that the community has derived great benefit from it. I believe that the capacity of the economy to recover was greatly reinforced by that action and by the benefits which flowed from Mr Hawke ‘s statement. I am afraid that the capacity of the economy to continue recovering has been undermined gravely by the action of the Opposition in the Senate. I repeat that Mr Hawke contributed a great public service by the way in which he was able to achieve by persuasion widespread wage earner support- trade union support- for what we were trying to do. If there had been misunderstanding about the Budget I am afraid that the economic consequences would have been quite grave and would have shown up early, to the disadvantage of the corporate sector.

page 2653

QUESTION

INCOME TAX: VALUE OF JEWELLERY

Mr LAMB:
LA TROBE, VICTORIA

– Can the Treasurer say in what circumstance capital assets such as jewellery must be valued for taxation purposes?

Mr HAYDEN:
ALP

-I must confess that the Government has looked at this matter. Previous governments for one reason or another- I gather for some sort of personal feeling- did not proceed with the matter. We have noted some technical difficulties. For instance, how is a valuation to be made and by whom is it to be made? To illustrate this point, in the Parliament this week, in a rather confidential and subtle aside, the Minister for Transport pointed out that the wife of a certain person had valued 2 pieces of jewellerybaubles, gifts, from acquaintances for services rendered - at $ 16,000.

Mr Whitlam:

– A mere trifle.

Mr HAYDEN:

-A mere trifle. On the other hand, her husband, in an equally confidential and subtle aside, said that the value of the 2 baubles was less than $1,000. 1 happen to know that someone who works in this House later telephoned him and offered $1,200 for the 2 baubles and he hung up the telephone in the caller’s ear- as Ziegler would say, expletives deleted.

page 2653

AUSTRALIAN CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION

Mr SPEAKER:

-For the information of honourable members I present the minutes containing the resolutions agreed to at the meetings of the Australian Constitutional Convention held in Sydney from 3 to 7 September 1973 and in Melbourne from 24 to 26 September 1975.

page 2653

MANUFACTURING POLICIES

Mr WHITLAM:
Prime Minister · Werriwa · ALP

-For the information of honourable members I present Volume I of the report of the Committee to Advise on Policies for Manufacturing- The Jackson Committee. Volumes II, III and IV of the report, containing supportive and statistical material, will be released as they become available.

page 2653

DEFENCE FORCES RETIREMENT BENEFITS BOARD

Mr HAYDEN:
Treasurer · Oxley · ALP

-Pursuant to section 14(2) of the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Act 1 948- 1 973, 1 present the third and final report of the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Board on the administration of Part III of the Act for the period 1 July 1974 to 30 June 1975.

page 2653

APPLE AND PEAR CORPORATION

Dr PATTERSON:
Minister for Agriculture · Dawson · ALP

– Pursuant to section 3 (6) of the Australian Apple and Pear Corporation Act 1973 1 present the annual report on the operation of that Act for the year ended 3 1 August 1 974.

page 2653

INDUSTRIES ASSISTANCE COMMISSION

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
KingsfordSmithMinister for Manufacturing Industry · ALP

– Pursuant to section 45 (4) of the Industries Assistance Commission Act 1973 I present the report of the Industries Assistance Commission for the year 1974-75 together with a statement outlining the action taken during the year 1974-75 on reports made to the Special Minister of State.

page 2653

AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
KingsfordSmithMinister for Manufacturing Industry · ALP

– Pursuant to section 37(5) of the Australian Industry Development Corporation Act 1970-75 I table the 5th annual report of the AIDC for the year ended 30 June 1975.

page 2653

BELMONT SHIRE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

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

– For the information of honourable members I present a report entitled All The People- How Belmont Shire Council, Western Australia Got Funds To Plan Community Facilities For All The People.

page 2653

NORTH WEST TASMANIA WATER SUPPLY

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

– For the information of honourable members I present a report entitled North West Tasmania Regional Water Supply Scheme. Due to the limited number available reference copies of this report have been placed in the Parliamentary Library.

page 2654

NORTHERN TERRITORY HEALTH SERVICES

Dr EVERINGHAM:
Minister for Health · Capricornia · ALP

– For the information of honourable members I present a discussion paper entitled Provision of Health Services in the Northern Territory.

page 2654

DEFENCE FORCES RETIREMENT BENEFITS BOARD

Mr MORRISON:
Minister for Defence · St George · ALP

– Pursuant to section 14 ( I ) of the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Act 1948-73 I present a further supplement to the 25th report of the Defence Forces Retirements Benefits Board on the operation of the Act for the period 1 July 1972 to 30 September 1972 dealing with progress in the final actuarial examination of the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Fund.

page 2654

DEFENCE FORCE RETIREMENT AND DEATH BENEFITS AUTHORITY

Mr MORRISON:
Minister for Defence · St George · ALP

– Pursuant to section 16 (2) of the Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits Act 1 973-74 1 present the third report of the Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits Authority dealing with the general administration and working of the Act for the year ended 30 June 1975.

page 2654

LEISURE

Mr STEWART:
Minister for Tourism and Recreation · Lang · ALP

– For the information of honourable members I present a report entitled Leisure- A New Perspective, together with a statement by me relating to that report.

page 2654

HOUSING LOANS INSURANCE CORPORATION

Mr STEWART:
Minister for Tourism and Recreation · Lang · ALP

– Pursuant to section 39(3) of the Housing Loans Insurance Act 1965-73 I present the annual report of the Housing Loans Insurance Corporation for the year ended 30 June 1975 together with financial statements.

page 2654

POVERTY INQUIRY

Mr STEWART:
Minister for Tourism and Recreation · Lang · ALP

– For the information of honourable members I present the second main report of the Australian Government Commission into Poverty entitled Law and Poverty in Australia. This report has just been received by the Government and is still in manuscript form. Arrangements have been made for it to be printed as quickly as possible, but printed copies are not likely to be available until early next year.

Because of this and the interest in the reports of the Poverty Commission the report is being tabled in manuscript form. So that people will have immediate access to it, I have arranged for manuscript copies to be placed in the Parliamentary Library, in each State Library and in the Australian National University in Canberra. In addition, the report can be seen at the offices of the Commission of Inquiry into Poverty in Melbourne, Sydney, Adelaide and Brisbane.

page 2654

DARWIN CYCLONE TRACY RELIEF FUND

Mr KEATING:
Minister for Northern Australia · Blaxland · ALP

– For the information of honourable members I present the report on the Darwin Cyclone Tracy Relief Trust Fund for August 1975. Due to the limited number available reference copies of this report have been placed in the Parliamentary Library.

page 2654

HOUR OF MEETING

Motion (by Mr Daly) agreed to:

That the House, at its rising, adjourn until 11 a.m. on Tuesday next.

page 2654

STATES GRANTS (UNIVERSITIES) BILL (No. 2) 1975

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

Second Reading

Mr BEAZLEY:
Minister for Education · Fremantle · ALP

– I move:

The main purpose of this Bill is to make adjustments to the approved program of grants to State universities for the 1973-75 triennium to take account of variations in costs over and above those which were allowed for when the program was adopted in 1972. For many years it has been the practice to provide supplementary grants to meet the cost of increases in academic salaries. When the Australian Government assumed full responsibility for the funding of universities and abolished tuition fees, it entered into an arrangement with the universities which extended this principle to cover other salary and non-salary costs. The additional funds proposed in this Bill amount to $22.2m and relate to movements in costs which have occurred since the adjustments made in legislation enacted in the last session.

Honourable members will be aware that, as a consequence of the general economic situation, the Government has decided to restrict new capital expenditure in the 1 975-76 financial year. Accordingly, it has decided not to proceed with a limited number of building projects which were included in the 1973-75 triennial program but which have not yet gone to contract. Details of these projects are contained in the report by the Universities Commission entitled Recommendations for 1976 which was tabled in the Parliament on 14 October 1975. Amendments are therefore proposed in this Bill to reduce the grants available for these projects to the level of funds already spent for planning of the projects; where no expenditure has occurred the projects have been deleted from the Principal Act. The reduction in expenditure amounts to $ 10m.

During 1974 a fire occurred in the Clinical Science Building at the Royal Brisbane Hospital and caused damage to a teaching hospital project of the University of Queensland. Since the Australian Government has assumed responsibility for funding of the university projects, it also has accepted the responsibility of compensating universities for losses of this nature. Consequently, an amount of $38,920 has been provided in the Bill for that university.

In summary, the effect of this legislation is to increase the funds available to State universities in the 1973-75 triennium to $1,1 64m compared with the program of $894m which was originally adopted. I wish the Bill a speedy passage through the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr Wilson) adjourned.

page 2655

APPROPRIATION (URBAN PUBLIC TRANSPORT) BILL 1975

Bill presented by Mr Charles Jones and read a first time.

Second Reading

Mr CHARLES JONES:
Minister for Transport · Newcastle · ALP

– I move:

This Bill seeks to appropriate funds for payment to the States to cover the Australian Government share of cost increases on projects already approved under the Urban Public Transport Agreement. The amount to be appropriated is $2.5m. This amount is in addition to $71.91m which was appropriated by the States Grants (Urban Public Transport) Act 1974 and $66.1 lm appropriated by the Appropriation (Urban Public Transport) Act 1974. This brings the total of Australian Government financial assistance available to the States to $ 140.5m for the improvement of public transport in our major cities. The Urban Public Transport Agreement provides for the Government to meet its share of cost increases. The Agreement provides not only for normal escalation through increases in material and labor costs but also for increases resulting from variations in the works of approved projects. The amount of $2. 5m will enable the Government to meet its obligations under the Agreement on projects which have either been completed or are due for completion in 1975-76.

During this year’s Budget preparations the Australian Government was forced to make some difficult decisions. We were placed in the position of cutting many of our worthwhile programs. Under these circumstances the Australian Government decided it would be unable to support the commencement of any new projects under the Urban Public Transport Agreement. An amount of $40.3m is included in the Budget Estimates to meet the Government’s commitment to projects approved in the previous 2 years of the program. When added to the $2.5m for escalation this brings the total Budget allocation for this year to $42.8m.

Before honourable members opposite start talking about cuts in the program, we should take a look at the facts of the matter. In 1973-74, the States spent $ 1 8.5m on the 1 973-74 program, our share of which was $ 12.3m. Because the enabling legislation had not been passed, no payments were able to be made in 1973-74 but the States showed their faith in responsible government by spending in anticipation of the Australian Government’s eventually being allowed to pass the legislation which authorised the payment of its contributions. Last year the States spent $49.5m on approved projects in both the 1973-74 and 1974-75 programs and the Australian Government contributed $33m towards that expenditure. This year we have made available $42.8m for those programs, so there are no cuts to existing programs.

The reason the legislation was held up in 1973-74, preventing payments from being made, was the double dissolution of Parliament in April 1974. I have some figures which indicate just how much the States have overestimated their capabilities to spend money in the early years of the program. In 1974-75 the Australian Government provided $67. lm, which included carryover from 1973-74, but the States were only able to attract grants of $45.3m. The Government’s overriding aim is to improve the standard of living of the people of Australia. In a context where inflation and unemployment can threaten the standard of living of all Australians, the Government must look closely at the position of efficient economic management against its social role and seek an effective path between the two. The Government has chosen the most equitable path in this situation. Even without new funds being provided and with performance on some projects lagging, there will still be major steps forward in urban transport improvements this year. The Australian Government assistance of $42.8m will enable a number of major projects to proceed uninterrupted this year and several significant projects will be completed.

In Sydney, the contract for the supply of 106 double-decker suburban rail cars when completed this financial year will have involved expenditure of more than $13m of Australian Government funds. The widening of the Glenbrook tunnel has been completed. In Melbourne there are 2 major rail upgrading projects due for completion: Duplication of the SunshineDeer Park West line and quadruplication of the South Kensington-Footscray line. These involve about $2m of Australian Government funds this year. This will bring the total of Australian Government expenditure when completed to over$5.5m.

In Brisbane, sufficient funds have been allocated to enable the railway electrification program to continue at 5 times the rate of expenditure of last year. We have also provided sufficient funds for Queensland to continue construction of the Merivale Street railway bridge across the Brisbane River, a project which will cost $ 17m, two-thirds of which will be provided by the Australian Government. In Adelaide we will see the continuation of the Christie Downs railway extension and duplication project. In Perth, a number of projects have already been completed including the Adelaide Terrace bus lane and a bus transfer station at Rockingham. Bus transfer terminals at Kwinana and Innaloo will be completed this year. In Hobart, funds have been provided for the continuation of existing contracts for the purchase of 96 new buses at an approved cost of $3. 6m. These contracts should be completed in 1976-77 and involve an Australian Government contribution of $2.4m. In fact, in each State capital we will see either new railway rolling stock or buses, all with the financial assistance of this Government.

In addition to financing the projects I have mentioned, we are considering proposals from the States to fund other significant projects this year from within the Budget allowance. At a special meeting of Transport and Road Ministers in Sydney on 29 August, I advised State Ministers that I would be prepared to consider such proposals. This will enable the States to re-assess their priorities in 1975-76 and will provide breathing space to enable them to catch up on those projects which have fallen behind. At the same time, the States will have the opportunity to re-allocate their share of 1975-76 funds to projects of particular significance, especially to rolling stock and bus acquisitions. I challenge honourable members opposite to say that they would have given more to the States for urban transport. Let them speak of their record, a record of 23 years in which not one cent was provided for urban transport improvement. The sorry state of urban transport in capital cities is a monument to their neglect.

Our initiatives in the field of urban public transport are not restricted to financial assistance to the States for capital improvements. We have several other programs. Because of the additional planning burden placed on the States by the capital assistance program, the Government also decided that it was appropriate to assist the States on planning and research projects. This program was first introduced under the Urban Public Transport (Research and Planning) Act 1974, under which $340,000 was paid to the States last year in respect to projects commenced in 1973-74. The most significant project initiated under this program was the inner city Bee Line Bus service in Adelaide. A 12-month demonstration of this line was undertaken and during this period the services now attracted a daily patronage of 4500 riders. This is certainly attracting people back to public transport.

The research program is now incorporated under the Transport (Planning and Research) Act 1974 which appropriated $26m for payment to the States on roads and urban transport planning and research. Last year under this program we paid the States a total of $5.5 lm which was $ 1.80m going to New South Wales; $ 1.41m to Victoria; $0.55m to Queensland; $0.89m to South Australia; $0.7 lm to Western Australia; and $0.1 5m to Tasmania. This year we expect $ 10.72m to be paid to the States, which will be $4.23m to New South Wales; $2.73m to Victoria; $ 1.34m to Queensland; $1.1 5m to South Australia; $0.97m to Western Australia; and $0.30m to Tasmania. This program recognises the major need for more sophisticated planning and research into roads and urban transport. In this year’s program, provision is made for the acquisition of an experimental electric bus to operate on the Bee Line service.

As I foreshadowed in introducing the Transport (Planning and Research) Act 1974, the combining of roads and urban transport planning and research under the one piece of legislation was a forerunner to a combined capital assistance Bill. Honourable members will recall that the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) announced at the June 1974 Premiers’ Conference that we would be introducing legislation which would bring together capital assistance on roads and urban transport. The Prime Minister stated that it was proposed to legislate 18 months in advance of the legislation coming into operation in order to assist the States with their forward commitments. Unfortunately it is now not possible to meet this deadline and it will be the Autumn session of 1976 before the legislation is introduced. One factor that has contributed to this delay is the desire of the Australian Government to give all interested parties an opportunity to comment on the proposed arrangements. If meaningful comments are to be made, however, the basic information must be freely available. Consequently I will be releasing the Bureau of Transport Economics reports on resource allocation and on urban public transport investment and the Bureau of Roads report on road needs as soon as they become available. In addition, I will table and widely circulate a Green Paper which will examine the policy alternatives and administrative arrangements that could be adopted for the new legislation.

Of course, my commitment to release these reports and papers assumes that funds are available to meet the cost of printing. In these incredible times that may well prove to be an unjustified assumption. Following the release of these documents, views will be sought from State and local governments, the transport industry and from users. The Australian Government sees this initiative as a further step in the development of co-operative planning arrangements with the States. It could be that the principle adopted in the current urban transport arrangements whereby the Australian Government is given representation on a State body concerned with the forward planning and development of policies relating to urban transport could be extended. Perhaps similar bodies concerned with planning and policies of transport outside urban areas could also be established. For our part I will be looking for means to provide for States contributions into the development of policies for the national roads network.

Turning to the development of the Australian urban passenger train, honourable members will recall that in excercising Budget restraint we decided to defer proceeding to stage 3 of the project which provided for the design and construction of a prototype. At the 29 August meeting of Transport and Road Ministers, I explained that there would be no Australian Government funds to meet new commitments for the time being, but that funds had been provided to meet commitments that already existed. This project is another example of co-operation between the Australian and State governments. Consequently I proposed to the State Ministers that we should continue to co-operate throughout this period of financial restraints. This co-operation would enable the continuation of the project ‘in house’ without creating any new commitments prior to the commencement of stage 3.I am pleased to say that the State Ministers agreed to the continuation of support for the project.

Another initiative aimed at improving urban public transport is the development of a standard urban passenger bus. Prompted by the number of different buses being purchased under the urban public transport improvement program and the substantial delays in the delivery of these buses, the Department of Transport along with State and private operators and unions, have examined the possibility of development of a standard bus specification. To date, 2 highly successful seminars have been held at which a draft specification was discussed. The seminars’ recommendations were submitted to transport and roads Ministers and approved at their August meeting. Discussions are currently being broadened to include bus manufacturers and a further meeting has been arranged for 3 December. I expect the standard bus exercise to lead to the development of a more comfortable and technically improved urban passenger bus. This bus may prove to be less costly than continuing current practice of placing orders for buses overseas. That is another example of cooperation between the States, and industry as well, with this Government, co-operation for which we are grateful.

As a complement to the Urban Public Transport Improvement Program, the February 1975 meeting of the Australian Transport Advisory Council resolved that my Department should organise a seminar on the marketing of urban transport. The prime objective of the seminar is to bring together public transport operators, representatives from consumer organisations and delegates from marketing organisations to examine methods that could be used to ‘sell’ public transport in Australian cities. About 100 people are expected to attend. The seminar was to be held in Melbourne 24-26 November. The deferment of consideration of the Appropriation Bills by the Senate, and the consequent uncertainty of the availability of funds to the Australian Government, has forced me to instruct my Department to postpone the seminar until 29-31 March 1976.

Mr Reynolds:

– What a pity.

Mr CHARLES JONES:

-That is perfectly true. This is just another instance of blatant disregard for the administrative process by the Opposition in its unjustified and senseless action in falling to pass the 1975-76 Budget.

In conclusion, there was a twofold basis for the Government’s decision to limit new appropriations to $2. 5m for escalation and variations and to provide $40.30m out of funds already appropriated. On the one hand, States have been unable to spend the funds which had been made available to them; and on the other, there has been budgetary restraint. Notwithstanding budgetary restraint, we have offered States the opportunity to spend the allocated funds in thenbest interests. I commend the Bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr Nixon) adjourned.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

- (Mr Keith Johnson)- The question now is that the adjourned debate be made an order of the day for the next day of sitting.

Mr Bourchier:

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

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Can the honourable member not wait until I have put the question to the House?

Mr Bourchier:

– I am sorry, yes.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Those of that opinion say aye, to the contrary no. I think the ayes have it.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 2658

ROADS ACTS AMENDMENT BILL 1975

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– I call the honourable member for Bendigo on a point of order.

Mr Bourchier:

– I move:

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– I called the honourable member on a point of order because he had stood earlier and sought to take a point of order. The honourable member is now trying to move a motion. The honourable member should have said that when he stood to take the point of order. He will resume his seat.

Bill presented by Mr Charles Jones, and read a first time.

Second Reading

Mr CHARLES JONES:
Minister for Transport · Newcastle · ALP

– I move:

The main purpose of this Bill is to provide an additional $64m in Australian Government financial assistance to the States for road works in 1975-76. The Bill also increases the quota of matching expenditure which the States are required to make under the roads legislation approved by this Parliament in 1974. This increase in State quotas will equal in percentage terms the increase proposed in Australian Government grants. Finally the Bill will also amend the 1974 roads legislation to allow the States a slight but necessary additional measure of flexibility in transferring funds between the road categories specified in the legislation.

The measure now before the Parliament amends 2 Acts, the National Roads Act 1974 and the Roads Grants Act 1974. Of the additional $64m to be provided by the Australian Government, $23m will go to national roads. The remaining $41m is to be made available for use by State governments in accordance with the Roads Grants Act 1974. Funds provided under the 1974 roads legislation cover both urban and rural roads and benefit both State and Local Governments. The total increase proposed for 1975-76 represents a rise of about 17.8 per cent over the previous year. This is in line with the overall increase in State works and housing programs accepted by the State Premiers at the June Premiers Conference. In view of the current budgetary situation it is an increase which I think even members of the Opposition will have to agree would be hard to better, unless of course they wanted to make irresponsible promises.

The roads legislation enacted by the Australian Government in 1974 is a genuine attempt to allocate available funds to roads in accordance with needs rather than in accordance with the amount of pressure brought to bear by interest groups. For the first time the Australian Government has been placed in a position where it can ensure that roads are considered as part of our national transport network. We make no apology for insisting on a greater degree of control of Australian Government funds than was done previously. Road improvements should be compatible with other Government objectives as well as with the development of other transport modes.

In spite of the generous provision for roads in the 1974 legislation, the real value of the 1975-76 program is now inadequate through the effects of cost increases. The roads industry has been beset by some high cost increases which could not be foreseen. Direct and indirect labour costs account for about 60 per cent of road costs. Some of the awards for major employment groups in the roads industry increased by as much as 33 per cent in a 12-month period. A major material component in road construction is bitumen which is derived from imported crude oil. At one stage the price of imported oil products increased by 80 per cent over a 12-month period. It is important to keep in mind also that Australian Government assistance for roads amounts to between 36 per cent and 40 per cent of the total roads program.

We have taken a number of steps to counteract the effect of these very sharp increases. An extra $30m was provided directly for roads in 1974-75 following the discussions with the State Premiers in February this year and a part of a special unallocated grant of $40m which was agreed at that meeting was also used by State governments for road works. An analysis of Regional Employment Development scheme projects approved in 1974-75 showed that amounts of the order of $25m went to roads or related projects. Grants to local governments from the Grants Commission have been another significant boost. In 1974-75, rural local government councils received $30.6m from the Grants Commission, of which an estimated 70 per cent is understood to have gone to road works. In 1975-76, rural councils will receive $46.6m from the Grants Commission- an increase of 52 per cent- and it is expected that 70 per cent will again be used for roads.

Therefore, it is beyond dispute’ that the Australian Government is facing its responsibilities in this area. I regret to say that the same thing cannot be said, certainly with regard to rural local roads, in the case of a number of State governments. There has been a continual barrage of criticism by these State governments. But what they have been doing is evading their responsibilities by trying to make out that every slow-down or job lost in roads has been because of alleged cut backs on funds by the Australian Government.

The Australian Government announces its allocation of funds for each category. But some States go to quite extraordinary lengths to avoid revealing their financial allocations, in particular, for roads in local government areas.

Mr Reynolds:

– That is true.

Mr CHARLES JONES:

-My word it is true. I have had some information. For example, in New South Wales the State Minister has revealed his Government’s spending on rural local roads, and there the level was a low $1.4 million in 1974-75, compared to $ 16.87m allocated for rural local roads by the Australian Government.

I am gravely concerned at prevailing State attitudes to road financing. National highways were mainly classified as rural arterial roads under the previous Commonwealth Aid Roads Act. When the Australian Government accepted full financial responsibility for national highways, very substantial amounts of State funds should have been released for other roads. This amount is estimated to be of the order of $80m in 1975-76. This includes an estimated $31m saving by New South Wales, $ 17.3m by Victoria, $12m by Queensland, $12m by South Australia, $6m by Western Australia and $4m by Tasmania. However, it would appear that State governments have been allocating these substantial funds almost exclusively to their own road authorities while local governments have been left to fend for themselves.

In some States, there has been deliberate ma- .nipulation of road funds in a disgraceful effort to win cheap political advantage. For example in Queensland, prior to the State election late last year and again early this year, hundreds of men employed on road projects were either sacked or threatened with lay-offs because the Queensland Government withheld funds for local government and arterial roads. The Queensland Government claimed it was forced to do this because the Australian Government had not made available funds for roads.

Mr Nixon:

– You are copying their tricks. You are doing exactly the same thing.

Mr CHARLES JONES:

-I was able to prove conclusively at a meeting of the Queensland Local Government Association in Brisbane on 14 March attended by the Queensland Roads Minister as well as myself that in all but 2 cases claims by the Queensland Government on the Australian Treasury for funds for roadworks were settled within 7 days. Where there was a delay of more than 7 days, it was because the Queensland Government was claiming in excess of its pro rata monthly allocation. It is a pity that the honourable member for Gippsland (Mr Nixon) had not waited for the whole of the story. The trouble with the boys from the National Country Party is a very simple one and that is, that they are not prepared to face up to the facts of life

Let us look at what is happening to State funding from another angle; that of State quotas. The Australian Government provided an additional $30m for 1974-75 with no corresponding requirements for States to increase their quotas. Naturally, there was no complaint from any of the States about this. But when I announced after the Budget that State quotas would be increased in proportion to the proposed Australian Government increase of $64m or 17.8 per cent the States claimed that they were being too rough. When I discussed this matter with State Roads Ministers, they strongly objected to any increase in their quotas. In other words, the Australian Government should increase its spending on roads, but the States should not be required to help shoulder the extra funds needed for roads.

Would the Australian Government receive any thanks from the States if it agreed to wipe the increase in State quotas? On the basis of the extra $30m given in 1974-75, there is little to suggest that any thanks would be forthcoming. After the allocation of the $30m, without a proportionate increase required in State spending, the Australian Government was subjected to a continuous barrage of abuse from the States claiming that all their road construction and maintenance problems were the Australian Government’s fault. They would not admit that the problem was their own failure to keep pace with increased costs as the Australian Government was making every effort to do with the funds it provided for roads. Before leaving this question of quotas, I would like to point out that when the Australian Government in mid 1974 decided to cut back road funds because of the overheated state of the economy, the States immediately asked that their quotas also be reduced. The Australian Government agreed readily to that request.

Let me now speak to the main provisions of the Bill. It is divided into 3 parts of which Part I is Preliminary; Part II, or clauses 3 to 8, amends the National Roads Act; while Part III, clauses 9 to 16, amends the Roads Grants Act. The total increase in actual funds for each State for both Acts is as follows:

New South Wales-$ 1 9.9m Victoria-$ 13.3m Queensland- $ 13.2m South Australia- $5.8m Western Australia- $8.8m Tasmania- $3.0m

The detailed schedules, that is clause 8, for national roads categories, and clause 16, for the other roads categories, show how these State totals have been allocated between the various categories. With regard to national roads, clause 4 simply says that the additional amounts contained in the schedules in clause 8 of the Bill are to be added to the existing amounts in similar schedules of the existing Act. The $23m appropriated to national roads is allocated: $ 13.94m for the construction of national highways; $7.95m for the maintenance of national highways, and $1.1 lm for the construction and maintenance of export roads and major commercial roads. Similarly clauses 10 and 16 of Part III appropriate an additional $41m to be expended under the Roads Grants Act. The breakdown of expenditure is as follows:

Construction of rural arterial roads and developmental roads $6.3 lm.

Construction and maintenance of rural local roads $9.29m.

Minor traffic engineering and road safety improvements $0.66m.

Construction of urban arterial roads $ 1 9. 1 3m. Construction of urban local roads $4m. Construction of beef roads $ 1 .6 1 m.

My original basis for discussion with State Ministers was for a pro rata allocation to all categories because inflation affects all categories proportionately. However, in some cases I have agreed to variations from pro rata. One consequence is that some categories in some States receive no increases. I emphasise that this is because of changes requested by State Ministers. Reasons advanced by the States for changes include unavoidable delays in planning and construction programs in the case of export and major commercial roads; the need for increased funds to maintain national highways; and the allocation of minor traffic engineering and road safety funds to other categories to maintain employment.

Clause 15 increases State quotas in proportion to the increased Australian Government grants. Since the increased Australian Government grants are designed to meet cost increases, complementary increases are necessary on the part of the States if a reduction in the total road program is to be avoided, with consequential serious retrenchment of employees. Clauses 6 and 12 allow the States slightly more flexibility in seeking to transfer funds between different road categories within the year on the grounds of higher priority. The only ground for transfer at the present time under the existing Acts is the inability of the State to spend the funds appropriated to a category in that particular year. However, there may be a priority requirement to redirect a portion of the funds and the amendment meets this need. The amendment therefore allows the States to specify the amount to be varied.

In conclusion, the Government is taking the steps necessary to avoid serious employment consequences. Rural areas would be particularly hard hit because the roads industry is one of the bigger employers of labour and there are relatively few alternative employment opportunities. The current depressed level of rural incomes is of course already a serious problem in country areas. It is, in the view of this Government, essential therefore that the Parliament agree to the proposed increase in financial assistance to the States. I commend the Bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr Nixon) adjourned.

page 2661

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Suspension of Standing Orders

Mr BOURCHIER:
Bendigo

– I move:

That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the honourable member for Bendigo moving a motion to suspend notices S to 7, Government Business, until after Order of the Day No. 1, and so enable private members -

Motion (by Mr Daly) proposed:

That the honourable member for Bendigo be no longer heard.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

- (Mr Keith Johnson)- I understand that according to the Standing Orders an honourable member must complete his motion before he can be silenced.

Mr BOURCHIER:

-Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank you. I will have to read the motion again. I move:

That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the honourable member for Bendigo moving a motion to suspend notices 5 to 7, Government Business, until after Order of the Day No. 1, and so enable private members grievance debate to continue.

Motion (by Mr Daly) put:

That the honourable member for Bendigo be not further heard.

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

AYES: 60

NOES: 55

Majority……. 5

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Is the motion seconded?

Mr VINER:
Stirling

-Mr Speaker, I second the motion. The daily program is obviously designed to cut out private members -

Motion (by Mr Daly) put:

That the honourable member for Stirling be not further heard.

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

AYES: 60

NOES: 55

Majority……. 5

Original question (Mr Bourchier’s motion) put.

AYES

NOES

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

AYES: 54

NOES: 61

Majority……. 7

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

page 2663

FAMILY LAW (AMENDMENT) BILL 1975

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

Second Reading

Mr ENDERBY:
CanberraAttorneyGeneral · ALP

-I move:

This Bill seeks to amend the Family Law Act 1975 and the Remuneration and Allowances Act 1 973- 1 975 to provide for increases in the salaries and allowances of judges of the Family Court of Australia. The Family Court of Australia is created by the Family Law Act 1975, which was passed by the Parliament earlier this year. The Act has been proclaimed to come into operation on 5 January 1976, at which date the Court will also begin operations.

The rates of salaries and allowances forjudges of the Family Court, which are prescribed by the Act in accordance with constitutional requirements, have fallen behind the rates for judges of Federal courts of comparable status. This occurred largely because the Family Law Bill occupied so much of the time of both Houses before it was finally passed. Accordingly, a recommendation has been obtained from the Remuneration Tribunal as to the appropriate increases in the salaries, and these have been adopted in this Bill. As honourable members will see in the Schedule to the Bill, the rates recommended for the Chief Judge and for Senior Judges of the Family Court are equivalent to the rates for the Chief Judge and Judges respectively of the Australian Industrial Court. The salaries of other judges of the Family Court have been increased proportionately.

The Bill provides for the new rates of salary and allowances to be fixed in the Remuneration and Allowances Act, along with the rates of salary and allowances of other Federal judges. Thus, when future increases in these rates come to be made, it will be necessary to amend only one Act of Parliament. It is most important that this Bill be passed by Parliament before the end of the current sittings. In the interests of the wellbeing of the Family Court, the status, and therefore the salaries, of judges of the Court must be made such as to attract persons of a high calibre to the Bench of the Court. I commend the Bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr Wilson) adjourned.

page 2663

QUEENSLAND GRANT (PROSERPINE FLOOD MITIGATION) BILL 1975

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

Second Reading

Mr KEATING:
Minister for Northern Australia · Blaxland · ALP

– I move:

The purpose of this Bill is to obtain legislative authority to provide financial assistance to the Government of Queensland towards the cost of construction of flood mitigation works along the Properpine River in North Queensland. The assistance proposed is a non-repayable grant, not exceeding $374,400, representing 40 per cent of the estimated cost of works to protect the town of Proserpine and adjacent valuable sugar-cane farmland from floods of estimated frequency of once in 10 years. The grant by the Australian Government is conditional upon the Queensland Government also contributing 40 per cent of the cost of the works and the Proserpine River Improvement Trust contributing 20 per cent. This apportionment of Federal, State and local authority contributions- 40 per cent, 40 per cent and 20 per cent- is consistent with the Australian Government’s overall approach to the problems of flood mitigation.

Members of the House will recall the extremely serious flooding which occurred over extensive areas of North Queensland in December 1973 and in early 1974. Recognising that those disastrous floods demonstrated the need for an adequate approach to flood mitigation in areas likely to be affected in Queensland, the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) wrote to the Premier early in 1 974 proposing that an investigation should be undertaken directed at the whole problem of flood mitigation in Queensland. The Prime Minister also invited the Premier to submit a State-wide plan on flood mitigation which could be a basis of consideration for Australian Government assistance. The Queensland Premier in response made clear the Queensland Government’s view that one of the most urgent priorities was a flood mitigation scheme for the Proserpine River.

The floods of December 1973 and January 1974 caused such substantial damage to the existing levee system that it immediately became evident that there was an urgent need for restoration works before the onset of the 1974-75 wet season. Indeed, it was apparent that the damaged levee system could not have contained even a modest river flow in the wet season. The Australian Government considered the special situation of the Proserpine River as a matter of urgency and a non-repayable grant of $120,000 was authorised under the Queensland Grant (Proserpine Flood Mitigation) Act 1974 to assist the Queensland Government in meeting the cost of urgent restoration works. It was evident at the time, however, that there was insufficient information available on which to base decisions for construction work and financial assistance for a Proserpine River flood mitigation scheme as a whole. Since then, a detailed investigation of the scheme has been carried out by the Australian Government in accordance with the National Water Policy procedures with the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation providing expert advice on the proposals.

The Proserpine area is one of the most important sugar producing regions in Australia. The town of Proserpine and nearby sugar-cane farms adjoin the Proserpine River and its tributaries. The town and these farms have been afforded some protection against floods by unlicensed levee banks constructed over the years by farmers. In the main, these levee banks were constructed in an ad hoc fashion without full knowledge of overall hydrological implications or engineering practices. Consequently, these levee banks are susceptible to unpredictable failure. Moreover, floodwaters have been prevented by the levee banks from flowing into extensive natural pondages. The problems have been compounded by low natural river capacity downstream from the town of Proserpine.

It is quite clear that, although allowing for completion of the necessary restoration works, the present system of levee banks overall is structurally unsound and inadequate to protect the town and farms. Summed up, assuming no levee failures, the levee bank system is capable only of containing flood flows of an assessed frequency of less than once in 3 years. It has to be recognised that potential points of failures during future floods are still largely unpredictable. The present situation is entirely unsatisfactory. The town and nearby farms must be afforded a greater degree of protection.

The flood mitigation works for which financial assistance is to be authorised under the Bill are set out in the Schedule to the Bill. Briefly, these works consist of river improvement works; construction, reconstruction and realignment of levees; construction of spillways, overflow structures and levees to divert flood flows together with works on diversion channels; and regrading of a road.

The estimated cost of the scheme is $936,000, of which the Australian Government’s contribution, 40 per cent, is $374,400. Construction is scheduled for a period of 3 years. Apart from the value of the scheme from the flood mitigation and safety points of view, it will bring economic and social benefits. It is anticipated that the environmental impact of the scheme will be largely beneficial. In keeping with the Australian Government’s positive approach to flood mitigation, financial assistance is warranted for this scheme. I commend the Bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr Wilson) adjourned.

page 2664

GOVERNMENT BUSINESS

Motion (by Mr Daly) put:

That order of the day No. 1, Government Business, be postponed until a later hour this day.

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

AYES: 60

NOES: 54

Majority……. 6

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

page 2665

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS

Report

Mr CROSS:
Brisbane

-On behalf of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs I bring up the report of the Committee entitled Aboriginal UnemploymentSpecial Work Projects together with the minutes of proceedings.

Ordered that the report be printed.

Mr CROSS:

-I seek leave of the House to make a short statement in connection with the report.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Mr CROSS:

-As Chairman of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs I present a report of the Committee on Aboriginal unemployment with particular reference to the Special Work Projects Scheme which is a scheme funded by the Department of Aboriginal Affairs and designed to provide employment and training for Aboriginals. The Committee restricted its inspection of special work project schemes to New South Wales and visited the central north country towns of Moree, Boggabilla and Narrabri. The Committee also received evidence from the Australian Department of Aboriginal Affairs and Department of Labor and Immigration and from 7 New South Wales State Government organisations.

The Committee’s report highlights the desperate unemployment situation of Aboriginals who are already disadvantaged in the open labour market. At present the percentage of Aboriginals registered for employment is 6 to 7 times higher than for Australians generally. With the wind down of the Regional Employment Development scheme and the reduced allocation of funds for special work projects in the 1975-76 Budget, estimated Aboriginal unemployment will be in the vicinity of 35 per cent of the Aboriginal work force. To correct this depressing situation the Committee has recommended an expansion of the Special Work Projects Scheme, which will involve greater participation by Aboriginal organisations, local government authorities, State government organisations and eligible private employers. The Committee sees merit in a transfer of responsibility for an expanded special work projects scheme from the Department of Aboriginal Affairs to the Department of Labor and Immigration and has recommended accordingly. The transfer of the scheme to the Department of Labor and Immigration will involve a necessary increase in staff in the Aboriginal employment sections of that Department.

Finally, the Committee considered the role of Australian Government departments and. instrumentalities in providing employment and training to Aboriginals and concluded that more active measures should be taken by them and has recommended accordingly. I pay a tribute to the work of my fellow committee members and place on record our appreciation of the staff who have prepared the report for tabling in difficult circumstances.

Mr RUDDOCK:
Parramatta

-I seek leave to make a statement.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Martin:
BANKS, NEW SOUTH WALES

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

Mr RUDDOCK:

-I would like to support the remarks of the honourable member for Brisbane (Mr Cross), who is the Chairman of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs. I was particularly pleased with the recommendations that were made by the Committee in respect of Australian Government departments. I would like to emphasise this aspect of the report in particular. As a member of the Committee I was pleased to see the dedication of and particularly the active role played by officers of the Department of Labor and Immigration and the way in which they solicited support for special work projects from local government and private employers. We made certain comments in the report in relation to the adequacy of the number of officers working in the field. I believe that the departmental staff can achieve adequate results only if they receive support for these types of programs from private individuals, local government and State Government authorities. It is particularly important that the recommendations that a special form of employment be offered to Aboriginals, notwithstanding that they might not meet the employment requirements of the Public Service Board, and that there be a special program to meet their needs and provide for training in the public service field, should be implemented. I commend this aspect of the report to all honourable members because I believe that it is only by example that we will be able to achieve value from programs like this in all areas throughout the country.

page 2666

WOOL MARKETING (LOAN) BILL 1975

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 27 August on motion by Mr Crean:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr SINCLAIR:
New England

-The Wool Marketing (Loan) Bill is a procedural device to ensure that the Australian Wool Corporation is able to sustain its marketing function. The marketing function of the AWC has been a very important part of the function of the support operating within the market since the establishment of the Australian Wool Commission. It has been important that there be significant financial backing in order to ensure that the Corporation is able to sustain and maintain its strength within the market place. There have been very real traumas that have affected the function of the Australian Wool Corporation. Unfortunately it is not just a matter of providing finance that determines the status of the Corporation in the market places of the world. It appears to those of us in the Opposition parties in this chamber and in the other place who have been involved with wool marketing that one of the worst features of the Government’s policy has been the hiatus that developed at the time of the incredible Cabinet decision, which was subsequently reversed by the Australian Labor Party Caucus, to reduce the level of price support. This has a very real impact on what is happening to the level, tenor and sustenance of the market.

Unfortunately the wool industry has suffered serious problems. There is no denying that with the introduction of synthetics, changing fashion patterns, changing market demand and rising costs the wool processors have tried to buy as best they could and relate their product to the fibre that they could sell the best. But in order to sell at best they have found that it has been of advantage to them to have some stability in the price of fibres that they use. It was with that in mind that the Opposition parties gave their very strong support to the level of price support that was announced by the Government for the last wool selling season. Indeed, it was one of those few steps by the Government in agriculture which can be commended. It was a very worthwhile and significant step. But for it to have been frustrated unfortunately undermined the hard won confidence that the market place, wool growers and wool consumers generally had in the Australian Wool Corporation. I regret very much that there are still marked signs of instability in the market because of the insecurity which the Government has generated within the market place as to the capabilities of the Australian Wool Corporation to function effectively in market support.

Dr Gun:

– Caused by your lobbies.

Mr SINCLAIR:

– There is no doubt that the idiotic behaviour of the honourable member for Kingston contributed towards this because it was he and his colleagues within the Labor Party who demonstrably sought to destroy the stability that had been so hard won. Equally there is no doubt that the Australian Wool Corporation not only created stability because of the price support scheme but also generated stability and confidence because of the capability and the quality of the Corporation itself. There is no doubt that the members of the Corporation, which took over from the old Australian Wool Commission and the Australian Wool Board, were looked at by the market as being a body of some stability. When I was Minister for Primary Industry we went through some very real difficulties at a time when the market was depressed and market demand slackened. It was because of the performance and the behaviour of the Corporation as an effective marketing organisation and as a commercially backed organisation that the industry saw in the Corporation a stable body, a permanent body and a body that was achieving its desired end. It is tragic that that incredible decision by the Government completely destroyed that confidence. It is tragic that even now that lack of confidence in the Corporation still lingers. I can assure everybody in the wool industry that, when in government, the Opposition parties will maintain a firm base support figure, that that figure will not go through the type of adjustment imposed on it by the Labor Party, and that, as a result, everyone will be able to feel confident that the Australian Wool Corporation will back the wool market as it has been intended to do.

The second matter in relation to this legislation contains 2 elements. The first is a minor increase in the budgetary allocation for funds -an increase of $6m. Of course, the amount that is to be provided through the Budget totals a significantly greater sum- $80m- but, of that, $74m has been left over from the last financial year. The important thing about this money- I hope that everybody in the community realises it- is that it is not a gift to the wool growing community. The funds are lent at commercial rates. With funds that are lent at commercial rates of interest there is a guarantee that there will be no loss to the exchequer because of the function of the excise charged on wool growers’ proceeds. In other words, although the funds are coming from the Budget they are only a temporary charge on the Budget. Any suggestion that the wool growing industry is becoming subservient to the taxpayers because of the application of this legislation is nonsense. The taxpayers are insulated against costs, against loss, against failure to pay interest rates or against failure to pay capital because of the excise or charge payable on gross proceeds received by the wool growing community. It is most important that everybody in the community- those who are apprehensive about what is said to be the excess dependence of the rural sector on the taxpayer, those in this Parliament, like the honourable member for Kingston who has now left the chamber, who are critical of the function of and support for agriculturerecognises that this scheme will not result in a charge on the taxpayer. The funds are covered completely by charges paid by wool growers. The excise payment will ensure that there is no ultimate loss to the taxpayer.

The second element of the funds provided by this legislation shows an interesting sideline. There are several things that need to be said about this. I refer of course to the guaranteeing of new borrowings by the Corporation from trading banks. It is interesting that the trading banks think so little of the creditworthiness of the Government that they have found it necessary to ask the Government to give legislative authority for the Corporation to give this guarantee. That in itself reflects the absolutely deplorable record of individual Ministers in borrowing here, borrowing there, borrowing behind closed doors, not telling anybody from where they are borrowing or for what they are borrowing and hiding behind illegal Executive Council authority to avoid Loan Council approval. The whole escapade of loan borrowing is reflected in this requirement of the trading banks that, before providing additional funds, they want a Government guarantee of borrowings by the Corporation. Everybody in the Australian community needs to realise that this is just one of the spin-offs of the lack of confidence of the leading financiers in Australia in the credit rating and capabilities of the Government.

It is important that people in the community have an opportunity to recognise that, although Australia’s international reputation and credit rating may be high, when it comes to the little things those who are lending to Government authorities such as the Australian Wool Corporation must now surely be suspicious of the competence of Ministers, the integrity of the Government and its sheer ability to honour any sort of ordinary loan negotiation into which it may enter. Of course it is quite obvious that in the day of the coalition government those guarantees were not required. Indeed, funds borrowed were repaid. Significant profits were made by the old Wool Commission, and the Corporation because of the way in which we gave our backing as a government to their wool marketing activities. The provision of this guarantee obviously reflects the doubt that those who are within the trading banks must have of the Government’s preparedness to back the Corporation and even of the Government’s integrity itself.

It is interesting that there is now to be a fairly significant loan from the trading banks. I believe that it is necessary that commercial borrowings outside the Budget or the general revenues be provided for the marketing activities of the corporation. We completely endorse this approach. Indeed, it was on that premise, and significantly with trading bank funds, that the Wool Commission and its successor the Wool Corporation functioned when we were in government. We see that if there is a corporation that is given government backing and if the people in the community know that the corporation is to function with the government behind it obviously that corporation is able to borrow funds commercially. But again it is a product of this Government’s having completely mismanaged the economy, generating unemployment and higher interest rates leading to record inflation- all these things- that has led to a position where in order for the trading banks to provide funds that in the normal commercial sense they could be expected to provide they have to get a government guarantee to provide them. Again it is a reflection on the capability, the integrity and the competence of the Government that even in small areas statutory corporations operating as the Australian Wool Corporation has operated, are dependent upon getting a government guarantee to do what any normal commercial operation would otherwise have been able to do, to borrow without a government guarantee.

Of course we do not oppose the guarantee but it is essential that people recognise why it is provided. It is provided because the trading banks do not have confidence in the Corporation obviously because of the way the Corporation’s finances have been prejudiced by the Government. The trading banks feel there is no other way for them to be absolutely sure that the Australian Wool Corporation will be able to guarantee the repayment of the money. I think that is very sad. It is an area of real importance.

Some other factors come out of the background behind this legislation. It is of real worry to honourable members in this place who represent wool growing areas as it is to every Australian wool grower to try to look into his crystal ball and see just what lies around the corner. Prices for wool have been a little better over the last 12 months than they were in the preceding period but unfortunately costs are rising at a great rate, and there is that very large stockpile of wool, some 1.8 million bales in store. As we have opened up in this new wool selling season unfortunately the Australian Wool Corporation has been forced at many sales to buy a lot more wool than had originally been thought necessary.

I was delighted to hear this week that the United States of America is expected to move a little more significantly into the wool market. If it does so perhaps that will offset the fall in demand from Japan. But it is important, in fact it is critical, that there is confidence in the Wool Corporation’s activities if there is to be a realisation on that stockpile of wool and if those new markets are to be able to buy wool knowing that the fibre price will be stable. That has been one of the principal criteria that I know members of the trade have stressed when looking at the future. They have looked at the stability of the fibre price and have seen it as an element as important as the price itself. I think that is one of the factors that the Government needs to bear in mind when in future it is setting the base for price support.

I have no doubt that by next year the base will be set by a government of our persuasion. Therefore I think it is perhaps worth while to mention a couple of points about it. My own view is that early consultations need to be undertaken with the Corporation to ensure that there is some understanding of future wool demand trends. There needs to be a recognition of a way by which without depressing the market those stocks of wool that have been acquired can be disposed of. Equally, there needs to be a recognition of the effects of a premature release. I mention a premature release because I have strong reservations about any announcement of the price support level to operate for a new wool selling season before the close of the existing wool marketing season; in other words I believe that it is critical for the wool season to close on a firm note that the market is not undercut by a premature announcement of a change either upwards or downwards prior to the close of that wool selling season. That means that an announcement of the new price support level should be made after the close of the wool selling season in a financial year and before the opening of the new wool selling season.

To do otherwise is to create the uncertainty that would flow if a currency relativity change were announced. A currency appreciation or devaluation is something which must be kept absolutely confidential. Of course there are other areas where confidentiality applies. The Government in setting the wool market support level, as indeed it acted in releasing details of the Budget, seems to have had little regard for this sort of propriety. I think it is unfortunate that there seems to be so little community concern with the impact that this sort of premature release can have, be it an announcement to the director of 2 commerical companies in spite of whatever office he might hold in the afternoon of the presentation of a Budget, or be it an announcement a month or 2 months before the close of a wool selling season of a new price support level. All these things can affect the market place. Any similar action can prejudice the returns payable to growers and can affect the whole of the tone of the market.

There is a problem in knowing just how to dispose of those stocks in hand. We are obviously concerned that there should be a continued capability of wool growers to realise this year’s wool clip. We are concerned that prices should be maintained at a satisfactory level. Unless they are, costs are rising at a rate which will almost deny many growers the ability to survive in wool growing. There are particular problems that pertain to the producers of specialty wools. There are problems that affect those who for various reasons have a particular disability because of distance or the nature of their operation. I am thinking of the impact that increased shearing costs and wage costs have had on places in the far removed areas, the remote areas of Australia where costs of shearing and handling wool are going up at such an enormous rate. There still remain, of course, for Government consideration recommendations that have been made by the Australian Wool Corporation for the marketing of the clip- the marketing plan. These schemes seem to have gone through a period in which the Government said that it would come to a conclusion on them but currently the Government is obviously prepared just to set them to one side. Wool producer organisations are anxious that there should be an early conclusion on the recommendations that have been put before the Government.

I think there are some advantages in the adoption of the marketing plan and we certainly will be looking sympathetically at these marketing proposals from the Australian Wool Corporation when we come into government. But I think that it is not much use in Opposition our corning down and laying a firm detailed policy without having full access to information on the financing proposals that are now applied within the Wool Corporation and indeed in the financing of those stocks of wool and their realisation. I am apprehensive in particular in that sense at the impact that private selling is having on the level of auction sales. Those of us who have been involved in the industry know that, with the price support scheme operating predominantly on wools sold on the auction floor, wools that are sold privately are often sold at a discount below the price support level. Sometimes they are resold at auction and those wools, then being sold by the intermediary, are given a price support.

The difficulty in that area lies in the fact that there is a delay between the delivery of a grower’s wool to store and the payment of the price support money if the wool is sold by auction. When costs are rising and pressures on the wool grower are increasing, it is not unnatural that he tends to go outside the auction system in order to take what advantage he can of immediate cash payments from some other form of selling. It is for that reason that we see some advantage in the marketing plans of the Corporation. Their introduction would have a significant impact on private selling.

We are concerned that any factor which prejudices price stability in the wool market should be examined by the Government and should be offset wherever possible. If this does not happen, we are going to find that wool growing will rapidly become an uneconomic business, and the whole climate of the economy, which for so long has depended on this industry, will be changed, for no longer will the fleece be able to be produced economically and that still major contributor to Australia ‘s export earnings will be significantly reduced. As quantities reduce and the overseas earnings that are generated from sale of the wool are affected, there will be a serious effect on everyone in the community. That of course is the justification for this legislation. Although Australia no longer rides on the sheep’s back, the community still depends to a tremendous degree on the rural sector. It is for that reason that fertiliser bounties, payments that have been made in support of stabilisation schemes and payments that enable the functioning of a price support mechanism in the wool market are justified. Without them many of the price variabilities that flow from market unpredictability and many of the seasonal variations that affect annual production will prejudice the survival of agriculture itself.

It is unfortunate that, while this piece of legislation provides some assistance to enable the Corporation to continue to function, in so many other areas the Government has washed its hands of agriculture, washed its hands of the overseas earnings that agricultural products generate, and has turned its back on what could and should be a continuing contribution to the betterment of individual Australians. There is not a diversity of interest between the man in the city and the man in the country. There is a similarity of interest, and the similarity of interest needs to be interpreted through legislation such as this and legislation in other areas which can help provide sustenance to agriculture in spite of all the problems that beset it.

The Australian Wool Corporation has had some extraordinarily difficult times as a result of the rather incredible decision-making processes on price for which this Government is responsible. It is unfortunate that that uncertainty comes at a time when stockpiles of wool held by the Corporation are high. It is even more unfortunate that in the present climate we have a piece of legislation which, whilst minimally supporting agriculture, is the only piece of agricultural legislation that is coming out of the Budget. It is a piece of legislation which unfortunately covers at the moment a very small part of the total spectrum of agriculture. One would hope that, although the previous Minister for Agriculture is no longer interested in agriculture, the undertaking he gave that the Government would reach a decision before the end of October on a number of Industry Assistance Commission reports is honoured; but that is too much to hope for. This Government demonstrates time after time that neither is it honest in its application of policy nor is it interested in trying to assist those who are in agriculture.

The Opposition supports the legislation and regrets that there are so many reasons why the Australian Wool Corporation needs the sorts of guarantees that the trading banks require. There are many reasons why the Corporation itself, in spite of the assistance given, may well need even more money before the season is over. I conclude by saying that it is absolutely imperative that if there is any shortfall in funds because of buying trends or whatever reason the Government does not hesitate to maintain the support at the base price which has been set for this 12 -month period, for that base price and the stability of the wool industry itself depend entirely upon the Corporation being able to continue to function. One would only hope that the Government has the intestinal fortitude to take a decision in that area even though it seems so loathe to take decisions in so many others.

Mr WHAN:
Monaro · Eden

-The honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair) has covered, as usual, many of the areas of fallacy that the National Country Party of Australia has created in regard to the wool industry. The first thing that needs to be noted about bis reference to instability in the wool market is that, when in office, his Government refused resolutely to initiate a fixed reserve price in the market place. On numerous occasions instability was created in the wool market because of the disagreement that existed between the Country Party and the Liberal Party when in office. We saw many examples of that phenomenon when they were in office over 23 years.

The facts are, of course, that the wool industry for the first time has a firm reference point in the market. It is the height of hypocrisy to criticise this Government for creating instability in the market. As it happens, the wool market is very prone to rumours- and they are easily created. The honourable member for New England has made his contribution here today, but there has been no wool industry Bill calling for guarantees that has not had a clause covering the need to give guarantees to banks when the Australian Wool Commission, the Australian Wool Board prior to the Australian Wool Commission, or the Australian Wool Corporation as it is now has borrowed from the trading banks. To say that we have introduced a new aspect in requiring bank guarantees is quite mischievous and the very fuel on which instability in the wool industry grows. Again we find the New South Wales Graziers Association fuelling that instability with its requests for devaluation of the dollar. In economic circumstances which did not point to the need to devalue the dollar, this rumour was floated not by the Government but by a section of the industry. When we talk about instability it is very important that we realise how vulnerable the wool industry is to this type of rumour. Today we have witnessed one contribution to this rumour-mongering and recently, through the request of the New South Wales graziers, we witnessed another contribution.

I will leave for the moment some of the other aspects that the honourable member for New England raised in his speech because I would like to cover them in more detail in my own speech. The present Bill provides additional funds for the continuation of the buying operations of the Australian Wool Corporation. In essence, it guarantees new borrowings of $70m from the trading banks. The guarantee here, I reemphasise, is in no way unique. Naturally the trading banks, the private enterprise operations, would need some form of guarantee from a statutory corporation that its funds would be covered in the event of a major disaster. One can never rule out such a disaster in a commodity market such as the wool market. So these guarantees are not unique.

The second aspect of the Bill is that it appropriates $80m from Consolidated Revenue to the Wool Corporation in the form of a loan to sustain its marketing operations in the market place. We have a very strong commitment, one of the strongest commitments ever given to the wool industry by a government, to underwrite the market at 250c for 2 1 micron wool clean. This is stronger in this season than it was in the last season because it is an open-ended commitment. In the previous season a limitation was inherent in the amount of money appropriated to the Wool Corporation. For the first time in the history of Australia a government has given an open-ended commitment to support the market at 250c clean.

We heard from the honourable member for New England about the instability that is created in the market. There is no ground whatsoever this year for that instability. There would be grounds for instability with the formula which he proposed- that the price be reviewed at the end of each season. We should consider the sort of speculation that would take place if high stocks were held by the Australian Wool Corporation, demand slackens and the funds look like skyrocketing through the ceiling. Any government has the responsibility of managing the Budget in such a way as to curtail expenditures. The honourable member for New England said that in no circumstances should an announcement be made before the end of the season. If the Government sees fit to support the market at a firm price it could easily curtail a great deal of speculation in the market by making early announcements. To establish a firm position on this is, I believe, quite dangerous. We have to play the market as we see it. We have to look at the market and make judgments as to what is sensible and sane in maintaining a sensible level of demand in the market.

As I said previously, the Opposition, when in government, resolutely refused to provide a floor price. It cannot escape. That was always its position. From time to time the National Country Party made noises which sounded like support. I remember quite vividly the debates in 1965 when the Country Party in the end left it to Sir William Gun to go around the hustings and to sell the idea of a reserve price. Even at that point the Country Party was not prepared to commit itself strongly on the hustings because it knew that it would be beaten, as it subsequently was, by its Liberal partner in the coalition. It is all very well for the Country Party members to use strong words but in the past they have never been supported by their Liberal colleagues in the Parliament. This historical phenomenon will create more uncertainty in the minds of a wool industry which is stupid enough to believe that this coalition would ever come into office than would anything this Government could do or has done.

Last week the average price for 21 micron wool clean in Australia was 253c. That represents a strengthening in the market. The indications are that that strengthening is well grounded. Unlike the quick rise last year, which was mainly fuelled by Japanese demand, we now find a very general base to the competition in the wool market. The market is attracting support from many countries. The indications are that we now have a fairly strongly based increase in demand for wool. Another early warning sign which points to an encouraging price trend is that demand at the moment is concentrated in what is called the skirting end of the market where we have locks, crutchings and oddments which are normally slow movers in the market. Here there has been a revival of demand which is quite significant.

So far as the stock situation is concerned, the Australian Wool Corporation holds 1.8 million bales of wool. To some people that might seem fairly high. From my own experience I do not believe it is a figure about which we need to get too disturbed. The wool industry is characterised by those fluctuations in demand and if we are to supply the market in a fairly even way- more importantly, to supply those types of wool which are in demand- we need to have a fairly sizeable stockpile behind the market; and the Australian Wool Corporation has that stockpile. It seems to me that it is in an extremely powerful trading position in the market and already we are getting indications from overseas merchants that the

Australian Wool Corporation has achieved this position of power in the trading market. We are getting complaints from people whose incomes depend on speculation in the market that their avenues of speculation have been cut off because the stock holding function in the wool market has been transferred to the Australian Wool Corporation. That is a very desirable trend as far as I am concerned, and I am sure that the Government shares that view.

As a consequence of the revival in the demand for wool the need for funds as far as the Wool Corporation is concerned is now rapidly falling and it would appear that the basis which I have mentioned is being set now for a very steady increase in the trading of the wool stocks of the Corporation. This has been enhanced by the fact that the stocks have been spread around the world. Wool stocks are being held in European countries and in the United States. It has turned out that the United States stocks are particularly important because the wool industry in the United States has been asking for the continuity of supply. It needs to have an available supply of wool at a reasonably secure price. It would appear that the fact that the Australian Wool Corporation holds its stocks in the United States has been a contributing factor to the revival of interest in wool in the United States. I have been told by the Australian Wool Corporation that this interest again appears to be strongly based and looks like being the beginning of a strong revival in the consumption of wool in the United States. Indeed the demand for wool throughout the Northern Hemisphere appears to be firmly reviving. Recently as a member of a joint parliamentary delegation I had the pleasure of speaking to Japanese wool interests and they made the point that they had run down their stocks to a very low level. While the expectations which they expressed at that time have not yet been fulfilled, it would appear that the Japanese demand must revive very shortly because they just do not have the stock behind the industry in Japan to meet the normal requirements of the industry.

Another characteristic which is emerging from the Wool Corporation’s operations at the moment is the ability to match the market demand for the types available. There is a whole range of types in the wool industry. There is not one fibre; there are many hundreds of fibres. To be able to meet the demand which is expressed with stocks held by the Wool Corporation is quite a variation on the traditional practice in the wool industry. The supply of wool types to the market is dictated by growth and by seasonal patterns and need not necessarily coincide with the demand for those types. With the stockpile which is held by the Australian Wool Corporation it is now possible to gear the supply of wool types to the market in a fashion that is more in line with the demand expressed by the consumers.

I turn now to the subject of private buying which has traditionally been a very controversial area in the market-place. I do not speak for the Government on this issue; I express my personal views which have been arrived at through long experience in the wool market. Quite frankly, I think private selling is a very healthy aspect of the market-place. Traditionally the people who have criticised private buyers in the market-place have been the wool selling brokers who have a strong vested interest in preserving the auction system. That vested interest stood firmly against the introduction of new technological processes in the industry. That vested interest has meant that the innovations which mean so much to the efficiency of wool marketing have been slowed down. Those innovations should have been introduced at least 2 years ago. Certainly they were feasible 8 years ago. But the vested interest of the wool selling brokers has meant that those innovations not only were not introduced when they should have been but also have been slowed down and have cost the wool industry of Australia thousands of millions of dollars. The main source of opposition to private buying comes from that vested interest.

When we look at the situation we find a simple mathematical equation- that so much wool is demanded by the consuming countries overseas, a part of which flows through the auction system and a part of which flows through the private buying system. If there is a difference between the amount of wool demanded overseas at a price and the amount of wool supplied to the market, it will be left in the hands of the Australian Wool Corporation under the present marketing operation. It does not really matter how much wool is sold through the private buying system. The bit that is left over in the stockpile will be in the hands of the Corporation. If wool growers find that a discount on their market represents a sensible economic judgment, it is their judgment to sell the wool at discount to a private buyer so that they can get their money quickly or can see the wool flow through the system quickly. It is the individual decision of the wool grower if he accepts that discount against the firm price established in the market by the Australian Wool Corporation. All the garbage which is spoken about this type of market operation creating price instability in the market does not bear a superficial examination. If the grower accepts the discount, that is his personal decision.

Sitting suspended from 1 to 2 p.m.

Mr WHAN:

– As I mentioned before(Quorum formed) As I said before, the proposition that private sellers are a destabilising factor in the market can be discounted because the incentive for wool growers to sell to private buyers is purely economic and one in which they see an advantage in being able to get quick money from the private grower. The 250c per kilo support which this Government introduced in the market, and which the Liberal-National Country Party Opposition refused to introduce, provides the stabilising factor simply because it is there. No wool grower will go too far below that price when he sells wool to a private buyer. This of course is the factor that holds the market together.

Let us look at the position now as we move into a strong market when the only strong stockholder is the Australian Wool Corporation. The Corporation is now a trading power in the market and it can compete very effectively against private sellers. It seems that it is in the buoyant market where private sellers will be hard pressed to keep their businesses together. Any private sellers who have the business acumen to go through a period with the Wool Corporation holding the major stocks in a competitive market deserve in my view to stay in the market because of their business experience and the originality they have displayed under very trying business conditions.

The recommendations of the Australian Wool Corporation seem to be a peculiar set of recommendations for the National Country Party to be supporting, emphasising as they do the idea that wool has to be rationed at high prices. The whole crux of the Corporation’s recommendations rests on the idea that wool processors not wool producers should have some insurance in the market place. The wool marketing recommendations, as they emanated from the Corporation, made great play on the idea that when prices were high the Corporation ought to ration wool to its specially selected customers- ration wool not at a price which is as high as in the market place but at a price below the market price. The emphasis in the Corporation’s recommendations was that in order to get continuity of demand it was necessary to provide continuity of supply at a low price. We had an absurd situation coming out of the market mechanism which the Corporation postulated in which the high price market was the prerogative of only those people who might be innovators and who had a real market demand stemming through their operations and that the low price wool should be rationed to other processors who had taken the favour of the Corporation.

I do not see how those recommendations can be defended. Certainly I do not see how they can be defended to wool producers. I am absolutely staggered that the honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair) should stand here and reiterate his support for this sort of proposition. I cannot see how on earth any Party that professes to represent wool growers in this country can defend that sort of proposition to the wool growers of Australia who have come through a very serious slump in wool prices. We must note in this debate that it was the Australian Labor Party in Government which introduced stability into the wool market through a fixed reserve price in spite of the opposition displayed from the Liberal and National Country parties on the issue. I say that with great emphasis because the opposition stems right back to 1965 when the debates were initiated.

Mr BUNGEY:
Canning

-Firstly I would like to comment on several points which were made by the honourable member for Eden.Monaro (Mr Whan). Particularly I would like to comment on his statement that the Government has not added doubt or instability to the wool market. Even the keenest Labor supporter would view the blundering method of determining the floor price level for this season as clearly undermining the confidence of wool growers and of wool users. It can hardly be accepted as an objective statement by the honourable member especially since the level of the reserve price was used for interfactional fighting in the Labor Party- a fight between the Cabinet and Caucus- in order to promote issues within the Party irrespective of the final result as far as wool was concerned. Furthermore this fight was promoted publicly and it certainly could not have added confidence either to wool users or to people processing or holding stocks of wool.

The honourable member for Eden-Monaro is clearly and blatantly wrong when he asserts that the Government has not added an element of uncertainty to the market. One of the greatest contributors to the current instability of the wool market is the fact that the Government took such a long and blundering way of deciding the current reserve price for this season. What worries me even more is that under the current conditions we could well have the same situation- if the Labor Government stays in office until June or July, which is most unlikely- of the Government making the same decision in the same blundering way. What confidence will that give to the wool market, the wool growers or the users, processors or stockists, etc?

I noted in particular that the honourable member for Eden-Monaro ignored one of the most significant points made by the honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair), the Deputy Leader of the National Country Party, who stated that a Liberal-National Country Party government would look sympathetically at the recommendations of the Australian Wool Corporation. That is rather strange when we compare the statement today of the honourable member for Eden-Monaro with his 1972 accusations of delay on the part of the Liberal- Country Party Government when the marketing report was first received. It is also interesting to contrast the remarks of Labor Party members at that stage with their remarks at this stage. The statement made by Senator Wriedt, then Minister for Agriculture, in a publication entitled This Land- Labor’s Rural Program issued in 1974, contrasts directly with the statement today by the honourable member for Eden-Monaro. Senator Wriedt said:

I have already stated publicly that I personally accept the main objectives and broad framework of the Corporation’s proposals. These proposals are significant and have important implications for the future of the Australian wool industry. I can see in the Corporation’s proposals the opportunity for improving the overall efficiency of wool marketing in Australia, a move which will benefit ail wool growers. Many details embodied in the Corporation’s report still need to be clarified. Accordingly, consultations will continue between the Corporation, all wool industry sectors and the Government. Important changes such as these need careful study by all concerned. I would hope that woolgrowers consider very deeply the importance of making changes to wool marketing and the extent to which wool growers are prepared to invest in the efficient marketing of their product.

That statement, I suggest, contrasts vividly with the remarks today of the honourable member for Eden-Monaro.

It is also interesting, when talking about wool, to look at the remarks of the honourable member for Dawson (Dr Patterson), the new Minister for Agriculture, in 1971-72 on the need for marketing reform and the need for acceptance of the wool marketing recommendations of the Corporation. I should like to take just one more point raised by the honourable member for EdenMonaro. He made much play of the fact that this was the first time that there had been an openended agreement with regard to wool support. To some extent this is true. But I ask: What would have been the decision if the market did not look bright at the time that the floor price was set? I am sure that the squabble would have developed even more and there would have been no commitment.

Dr Gun:

– Or less.

Mr BUNGEY:

– As the honourable member for Kingston says, or less. I should also like to contrast those statements made by the honourable member for Eden-Monaro with the statement made by Senator Wriedt in Paris several years ago when he was the Minister for Agriculture. He was speaking on the wheat stabilisation agreement and the open-handedness, as he thought, of the wheat stabilisation scheme at that stage.

The Bill that we are considering is the Wool Marketing (Loan) Bill 1974. It provides for the Australian Government to raise the amount allocated for the Australian Wool Corporation from $350m in all to $356m by way of grants. In effect, this is what was promised in the 1974-75 Budget plus an additional $6m. It provides for loans from commercial sources to be guaranteed by the Government to the limit of $70m. The Bill is significant in that it assures both wool growers and wool users that the Australian Government is prepared to support the market fully and the operations of the Australian Wool Corporation for this season. I want to emphasise the point that it is for this season only. This assurance is vitally needed in view of the Labor Government’s indecision, vacillation and blundering in determining the level of the reserve price to operate for the 1975-76 season. No one associated with the wool industry could discount the damage done to the confidence of all wool using countries in the ability and willingness of the Australian Wool Corporation to hold a firm reserve price level.

The Deputy Leader of the National Country Party in speaking earlier to this Bill pointed out the effect of this blundering exercise. Many of the problems and the current need to buy up to 30 per cent of the current market offerings are probably due to the indecision and lack of confidence inspired by this method of determination of the floor price level by the current Labor Government. It is significant that at this stage the joint Opposition Parties support the reserve price operations of the Australian Wool Corporation. But we have emphasised- the Deputy Leader of the National Country Party has emphasised this point in particular- that we in government would be looking sympathetically at the marketing recommendations of the Australian Wool Corporation. I think we have to look at this stage towards the current situation as being a step in the line- and a desirable step at this stage which is having desirable effects. But we cannot look at it at this stage as the ultimate in wool marketing or in permitting of growers to control the disposal of their own product. It is step one and it should be regarded as step one only.

One point to which I also particularly want to refer was raised by the Deputy Leader of the National Country Party, and that is that the taxpayers are virtually ensured that they will not be bearing any of the losses, if losses do occur of the Australian Wool Corporation. Some of these views, I feel, have been encouraged by certain statements by people in the Australian Labor Party. They use terms such as ‘using taxpayers money’, etc., to support the operations of the Wool Corporation. In effect, the Australian Wool Corporation pays high commercial rates of interest on the loans that have been made available to it by the Government. We have only to look at the Budget to see that the interest paid by the Australian Wool Corporation to the Australian Government will be something like $37.5m this year. Honourable members must realise that this is a significant slug firstly on the Corporation and ultimately on the wool growers. As far as taxpayers are concerned, there is no ultimate charge on the current market support operations of the Australian Wool Marketing Corporation.

I think that one of the greatest dangers to the Australian wool industry at this stage is the rising of internal costs. I should like to quote from a speech made by Mr Ken Clarke, the managing director of the International Wool Secretariat. His speech was reproduced in the Wool News Digest of July 1975. He said:

One of the biggest question marks over wool ‘s future is the capacity of the sheep industry to continue to absorb cost increases. Shearing costs, fuel and fertilizer costs and prices of material and equipment used in wool growing have increased steadily over the years and recently at alarming rates. Woolgrowing properties in Australia have declined in number especially from 1966 onwards as a result of drought and the domestic price decline for wool in the 1969-71 period. Those who remain have been hard put to raise productivity rapidly enough to cope with the cost-price squeeze. To survive, the industry will require continued technological advances and further adjustments in the organisation of farms. If inflationary trends did not abate, if unfavourable price conditions prevailed for any sustained period, survival of the industry could well rest on success in developing less labour-intensive methods of removing wool from the sheep.

The most important thing for us to realise is that wool’s future is not a fait accompli about to happen. It will depend very much on the efforts we make now to enlarge demand, to improve the processing of wool and its end-use performance, to impart new attributes to wool products and to utilise their existing characteristics and possibilities to our best competitive advantage. In short, the future for wool will be very much of the wool industry’s own making, although also dependent in no small measure, on the actions of governments of major wool-exporting countries.

To sum up, wool has no assured place in the future. It must make its place. This place can only be won with sufficient resources, men and money.

We refer particularly in that quotation to the way in which costs have increased.

Mr King:

– The Government ignored it.

Mr BUNGEY:

– Many of the costs are because of Government actions. We all know that the increases in costs borne by wool growers have been substantial. Costs of materials, superphosphate, rates and taxes have gone along at the same rates or at greater rates than the direct costs of getting wool from the sheep’s back to the mill. Let us have a quick look at the cost to the wool growing industry of moving wool from the sheep’s back to the industry. I quote from a paper prepared by McEvoy and Mayman for the Australian Wool Corporation, Research and Development Department, which states:

In the period 1970 to May, 1975 the total costs from sheep’s back to mill have increased by 86 per cent, but those costs borne by woolgrowers have increased by 120 per cent and those borne by the mills by 39 per cent. . . . November, 1973 to May 1975, the woolgrowers’ costs increased by 20 per cent (or by 40 per cent if the market support levy is included) and the mills’ by 26 per cent. During the same period the average price obtained for wool decreased by 30 per cent. This latest increase in growers costs mainly results from increases of 34 per cent in shearing shed expenses.

The article also states that since November 1973 there has been an increase of some 225 per cent in the cost of crutching and so on. So the costs, and the rises in many of these charges, have been significant indeed. If we look very briefly at the report we will find that in 1970 the total cost then from sheep’s back to mill door was 29.66c per kilo. The cost per kilo of greasy wool was 17.41c to the wool grower and the cost to the mill was 12.25c. In November 1973 this figure had risen to 46.8c per kilo and in May 1975 it had risen to 66.6c. Of this amount some 49.57c per kilo was borne by growers and some 17.03c per kilo was borne by the mills. Since then- they were May 1975 figures- we have had significant increases in freight rates of 25 per cent on the European line from September 1975, with foreshadowed increases of a further 25 per cent in September 1976.

If we look at the situation in one other way, we find that with regard to the gross return to the industry the Bureau of Agricultural Economics estimates that there will be gross receipts by the wool industry of $970m in 1975-76. The most ominous aspect of the figures is that if we look at the contribution that the wool growing industry is making to the Government purse we find that it is contributing some $74.5m for market research, market support operations, research and promotional levies and the administrative costs of the Australian Wool Corporation- in effect a total of $ 1 12m this year including interest payable to the Australian Government by the Corporation. As far as wool production is concerned, that means the net figure, taking away only the Government charges, is about $858m. That will be the net figure payable to the wool industry after Government charges have been deducted. This compares most unfavourably with the $ 1,202m received in the industry in 1973-74 and quite unfavourably with the $879m received last financial year. In effect, the wool growers will be contributing to government sources by way of interest charges and levies some 11.5 per cent of the gross value of wool production. In a situation in which costs are rising so rapidly and are reaching such great heights, the effect and the significance of what is happening can be readily assessed.

The greatest danger with respect to these costs in the current situation is that the present mandate of the Australian Wool Corporation gives that body very limited ability to reduce many of these costs. These costs are incurred particularly in the handling, preparation, selling, freighting and shipping of wool. The marketing report by the Australian Wool Corporation which was delivered in December 1973 offered many ways, I suggest, of cutting down some of these costs. These were ways of reducing those costs which are not now available to the Australian Wool Corporation under its present charter. But that marketing report which was presented in 1973 has been hashed around by this Government. We do not know where it is. As far as we can see, it has gone to an interdepartmental committee. That is probably a good excuse for it to be buried, hidden and forgotten.

It joins a whole list of similar reports on agricultural measures which need immediate examination but which have also gone into the same ‘too hard’ basket. I mention the reports by the Industries Assistance Commission dealing with the beef industry, the superphosphate bounty, the nitrogenous fertiliser subsidy, the taxation averaging provisions for farmers and assistance to new land farmers in Western Australia, to name a few. All of these reports have been hidden. No action has been taken. They have been put into the ‘too hard’ basket. This Government refuses to act at all on them. It seems very much to me that the marketing report of the Australian Wool Corporation is suffering the same fate.

The tragedy of the situation is that, despite the fact that the honourable member for EdenMonaro disagreed violently with the ex-Minister for Agriculture, Senator Wriedt, on this matter, that is what has happened. The recommendations of the marketing report of the Australian Wool Corporation contain a great deal of merit. They should be fully investigated. I was very pleased to hear the Deputy Leader of the Australian National Country Party give a certain and definite undertaking that we would sympathetically review these recommendations.

Let me speak very quickly on the subject of the amount of money that is being paid out by the wool industry for research and promotion purposes. I think that we all support the view that some research and promotion is necessary. But I think we also accept that a requirement exists in respect of any government money to ensure that value is being obtained for that expenditure. Even though the research and promotion programs have been in operation for quite some time very limited assessment of the value and the work of that expenditure has been made. We do not know whether good money is being spent on bad promotional work or on work using the wrong methods. The previous Government did commission the McKinsey report, but that was purely an organisational report concerned with the International Wool Secretariat. It seems to me that as the charges on the Australian wool growers for promotional and research work are so high there should be some means by which the value of this expenditure can be assessed. I make the plea to the Government that it should give some consideration to trying to assess just what value Australians are getting from what is paid in respect of research and promotion efforts to establish whether money is being wasted and, if not, to determine whether those funds could be used more effectively. These questions are quite vital when we consider that some $20m of wool growers’ money is involved in this work each year.

One most significant point, to which I now refer, was made by the Deputy Leader of the National Country Party when he referred in his speech to what would happen in respect of any shortfall of funds that should eventuate in the Australian Wool Corporation this year and asked whether this Government would have the integrity, the decency and the courage to face up to that event and to give further support if necessary. I feel that the wool market is improving to the stage where this will not be necessary but we would like an assurance from the Government that further support will be forthcoming if it is necessary.

Briefly, the Opposition parties do not oppose this Bill. We accept the role of the Australian Wool Corporation in the current conditions. We welcome that role. We see it as a development of the wool marketing process. We do not see it as the final element in what should be the most ideal wool marketing set-up in Australia. That is why we ask that there should be clear, concise and fairly immediate decisions on the marketing recommendations of the Australian Wool Corporation.

Mr DUTHIE:
Wilmot

-The honourable member for Canning (Mr Bungey) has supplied us with some most interesting facts concerning the wool industry. Let me comment on two or three of the statements that he made this afternoon. I refer first to his charge that the Government has deferred or delayed the release of the report on nitrogenous fertiliser. The honourable member’s knowledge is not very great as this week that report from the Industries Assistance Commission was tabled in this Parliament. It is still to be discussed by our Committee and then the Government.

Mr Bungey:

– What about the others?

Mr DUTHIE:

– The others are also in the pipeline. The next point that I wish to mention is in respect of the charge - (Quorum formed)

Mr DUTHIE:

– The second criticism that the honourable member made was that wool growers have to contribute so much towards the wool industry through the levy of 5 per cent. This was partly an arrangement agreed upon between the Government and the industry at the time to establish the floor price plan. The wool industry itself agreed that its members would be willing to pay a 5 per cent levy towards the cost of stabilisation of the industry. There is no need to criticise that aspect as the levy was agreed to by the growers themselves.

The Deputy Leader of the National Country Party (Mr Sinclair) who spoke earlier today on this issue gave us his typical depressing, derogatory speech about this Government and its performance. It is remarkable to hear criticism from the other side on a measure of this type when, for 23 years in government, the Opposition parties failed to bring such a measure before the country. I might mention that the father of the honourable member for Fisher (Mr Adermann) who is at the table- I refer to Sir Charles

Adermann- in the 1960s when he was Minister for Primary Industry favoured the idea of a fixed reserve price for wool. He said so in 1965. He was able to go no further than that as the Liberal Party made sure that such a piece of legislation never hit the statute books. I pay tribute to Sir Charles Adermann because he had vision then but the Liberal Party made sure that his vision never took material form. So the wool industry continued for another 7 years without a guaranteed floor price for wool. It was up to a Labor government to bring it in. This is one of the historic acts of this Party which will always be recognised because the legislation will always be on the statute book, as far as I can ascertain, in the same way as is the legislation which introduced the wheat stabilisation plan in 1947. It is still part and parcel of the support for our rural industry and it was brought in by a Labor government.

The honourable member for Canning also mentioned faction fighting within the ranks of the Government over the guaranteed price of 250c per kilo. We did have a bit of difficulty about this in June. There was a change of heart by the Cabinet but the decision was reversed in the Caucus in a substantial manner following a crisis spread over about 4 days. It was most unfortunate that there was this difficulty at that time- I readily admit this- but the decision was reversed and the Government is guaranteeing a price of 250c per kilo clean 2 1 micron wool. The so-called faction fighting was not faction fighting at all. Everything happened in 24 hours and the decision was changed in 24 hours. But faction fighting was going on in the Liberal and Country Parties over rural programs and rural policies when they were in government for 7 years before we came into office. That faction fighting did not last for 24 hours. It lasted for 7 long years. It was never resolved. It is still on too.

It was scandalous for the Deputy Leader of the Country Party to suggest that this Bill we are now debating incorporates new guarantees to cover borrowings from private banks. He ought to know as an ex-Minister that all loan dealings with private banks to help statutory authorities and banks require government guarantees and government guarantees are given. This is an automatic procedure. We have just carried on in the same way as previous governments acted in this respect. There is nothing new about this; there is nothing sinister about it. But according to the Deputy Leader of the Country Party everything we do is sinister. Everything he says in this House has that element in it. He is all the time looking for mistakes in the sewers of this country.

He lives in the sewers of this country looking for errors and mistakes that we have made. He is having a very poor time lately in finding anything worth while. I hope that one day he gets out of the sewers and gets a bit of fresh air. He needs a bit of country fresh air.

I condemn the honourable member for the way in which he treated this Bill. He never sees anything good in our legislation- he has not said so openly anyway. He seems to be obsessed with the idea that anything the Labor Government brings down is evil from the beginning and that colours all his thinking and all his speeches in this Parliament.

Mr Lusher:

– If there is ever anything he is in favour of you can always vote against it.

Mr DUTHIE:

-Who is making this speech? You can come across here and see what you can do; come on. In respect of the guaranteed price of 250c per kilo for 21 micron wool there has been criticism amongst some of our growers that this does not cover a very big percentage of the total amount of wool produced in Australia. I have checked this out with the responsible department and I find that for purely illustrative purposes the level of floor price support is expressed in terms of a particular type of wool- in this case 2 1 micron wool clean basis.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Hume has moved to a position beside the honourable member addressing the chamber. If the honourable member for Hume opens his mouth once I will name him.

Mr DUTHIE:

-You have got him quietened at last, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I suggest that the honourable member not seek to provoke him. It would not be fair.

Mr DUTHIE:

-I promise I will not do that because my time in this debate is almost up. The floor price support applies to all types of wool sold at auction and the floor price for any particular type of wool bears the same relationship to the 250c per kilo clean basis as that type of wool bears to the 2 1 micron wool, which means in essence that all wool is covered by guarantee. Of course the price varies with the type of wool and the standard of wool each year for each clip on each property. But the Bill before us today continues the Commonwealth Government’s guarantee of the floor price plan.

During the last season a total of $289m was advanced to the Australian Wool Corporation by the Government to finance the purchase of wool under the reserve price scheme and to provide for advance to growers. This total was made up of $ 1 3m which has been available to the Corporation’s Working Capital Trust Fund and $276m which was advanced from the special appropriation of $350m under the Wool Marketing (Loan) Acts.

During the season just passed the Corporation bought extremely heavily owing to the world price situation especially in the early part of the season. The position was so serious that during the first 3 months of the selling season in the last 12 months the Corporation’s purchases averaged 43 per cent of offerings at auction. As the season progressed the market strengthened considerably and in the last 3 months of the season the Corporation’s purchases averaged only 10 per cent of offering and at one stage in June, just before the temporary crisis over the guaranteed price, the Corporation was buying only 3 per cent of the total wool at sales in late May or early June of this year.

Mr Lusher:

– How much is it buying now?

Mr DUTHIE:

– It is buying about 30 per cent, I believe, at the moment. Towards the end of last season the Corporation sold wool for the first time from store. It made a profit of $3m on several thousand bales of wool that it took out of store and sold on the world market. This is the pattern that will be followed in the years ahead as the Corporation sells the stored wool. This happened during the Second World War when the Joint Wool Selling Organisation was set up to handle the wool when very few ships were available and the Australian growers got back over seven or eight years after the war something like $200m from sales. (Quorum formed) As I was saying before I was rudely interrupted, net purchases of the Corporation at 30 June had averaged 33 per cent of the total season’s offering at auction and the stockpile had risen to 1.6m bales. I do not think we should be frightened at that sort of stockpile because it was much worse than that in the Second World War period and was all sold eventually, as I have said, in the few years following the war. This stockpile will be sold on the world market as the Corporation sees fit, at a profit in most cases to the growers. We sincerely hope that will be so.

Mr King:

– They bought it at too high a price.

Mr DUTHIE:

– That is too bad. We are trying to help the growers. If the wool was not sold at auction it still would be in the storehouses, unsold, in capital cities throughout Australia. The 5 per cent that growers will contribute to the Corporation through the growers’ levy will amount to $46.25m in this coming 12 months.

This is a substantial sum of money but it is what the growers expect. Unless we change the Act in some way this levy must remain. It represents the growers’ contribution towards getting a guaranteed price. I do not think that many growers would criticise or be upset about having to pay a 5 per cent levy to get such a guarantee from the Commonwealth Government.

The media made some very bad mistakes after the Budget was announced, as was mentioned by the Minister who introduced this Bill, the Minister for Overseas Trade (Mr Crean), when they tried to make out that our assistance to rural industry would be reduced by some $200m this year. That amount is roughly the extent of the reduction in advances from the Government to the Wool Corporation. The amount last year was $289m and the provision this year is $80m. Honourable members will appreciate that there has been a complete misconception about this matter. There is no reduction in effective support for the Wool Corporation. In both years the Government has pledged its support for the floor price for 250c, whatever wool has to be bought in. Even if the money available is eaten up the Government will have to continue buying wool under the guarantee to growers, whatever the extra cost might be to the country. In his second reading speech the Minister said:

We judge the provision of $ 150m- $80m from the Budget, $70m by way of Government guarantee borrowing from the trading banks- to be adequate for this purpose.

The purpose is the guaranteeing of the price for the remainder of this financial year. The Minister added:

However, as the Treasurer made abundantly clear in the Budget Speech, we will as a matter of course keep the position under close review throughout the year.

In other words, we will not let the industry down. That is a guarantee. On that note I think I will finish.

Mr LUSHER:
Hume

– It is often my privilege to follow the honourable member for Wilmot (Mr Duthie) in debate in this chamber. The trouble about following him is that it is very hard to stay awake and to get the call when he sits down.

Mr Duthie:

– You were awake. You were over here sitting next to me.

Mr LUSHER:

-The honourable member for Wilmot obviously needs a great deal of assistance when talking about matters relating to primary industry.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable gentleman will need some if he does not get to the Bill.

Mr LUSHER:

-Mr Speaker, I am sure the courtesies of the House allow me a slight introduction.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable gentleman will address his remarks through the Chair and will not engage in private conversation with members around him.

Mr LUSHER:

- Mr Speaker, I make no excuse for the fact that I am on my feet this afternoon to speak about this Bill and to make clear to the Government my views about the way in which it has been handling the wool industry. For almost 3 years now the Government has been responsible for bringing the wool industry, which has been the backbone of the Australian economy for over a century- in fact for one and a half centuriesvirtually to its knees. It is responsible for deliberately bringing about a situation in rural Australia whereby the people who live in that part of this great country are being deprived, to a large extent, of the necessities of life. This Government has 2 attitudes towards country people. The first is to reduce their voice in the Parliament by wiping out country seats by means of electoral redistributions; the second is to bring them to their knees financially by cutting off whatever money they may be able to earn in an honest fashion. The Government believes that by doing these 2 things it will be able to reduce the people in non-metropolitan Australia to a peasant population. That is the intention of this Government.

That is perfectly clear from all the actions that the Government has taken since it came to office. We can think back to the period when the Government set up the Coombs inquiry which listed 101 separate items in relation to which it could withdraw hard won incentives to rural industry. The Government has worked on ways and means of bringing a total section of the community to its knees. Since that time this Government has been systematically introducing the recommendations of that Coombs inquiry. Today the Industries Assistance Commission has enough confidence in the wool industry of this country to be able to say in the superphosphate production tariff revision report of 2 1 August 1975 that the future price of wool will fall from an index of 100 in 1972 to an index of 80 in 1976. It expects that the cost of superphosphate will rise from an index of 100 to an index of 277. In case honourable members do not understand the significance of those figures I will repeat them: The index for the price of wool will fall from 100 in 1972 to 80 in 1976 and the index for the price of superphosphate will rise from 100 in 1972 to 277 in 1976.

Mr Sullivan:

– Throw in shearers’ wages for good measure.

Mr LUSHER:

– The honourable member for Riverina said that I should throw in shearers’ wages. There are 101 things that could be thrown in to illustrate the effect that this Government and its colleagues in the unions are having on this great industry that in 1975 is still important to Australia and which must be allowed to continue to be important to Australia. The introduction by the Government of a Wool Marketing (Loan) Bill, an amending Bill, and its juggling of the figures relating to the funding of the floor price scheme so as to put the onus on the private sector of the financial market rather than on the Government sector, is a very weak reed in the total spectrum of what the Government is doing to an industry which is vital to the Aus.talian economy.

There are a series of things that this Government should be doing for primary industries if it has the interests of country people at heart. I suggest that it does not have their interests at heart. We have heard nothing from the Government but calls for report after report. It started with the Coombs report. It followed that with its Green Paper. Then followed a series of references to the Industries Assistance Commission. With the exception of the Coombs report, none of these has been acted upon and I wonder why. Is there any secret about the way in which this Government is approaching the people who live outside the metropolitan areas? The Wool Marketing (Loan) Bill is part and parcel of a scheme introduced into the Parliament a year or so ago to set up the floor price structure for the marketing of wool. It is the only concrete thing that the Government has done for this industry in its term of office. In fact, if the arm of the Government had not been twisted behind its back by what is left of the rural rump in its Caucus this would never have happened.

The Labor Party is dominated by city union people and by ex-Labor Party executives and campaign directors who come into the Parliament and expect to be able to legislate in a responsible fashion for one of the largest industries in this country. It is represented by ex-bank managers from Newcastle who cannot even get their preselections sorted out. They come into the chamber but cannot rise to the occasion.

Mr Morris:

– Are you wearing a woollen suit? Why do you not wear wool?

Mr LUSHER:

-The suit I am wearing is 100 per cent wool. The Government has a very sorry record in dealing with the wool industry. In fact it has a very sorry record in dealing with rural industries as a whole. There can be no doubts in the mind of any thinking Australian who is in any way aware of what is happening in the country just what this Government is doing. As I said earlier, there is a decided and deliberate attempt to bring country people to their knees. The Government will do this economically and politically. The Government will wipe out country seats and force the people of rural Australia to live in a peasant economy. I do not have a great deal of time in which to speak this afternoon and I do not intend to keep the House in debating a matter which is of minor significance in the overall context of what is happening.

Mr James:

– Minor significance?

Mr LUSHER:

– Minor significance in terms of the overall context of what is occurring in the great wool industry, in the great pastoral industries of Australia. The Government has to get on to its feet and do something constructive in these industries. It is not good enough for it to present a Bill in this place, the only Bill in respect of wool that we have seen this year; the only Bill on wool that we will see for a long time from this Government.

There are a series of things that have to be done. The Government can start off by implementing the recommendations of the Industries Assistance Commission and get the superphosphate bounty back on so that something can be done to contain the costs which are rising at a rate in excess of 35 per cent in the rural economy. Despite the figures on inflation that the Government is putting out to the Australian people this is the sort of rise in costs that we are seeing at the moment. The Government should ask the farmer and the man on the land what is happening to his costs. It should ask him what is happening to shearers’ wages, to the price of drench and to the price of superphosphate. It should ask what is happening in respect of the price of fencing materials. Fencing now costs $1,500 a mile. The Government cannot expect people to run their farms economically when costs are rising at this rate.

The Government has a significant responsibility to do something constructive for the wool industry. It should not come in here with a half baked Bill and tell us that a few dollars will be raised from this area as opposed to another area. We welcome the fact that the floor price plan is to be continued. I guess that credit must be given where credit is due and the industry is grateful for that. But the Government has a long way to go if it is to bring back some confidence to the rural economy of this country. It is showing no indication of being prepared to do anything about restoring that confidence. It is doing nothing at all about showing the vaguest willingness to look after this sector of the economy. It is no surprise to me, and I am sure that it is no surprise to the Government, that support for the Government in rural Australia is at zero level. We challenge the Government to go to the polls to see how many rural seats it will come back with because it will not come back with any.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.

In Committee

The Bill.

Mr STEWART:
Minister for Tourism and Recreation and Minister Assisting the Treasurer · Lang · ALP

– Clause 3 of the Bill states:

Section 4 of the Principal Act is amended by omitting from sub-section (1) the figures ‘$350,000,000’ and substituting the figures ‘$356,000,000’

I move:

Omit the clause, insert the following clause: ‘ 3. Section 4 of the Principal Act is amended-

by omitting from sub-section (1) the figures “$350,000,000” and substituting the figures “$356,000,000”;

by inserting after sub-section ( 1 ) the following subsection: “( 1 A) On or after 30 June 1 976, the Treasurer may, on such terms and conditions as he determines, for the purpose of enabling the repayment by the Corporation of moneys borrowed by the Corporation, other than moneys advanced under this Act, during the financial year that ends on 30 June 1976 for the purposes referred to in sub-section ( 1 ), advance to the Corporation, by way of a loan, an amount not exceeding the difference between the sum of the amounts advanced to the Corporation under subsection ( 1 ) and $356,000,000. “;

by omitting from sub-section (2) the word and figure “sub-section (1)” and substituting the words “this section”; and

by adding at the end thereof the following subsection: “(3) Advances made to the Corporation under this section shall not exceed, in the aggregate, 5356,000,000.”.’.

The amendment derives from the fact that subsequent to the introduction of the Bill in the House of Representatives on 27 August 1975 the Acting Treasurer agreed that if the $80m available under the proposed appropriation or any further amounts which might be appropriated under the Wool Marketing (Loan) Act during 1975-76 had not been fully advanced to the Australian Wool Corporation by 30 June 1976, further advances would then be made to the Corporation if necessary so that it would be able to meet its obligations to the consortium of trading banks in respect of repayment of the recently negotiated $70m line of short term credit. Any advances so made would of course still be for the purpose of financing wool purchased by the Corporation at auction or tender under its reserve price scheme as set out in section 4 of the existing legislation.

Amendment agreed to.

Bill, as amended, agreed to.

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

Third Reading

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

page 2681

PETROLEUM AND MINERALS AUTHORITY BILL 1975

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

Second Reading

Mr CREAN:
Minister for Overseas Trade · Melbourne Ports · ALP

– I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

By this Bill Parliament is being asked to reestablish the Petroleum and Minerals Authority. The Bill is different in a number of respects from that which the Parliament last saw in the Joint Sitting in August 1974. I shall briefly refer to these changes later. The purpose of the Petroleum and Minerals Authority has been outlined to the House on a number of occasions in the past- when the Bill was introduced for the first time on 4 December 1973; for the second time on 8 April 1974; for the third time on 11 July 1974 and for the fourth time to the Joint Sitting of both Houses of the Parliament on 7 August 1 974 when it was passed.

Four State governments- New South Wales, Queensland, Victoria and Western Australiachallenged the Act in the High Court of Australia and on 24 June 1975 the High Court of Australia by majority decision declared that the Petroleum and Minerals Authority Bill 1973 was not a valid law of the Commonwealth in that its passage through the Houses of Parliament did not meet the procedural requirements of section 57 of the Constitution.

During the 10, months of its existence the Petroleum and Mineral Authority, despite the difficulties of being under High Court challenge, established an important and necessary role in petroleum and minerals development. It created a small and highly flexible professional organisation, supported by professional consultants of high standing, and achieved sound working relationships with industry. A significant number of companies, including some foreign companies, large and small, of their own volition invited the participation of the Authority in their ventures. It operated in the same manner as the industry and used normal business criteria in its decision making. It pursued the Government’s policy of Australian ownership and control. In so doing it made available to the industry the savings from the repealed provisions of sections 77c, 77d and 78 of the Income Tax Assessment Act and from the Petroleum Search Subsidy Act 1959-1972. It did not compete with the Australian industry. It gave the lie to the label of ‘bogeyman’ which the Opposition had sought to bestow upon it.

The Authority acquired interests in the oil and gas reserves of the Cooper Basin so important to Sydney and Adelaide and in so doing increased Australian ownership of the commercial hydrocarbon reserves in the South Australian areas of the Basin from 37 per cent to 53 per cent. The Authority’s decision to participate in the Wambo Colliery, near Warkworth via Singleton, New South Wales, replaced a proposed foreign interest in this valuable coal reserve. Its commitment to Mareeba Mining NL, a small exploration company operating in North Queensland, has given that company the opportunity of benefiting from the results of its discovery of a small high grade copper deposit which it would otherwise have lost. The Authority engaged in a coal exploration program in New South Wales, designed specifically to increase our knowledge of coal reserves in that State. Arrangements were in hand to extend that program to Queensland and to other States. The Authority had under study the procedures and strategy for off-shore petroleum exploration and development.

During the last weeks of the Authority’s existence it took decisions to assist a number of other companies. These involved oil and gas exploration in the Northern Territory, coal mining in New South Wales, mineral exploration in Western Australia and gold and antimony production in Western Australia. At the time of the High Court’s decision the Authority had under consideration some 69 proposals for petroleum and mineral development, large and small, covering all States and the Northern Territory. Past debates on this proposal have emphasised the urgency of our energy position, the need to concentrate upon the discovery of additional reserves of petroleum, particularly oil, and of coal too, and to develop our knowledge of alternative sources of energy such as conversion of coal to oil and gas. The Government does not despair of the discovery of additional substantial reserves of oil and gas in commercial locations but our best prospects are off-shore and, given victory by the Government in the action brought by the States over our Seas and Submerged Lands Act, we shall have a vast job managing the off-shore resources of the nation.

The Petroleum and Minerals Authority will play a substantial role in these activities. That is not to say the Authority will be undertaking itself the vastly expensive and highly technical task of exploring in deep water off-shore. Rather we would expect that, under appropriate joint venture arrangements with the Authority, international operators of known technical ability and financial capacity will make that contribution. Off-shore and on-shore the development of our energy and our other mineral resources is not just a matter for government agencies. The discovery of the nation’s petroleum and mineral resources and their subsequent development has always been, and must always be, a partnership between governments and industry. In Australia today we have the individual prospectors, the small exploration groups and mining companies, the large mineral companies, including foreign companies who have by their enterprise and endeavour in exploration created the opportunities for Australia’s mineral development. To some extent, too, government agencies such as the Australian Atomic Energy Commission and the Joint Coal Board join in the search. No one segment of the group is necessarily more successful than the other. Both individual prospectors and companies have found world ranking mineral deposits.

But let us not forget the framework of institutions which support them- the governmental agencies, at State and Federal levels, which put together the basic information on which search and discovery are founded. Geology, structure, land forms, regional mapping and the other documentation and research data essential to their work are the products of the mines departments and the geological surveys of the States and the Northern Territory, the Bureau of Mineral Resources, the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation and the Division of National Mapping. Government agencies have also been instrumental in the identification of mineral fields. For development of mineral deposits there is necessarily today a requirement for other institutions. Given the complexity and cost of mineral development, very few projects are financed right through to production by a single mining company or by any one financial group. Further partnerships are required, matching finance, both Australian and overseas, with the requirements of mineral development. In Australia where many of our largest financial institutions did not initially enter the field a previous government added to the sources of finance for downstream development by creating the Australian Industry Development Corporation and we have expanded the scope and strengthened the financial muscle of that Corporation. The area of its interest is later stage development, at production stages and further growth and expansion of facilities. But is this sufficient? This Government believes it is not.

The Government has studied the statement published a week or so ago by the Opposition parties on foreign investment policy. That statement adopts the Government’s policy of maximum control and ownership of our natural resources. It proposes to require of foreign interests investing in oil, natural gas and mineral development and production an Australian equity of not less than 50 per cent of the proposed venture though it is not clear to the Government whether this extends into the exploration for and the initial development of our natural resources. The statement acknowledges the inability of the Australian capital market to finance the policy espoused in that statement. It says, for example, that an ‘offer’ of Australian equity ‘may apply to the starting point of the project or to a specified future date by which the foreign capital would be scaled down to a level of not more than 49 per cent’. It refers to the unavailability of Australian capital not preventing a project ‘considered by the Government to be in the national interest from proceeding without delay’. It proposes to attempt to fill the gap by up-grading ‘the access of Australian corporations to finance, research and management techniques’. The Opposition parties propose to ‘review the tax structure and direct Government instrumentalities to achieve these policy objectives’.

That policy, the core of which is not dissimiliar to our own, contains, by its acknowledgement that our private resources are insufficient, the seeds of its own failure. If maximum Australian ownership and control of mineral development in this country is worth its place as a fundamental plank of our administration then the Governments of the country should be prepared to provide the necessary financial backing. The Aus.tralianisation of our mineral development is not just a matter of pride or empty rhetoric. It is the heart and soul of our country and our right and title to the great resources we possess. We are prepared to guarantee the viability of our policy by creating an instrument available to assist private industry large and small to undertake the development of our mineral resources and to play a part for the people in achieving maximum Australian ownership and control. That instrument would normally operate in conjunction with private operating concerns both local and foreign. Its interest in any development would not necessarily be permanent. Its prime function would be to make a contribution to any particular mineral development when that contribution was needed to get the development to the point where the financial institutions of the country, including the AIDC, might be able to take it on. These judgments would, of course, be a matter not only for the Authority, but for its partners too. The Authority will play a significant role in the management of our off-shore resources and there its interests will naturally be permanent.

These are our objectives. We do not seek to compete with Australian industry. We do not seek to banish foreign companies. We do not seek to dominate mineral development. We seek to provide an instrument to guarantee the success of our policy of maximum Australian ownership and control of our mineral development. We seek partnership with the industry including foreign companies with the expertise and the will to invest in Australia.

The Bill before the House amends that provision of the original Bill relating to the power of the Authority to acquire interests in mining undertakings, and deletes, inter alia, those provisions relating to the declaration of an area to be a petroleum exploration area or a mineral exploration area, the provision for losses suffered by the Authority in providing overseas aid to be reimbursed by the Australian Government, and the power to enter land under warrant of a justice of the peace and other provisions related thereto. These were the provisions which caused most of the criticisms by the Opposition, by the State governments of similar political complexions, and by the responsible sectors of the petroleum and mineral industries.

The detailed amendments to the previous legislation which are accordingly reflected in the

Bill now before the House are: The deletion of the wording in sub-clause 12 ( 1) (o) ‘upon such terms as the Authority thinks fit’ and insertion of the words ‘by agreement’; and also the deletion of clauses 13, 14, 39, 43, 44, 46, 48 and 50 and sub-clause 15 (2); together with variations to the previous legislation consequent upon these deletions. There are also several other variations to reflect changes in drafting procedures and style since the previous Bill was initially drafted, including reference to the Remuneration Tribunal. We have also made the terms and conditions of employment of the Authority subject to the approval of the Public Service Board.

Maximum Australian control and ownership of our natural resources and associated industries is now common ground between us. There are differences in our approaches. One of the principal differences is whether the private resources of the nation are sufficient to support that policy. The Government believes that this is not a realistic appraisal of our financial resources, and it would be wrong to assume that circumstances might change which would alter that belief.

We stand by our belief in the fundamental rights of the Australian people and we are prepared to guarantee these rights by the creation of a Government vehicle to support our policy. I remind this House that the Petroleum and Minerals Authority Act 1973 was declared invalid on procedural grounds. That legislation was passed by the Parliament in a Joint Sitting after exhaustive debates on a number of occasions by both Houses. It had the support of the people expressed on 2 occasions and on the last occasion as one of the 6 Bills resulting in the double dissolution. I commend this Bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr Katter) adjourned.

page 2683

AUSTRALIA POLICE BILL 1975

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

Second Reading

Mr ENDERBY:
CanberraAttorneyGeneral · ALP

– I move:

This Bill provides for the amalgamation of the Commonwealth Police, the police forces of the Australian Capital Territory and Northern Territory and certain sections of the Department of Police and Customs into a single law enforcement body- the Australia Police. Honourable members will be interested in the origins of the Bill. A comprehensive study undertaken in 1973 revealed that the operations of the existing agencies were subject to a number of short-comings.

These included: a lack of co-ordination of enforcement effort in areas of common interest; duplication of effort by officers from the various agencies; wastefulness and inefficiency arising from the maintenance of separate information and intelligence systems; varying standards of training and recruitment for the various agencies; lack of highly trained capacity to deal with white collar crime; the need to refer the investigation of some Federal offences to State police agencies; and wastefulness deriving from the maintenance of separate pools of equipment and the inability to justify separate use of computer facilities.

Based on the knowledge gained through the studies that had been undertaken, including a close examination of overseas national law enforcement agencies, it became obvious that the wastefulness and inefficiencies deriving from the multiplicity of Federal law enforcement agencies in Australia could best be overcome by the integration of those agencies. Consequently the Department of Police and Customs was created on 27 March this year. The Department consists of 3 wings: The Australia Police; the Bureau of Customs; and a Joint Services wing. The Joint Services wing provides the fulcrum for increased efficiency and economy of operations. In addition to the usual management services it will be responsible for training, computer services, communications, transport, planning, research, operational records and such services.

It is proposed to establish a National Police College in Bathurst, New South Wales, with courses designed to cater for all levels of police from recruit training to that appropriate for the higher levels of management. Moreover there will be scope for specialised training including that necessary to provide a higher level of expertise to detect white collar crime. The national and international training courses at present provided for State and overseas police will be expanded. On the basis of existing Customs facilities, computer services currently under development include police computer systems with instant access to data by means of visual display units located throughout Australia. These services, whether maintained manually or by computer, are a necessary part of any police force and are being developed at the national level within the Australia Police. The Minister for Police and Customs (Senator Cavanagh) has recently discussed with State Police Ministers the possibility of developing a national information unit based on these systems. A joint FederalState feasibility study is currently being undertaken. The unit will have links with Interpol and other international agencies. I do not think I need to spell out the kind of efficiency and savings this operation will achieve for the nation as a whole.

I should like to draw the attention of honourable members to another important feature in the development of this Bill. On 16 May 1975 I referred to the Law Reform Commission for inquiry and report the question of the appropriate legislative means of safeguarding individual rights and liberties in relation to the law enforcement process by the Australia Police. The Law Reform Commission has divided its momentous task into 2 reports. The first, relating to a system for investigations of complaints against members of the Australia Police, was tabled in this House on 2 September 1975. It is the Commission’s first report following its establishment under the Law Reform Commission Act 1973 and I am sure that all who have read it will join with me in characterising it as a seminal document in the development of police integrity and public confidence in the police in Australia. It is a report of the highest quality and the Government has, without hesitation, incorporated its recommendations in the Bill. The Commission’s second report is devoted to the difficult issue of the proper balance between police powers which respect the rights of the individual on the one hand and the community’s need for practical and effective law enforcement on the other. The report is currently being printed and I expect to table it in this House next week. Honourable members will then have before them the complete picture in relation to the Australia Police when debate on the Bill is resumed.

I turn now to the Bill itself. I would like to outline some of the central features. Part I contains the usual formal provisions and in addition preserves existing police powers in Federal laws and territorial ordinances. This is an interim measure pending the introduction of legislation arising out of the Government’s consideration of the forthcoming second report of the Law Reform Commission. Part II provides for the establishment and administration of the Australia Police. It creates offices of Chief Commissioner and Commissioner for the Australian Capital Territory and Commissioners for the Northern Territory. It provides that the Regional Commissioners will be operationally autonomous in relation to the communities which they serve. It also provides a clear statement of ministerial responsibility for the police. Part III amplifies the preservation of police powers referred to in Part I.

Part IV relates to appointments and terms and conditions of service including such matters as promotion, resignation and retirement. It also provides for the making of regulations in relation to police discipline. In accordance with the recommendation of the Law Reform Commission I will bring these regulations before the House as soon as possible so that they may be considered in concert with the Bill. Pans V and VI establish the system of dealing with complaints against the police recommended by the Law Reform Commission. Central features are the provision of an oversighting role for the Ombudsman, the establishment of an Internal Discipline Section responsible to the Chief Commissioner to investigate complaints and the creation of an Australia Police Tribunal to hear disciplinary charges and appeals against disciplinary action taken by the Chief Commissioner or Regional Commissioners. Part VII is also based on recommendations by the Law Reform Commission in relation to torts committed by police officers. It provides for Australia to assume vicarious liability for the actions of an officer taken in the course of his duties. However, it also provides that Australia may take proceedings to recover contribution from the police officer. Part VIII provides transitional provisions in relation to the appointment and preservation of rights of police officers automatically transferred to the Australia Police. Part IX deals with miscellaneous matters but of particular interest to honourable members will be clause 87, which establishes police councils for the Australian Capital Territory and Northern Territory. These councils will provide a forum to stimulate the responsiveness of the regional units to local community needs and aspirations. I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr Adermann:

- Mr Deputy Speaker, before moving the adjournment of the debate, I seek your guidance. May I direct a question to the Minister about his intention? He mentioned a few regulations and other things that are to come before the House prior to the continuation of the debate. Can he indicate whether he means there will be any delay in the debate?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Armitage:
CHIFLEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

-It is unusual, but I will allow the Minister to answer the query.

Mr Enderby:

– I shall make inquiries of the Minister for Police and Customs and let the honourable member know.

Debate (on motion by Mr Adermann) adjourned.

page 2685

STATES GRANTS BILL 1975

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 15 October on motion by Mr Hayden

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr DALY:
Leader of the House · Grayndler · ALP

- Mr Deputy Speaker, may I have the indulgence of the House to raise a point of procedure on this legislation. Before the debate is resumed on this BUI I would like to suggest that it may suit the convenience of the House to have a general debate covering this Bill, the States Grants (Special Assistance) Bill and the Local Government Grants Bill as they are associated measures. Separate questions will of course be put on each of the Bills at the conclusion of the debate. I suggest therefore, Mr Deputy Speaker, that you permit the subject matter of the 3 Bills to be discussed in this debate.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Is it the wish of the House to have a general debate covering the 3 measures?

Mr Kevin Cairns:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

– I think the first Bill should be debated on its own. Leave is not granted.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-The honourable member for Lilley objects. We will proceed to debate the States Grants Bill.

Mr Eric Robinson:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

– The States Grants Bill is concerned with giving financial assistance to the States for general revenue purposes. Honourable members will be well aware of the difficulty in arriving at financial arrangements between governments in Australia. We have seen year after year, when the Liberal and National Country parties were in government and certainly since the Australian Labor Party came to office, the annual wrangling at the Premiers Conference and at the Loan Council meetings. This wrangling, the bitterness that has been engendered at these meetings, and the facade that has been raised at such times has not been of assistance in arriving at suitable arrangements between the States and the Australian Government with regard to financial assistance. The present Government by its attitude to the States, not only in this matter but in a number of others, has added enormously to this tension. Of course it is the blatant centralist policies of the present Government which have caused this increasing bitterness to occur.

The Opposition parties, using their temporary period in Opposition, have prepared a new policy on federalism. It is a new policy which is designed to facilitate the financial arrangements between the States and the Commonwealth. I use this opportunity to put on record some of the advantages with regard to the Opposition policy because it has been misinterpreted and distorted by a number of people. The policy during its preparation was checked in all detail with a variety of experts, including present and past members of the Grants Commission, former senior members and officers of Federal and State Treasuries, members of the Centre for Research on Federal Financial Relations at the Australian National University, academic lawyers, prominent economists and political scientists.

The Opposition policy aims at creating a government in Australia responsive to the needs of the people and of the community. It seeks to provide and encourage wider participation and expression by individuals and the community in the 3 spheres of government. The policy clearly defines responsibilities for finance and functions and provides mechanisms for co-operation and co-ordination between Federal, State and local government. It ensures that the centralist ambition of denying individual freedom by containing power in Canberra shall not become a reality. Fundamental points in the policy are based on the belief that the government which spends the money should be responsible for raising the taxes. This permits a curb on wasteful spending and gives freedom in decision making and acceptance of responsibility. Recognition is given to the special problems of the less populous States through an effective equalisation system. At the same time recognition is given to the requirement of orderly financial management that the Commonwealth remains the sole collector of income tax, giving it overall responsibility for national economic management.

The policy eliminates the subservient status of the States, which will no longer be forced to approach the Federal Government cap in hand. The States are tired of this cap in hand approach which has been forced upon them now for many years. A Liberal-National Country Party coalition government will give the States permanent access to revenue raised through personal income tax. In future Commonwealth, State and local authority taxes will be separately identified on one tax assessment so that every taxpayer will see the amount levied for each form of government.

Mr Daly:

- Mr Deputy Speaker, may I interrupt the honourable member. I seek leave to make a statement about having a cognate debate.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

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

Mr Daly:

– Earlier I suggested that there be a cognate debate. One honourable member objected to it, but I understand that there is now agreement that this Bill and the other 2 Bills I mentioned be debated together. I would just like to seek an assurance that that is so.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Can an assurance be given to that effect?

Mr Eric Robinson:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

-I am happy with that.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-There is no objection. I will allow that course to be followed. It is now a cognate debate.

Mr Eric Robinson:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

– This new system will ensure that the States will have substantially the financial capacity to meet their responsibilities. The Grants Commission will be fully retained with regard to existing State functions. The Commission will have a special responsibility to ensure full and continuous equalisation for the less populous States under the new federalism policy. The Opposition parties are convinced that national objectives can be fully asserted and social reforms achieved and maintained with much more selective use of special purpose grants and without heavy-handed interference and duplication. Programs financed by special grants which are not well established and accepted will be transferred to the States with the appropriate adjustments in State revenues. Special grants will be used where necessary to initiate programs in agreed areas of national need, to encourage innovation and to meet special situations, but not to make inroads into the constitutional responsibilities of the States. A fixed percentage of personal income tax will be earmarked for distribution throughout the States to local government to provide a weighted per capita grant to all local government bodies- an equalisation or topping up grant to be distributed through State Grants Commissions. A council for intergovernment relations will be established and will include Federal, State and local government representatives and a number of citizens. It will provide a permanent dialogue between all spheres of government and will have wide advisory and investigatory powers. The Premiers’ Conference will become a much more realistic forum for economic debate and the rationalisation of problems. That is well and truly overdue.

Of course all members of the Parliament will be aware that when this policy was released some weeks ago it was greeted very favourably by virtually all the major media channels in Australia. The policy represents the combined viewpoint of the Liberal and National Country Parties at their organisational, State and Federal parliamentary levels. It has been acknowledged by the Australian Council of Local Government Associations as being ‘in line with the general policy of the Australian Council and a document which we most certainly support’. Because the federalism policy threatens to destroy its whole centralist power base the Labor Government has made feverish attempts to denigrate it. Those attempts have made little public impact. They are based on false fears and distortions and do not survive calm analysis. They should be viewed against the Labor Party’s stated objectives to get rid of the Senate and the State parliaments and to amalgamate all municipalities and shires into a handful of regions wholly responsible to Canberra.

Let us consider what the Prime Minister, Mr Whitlam, had to say about this matter. First of all, let us consider his concept of an all powerful House of Representatives. This takes on substantial importance in view of the great debate which is going on within Australia today. He said:

We would not have a federal system of overlapping parliaments and a delegated but supervised system of local government. We would have a House of Representatives for nation-wide and international matters, an assembly for each of our dozen largest cities and a few score regional assemblies for the areas of rural production and resources development outside those cities.

Let all Australians understand that the Prime Minister for years has gone on record as saying that he wants to get rid of State parliaments and be rid of the Senate. Of course we all know the massive contribution which the Senate makes to ensuring that the small States are represented. Those comments by the Prime Minister were made in a local government lecture in May 1 970. When the Prime Minister talked about his recipe for the destruction of the States he said to his State colleagues:

Much can be achieved by Labor members of the State Parliaments in effectuating Labor’s aims of more effective powers for the national Parliament and for local government. Their role -

This is the federal leader of the Labor Party speaking to his own people- is to bring about their own dissolution.

In Queensland the members of the State Labor Party have not brought about their own dissolution but they have almost brought about their own disappearance because of the 82 seats in the Queensland Parliament they can muster only eleven.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Armitage)Order! I think the honourable member should keep his remarks to the Bill.

Mr Eric Robinson:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

-I think that comment flowed on from what the Prime Minister has said. Let me move on to what the Prime Minister had to say about this policy. In criticising the federalism policy of the Liberal and National Country Parties he said that it will allow the States to impose income tax on every Australian in addition to the normal income tax that all of us pay now. In other words, he is saying that there will be double taxation. The Prime Minister is deliberately distorting the facts.

Mr Wilson:

– That is not new.

Mr Eric Robinson:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

– That is not new. State income tax will not be imposed in addition to the normal income tax. The federalism plan provides that the States will be given access to a percentage of personal income tax equal to the general reimbursement grants now received by the States from the Commonwealth. The State income tax will not be in addition to them; it will be a substitute for the current reimbursement grants. An effective federal system, by reducing duplication and extravagance and by sheeting home responsibility, will allow for overall tax reduction. The Whitlam Government is clearly the double tax bandit. Let us look at the record of the Whitlam Government. It has taken 72 years of Commonwealth government, from 1901 to 1973, for the annual Commonwealth expenditure to reach $ 10,000m. In just 2 years the Whitlam Government has more than doubled it to $2 1,000m. In those 2 years sales tax revenue has doubled, excise duty revenue has doubled and pay-as-you-earn taxation has increased by nearly three times. That is the record of the present Government.

The Whitlam Government has squeezed the States by the denial of adequate funds and by the pressure of record inflation. This has forced the States to impose and increase a wide range of indirect taxes and charges in order to survive. Indirect taxation is regressive. It hurts the lower income earners most and it aggravates inflation. The second criticism which the Prime Minister levelled was:

The effect of tax indexation would be to reduce the revenues going to the Federal Government. There would be a smaller share to the States whose own taxes would have to be very steep indeed.

It is extraordinary that the Prime Minister should talk about tax indexation when this Government set up the Mathews Committee which came out with the unanimous submissions that there ought to be tax indexation for both corporate and private taxpayers in Australia. The present Government has completely ignored that finding. It might be just as well to remind the House that federalism is working satisfactorily in Canada alongside tax indexation. Tax indexation does not reduce revenue. It reduces the rate at which the revenue grows. Under stable economic conditionswe have not had those for 3 years- the States would be very happy to have their main source of revenue growing at the same rate as personal income taxation. Such a condition has not appertained under uniform taxation. Tax indexation policies are vital to restoring the health of the economy, thereby boosting the real tax base and the growth of tax revenue. That is what is so significant- to get the economy moving again, to get some incentive back into the Australian economy. The third comment which the Prime Minister made was:

My Government has no intention of allowing the smaller and less populous States like Tasmania and Western Australia to come off badly compared with the bigger and the richer States.

It might be interesting for people to recall that the Lyons Government, an anti-Labor government, first brought in the Grants Commission. I think it was introduced in the late 1920s or perhaps in 1930 when State income tax did exist. The prime reason for its introduction by the then Prime Minister, the late Mr Lyons, was that the Grants Commission’s primary task was and still is to provide equalisation with regard to both fiscal capacity and needs. I quote again from the Liberal-Country Party’s federalism policy. It is quite specific. I cannot understand why the Prime Minister and his Ministers cannot understand it. It states:

It is intended that the principle of equalisation and the current advantages accruing to the less populous States vis-a-vis New South Wales and Victoria shall be sustained at all stages.

Consultation with present and past members of the Commonwealth Grants Commission during the preparation of this policy confirmed that our intentions to protect the less populous States will be fully realised. Currently the Grants Commission takes into account the unequal capacities of the various States to levy a variety of indirect taxes and charges. It compensates the less populous States for their relative inadequacies.

The fourth criticism the Prime Minister made- he made others but they would not really warrant even discussing- was with regard to setting up grants commissions within the States to handle the problems of local authorities. Mr Whitlam said:

The Fraser alternative to this system- incredible as it sounds- is to set up 7 grants commissions- the one we have now and one for each State.

That is true. We would set up grants commissions within the States for submissions from local authorities. The thrust of the Prime Minister’s argument is that bureaucracy would be greatly increased. What an extraordinary statement from a leader of a government which has had an enormous increase in bureaucracy in the 3 years it has been in office. Again I say that the Prime Minister is distorting the facts when he says that there will be a proliferation of bureaucracy under the federalism proposal and states, when referring to grants commissions, ‘the one we have now and one for each State ‘.

State grants commissions were in existence in a number of States prior to the entry of the Whitlam Government into local government financing. Those State grants commissions still exist. Indeed there is great merit in having grants commissions within the States which are closer to local authorities. I concede that some substantial amounts of money have been given to local authorities but I hope that the Minister or anybody else who speaks in this debate will not claim that the local authorities throughout Australia are entirely happy. They are far from happy. If we had grants commissions closer to local government thereby having greater understanding and knowledge I believe local authorities would be far more successful. Under the Labor Government policies the Commonwealth Grants Commission has been forced to expand substantially. When relieved of the need to amass particular data at the local government level for all States, the Commonwealth body will be able to reduce its functions in that sphere and concentrate on its primary role of State equalisation.

I am not going to suggest that we will not have some problems. I am not suggesting that when we implement this policy- and we are not many weeks away from doing that- there will not be fields of disputation. The Opposition’s policies are designed to provide mechanisms to overcome these things. The Council for Intergovernmental Relations is one mechanism. The main gains would be a return to responsibility to government, the removal of waste and duplicationthere has been an extraordinary amount of evidence of that in recent years- greater participation of the community in government and the enhancement of local government. We will, on achieving office, regard this policy as a matter of priority. It has been, as I said earlier, thoroughly researched. We have complete agreement within the States. The policy will help to bring a greater degree of efficiency in the management of this nation’s financial affairs. Of course such obvious blunders have been made in that area by the present Government. Our policy will bring some incentive back into the community. If there is one thing this nation needs it is to have some incentive for people to get out and to see the nation grow and develop again.

The policy will get rid of the obsession by some members of the Government with socialism and will get rid of the obsession by all members, as far as I can make out, with centralism. We will bring back a real relationship between the 3 tiers of government. We support the 3 tiers of government. Unlike the honourable member for Wilmot (Mr Duthie) who is trying to interject, we do not want to get rid of the Senate or the State parliaments. That is his Party’s policy. We want to see that these 3 tiers of government work effectively for the benefit of the Australian nation. This policy will be implemented with a great deal of” alacrity and we will then see a greater capacity for government to be closer to the people, wasteful expenditure cease and altogether a greater degree of efficiency and cooperation right throughout the entire community.

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

– The Opposition spokesman, the honourable member for McPherson (Mr Eric Robinson), has just put forward the Opposition’s proposals for Commonwealth-State financial arrangements. The Opposition’s new approach to federalism would worsen the overall financial position of the States. It would operate in a very discriminatory way against the smaller States and would be weighted heavily in favour of New South Wales and Victoria. Furthermore, it would destroy the marked improvement of local government finances that the Australian Government policies have stimulated over the past 2lA years. In total the Opposition’s policies are incoherent and illogical. They would swiftly prove disastrous to the whole spectrum of federal financial relationships if an attempt was made to implement them.

There can be no doubt that the discriminatory surcharge rebate system as proposed by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Malcolm Fraser) would tend to favour the States of New South Wales and Victoria against the other 4 States. Already there has been concern and great discussion even within his own Party because, with their greater taxable capacity, those 2 big States would be able to set lower taxes. This is precisely what has happened in Canada which operates a system which has some similarity to Mr Fraser ‘s proposal. Let me give an example from Canada. The rates of provincial income tax set in 1972 in the smaller eastern seaboard States were as follows: Newfoundland 36c; Prince Edward Island 36c; and Nova Scotia 36.5c. Yet the Pacific State of British Columbia with its strong economic base had the lowest rate of tax in Canada- 30.5c. That is a genuine example of the lack of understanding of people in the Opposition ranks.

We should examine the record of the financial debt situation in those long and dreary 23 years of government by the Opposition ranks. The internal debt of the Commonwealth, the servicing debt, during that period remained static. The servicing debt of the States increased sevenfold. The servicing debt of local government increased 2000 per cent. The servicing debt of semigovernment authorities increased some 2800 per cent. When the Whitlam Government took power in December 1972, 50 per cent of homes in Perth were unsewered In Sydney and Melbourne one in every seven families was in an unsewered area. Let us look at the debt burden on the sewerage authorities. For every dollar that was collected by the sewerage authority in Perth 50c had to be paid by way of debt burden. In Sydney it is 53c. In Newcastle it is 52c. In Melbourne, the capital of the State from which the Leader of the Opposition comes, 58c is paid by way of debt burden for every dollar collected. Why was this brought about? It was brought about because of the policies of the Menzies, Holt, Gorton and McMahon governments. They gave the States and the local governments responsibilities but they did not give them the financial muscle to deal with the matter. (Quorum formed)

Let me examine the plight of local government in the electorate of McPherson, the electorate of the Opposition spokesman in this debate. In 1974-75 we made available $180,000 to Albert Shire, and in 1975-76 we made available $250,000. In 1974-75 we made available $30,000 to Beaudesert Shire and this year we made available $65,000. In 1974-75 we made available $28,000 to Boonah Shire and $55,000 this year. Last year we made available $47,000 to Moreton Shire and this year we made available $64,000. In other words, we have made available $719,000 to local government within the electorate that the honourable member for McPherson represents. The money was made available in direct grants- interest free, nonrepayable with no strings attached. The shire councils could spend the money as they saw fit. With regard to sewerage expenditure in the Gold Coast area that the honourable member for McPherson represents, what happened under 23 years of administration by the past Government?

Eighty-two per cent of the Gold Coast- the affluent Gold Coast- was unsewered

Mr Sullivan:
Mr UREN:

– It certainly was effluent, and it certainly ruined the natural environment in that area. But what has happened since we have been in government? In the first year we made available $2m, in the next year we made available $l.lm and in the following year we made available $2.4m. We made available $5.5m to the Gold Coast to sewer that so-called affluent area that the Queensland Government under Bjelke-Petersen or successive conservative Australian governments could not do anything about. We made available $5.5m and 30 per cent of that amount was in the form of interest-free, non-repayable grants. The other 70 per cent was allocated at the long term bond rate repayable over 40 years. We made a further $50,000 available to try to catch up with the environmental problems that the sewerage problems were creating in that area. Again the money was in the form of a direct grant. With regard to the Regional Employment Development program we tried to catch up with the backlog in the local government area. We made available $ 1.93m. These are just some aspects of our assistance.

In the few moments that I have available to me I should like to comment particularly on that aspect of the Local Government Grants Bill in this cognate debate. This Bill implements the recommendations of the Grants Commission of financial assistance to local government for 1975-76. As in the previous year the Australian Government has accepted without change the recommendations of the Grants Commission. This year $79.9m has been made available to 845 local government authorities. That makes an increase of some 42 per cent over the $56.3m made available last year, which was the first year in which grants were made available. This is a significant increase. I stress that the money was made available to local government bodies with no strings attached.

There is a feeling in some sections of local government that this sort of assistance should be vastly increased. At the moment the Grants Commission assistance is made up of 30 per cent of the Australian Government’s payments to or for the States. The Government would be reluctant to extend the scope of untied assistance. In my view it is now at an adequate level. The Government is prepared to make available a certain level of untied assistance, for topping up purposes, for local government bodies. However, it is not prepared to make available all assistance to local government on an untied basis. It is the job and the responsibility of the Australian Government, in dialogue with State and local governments, to set policies and priorities and to ensure that they are fulfilled. It is also its duty to be accountable for its spending and to prevent the waste and misallocation of resources. In these circumstances it would be grossly irresponsible to hand over all assistance to local government without retaining any influence on how the money is to be spent. It would also encourage the worst sort of elitism in local government. The existing inequalities would be preserved and even intensified; the firm objectives of the Government to lift the standard of services provided by the poorer councils and shires would be defeated. In all of these circumstances we reject the call for putting all assistance to local governments on untied bases.

It should be noted that under this Government there has been a dramatic increase in the total level of payments to local government. This has occurred with direct payments and with payments through the States. The Budget estimates reveal that a total of $230m will be passed to local government authorities in 1975-76 compared with $140m last financial year. This is an increase of around 64 per cent. Even allowing for the fact that many of the program funds for local authorities were committed in the previous financial year, this is a significant increase. Certainly there are very serious financial problems confronting local government; I gave figures earlier in this respect. It will take time to overcome the backlog that was created by the mismanagement of the previous Government. It should be recognised that these problems would be much more severe without the very substantial increase in the assistance given at present by the Australian Government.

I turn to the allocations to individual local government authorities in 1975-76. There was a short sharp drop in the number of councils that received assistance. In fact only 30 councils did not get a grant in both years. Looking at the councils which have not been given assistance it is clear that they are the wealthier councils, councils such as the Sydney City Council, the Melbourne City Council, the Adelaide City Council and the Perth City Council. But on the other hand, the Brisbane City Council, which has a greater expanse of land and broader and greater responsibilities, had its grant increased from $2m last year to $2.5m this year. In some circumstances there may be a change in these programs of assistance to local government, but we want to assist that local government where the need is most. We do not want to use again the acrosstheboard broad brush approach. I believe that the second year’s operation of the Grants Commission has been much more efficient than was the case in the first year when mistakes were made. Analysis of the figures shows that the metropolitan councils have been given a fair share. Again, propaganda from the other side of the House has been that the assistance given to city bound councils is greater than that given to rural councils. Again that is a falsity. In fact, the figures show that the expenditure for councils across the board was on average $4.38 per head of population. For councils in capital cities the expenditure per head of population averages $2.92. For councils in non-metropolitan areas, the average per capita figure is $6.68. My officers have prepared a table which gives significant figures. I ask for leave to have the table incorporated in Hansard.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Giles:
ANGAS, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

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

Mr UREN:

– I thank the House. Honourable gentlemen will be aware that the Grants Commission program is conducted on a regional basis, that is, that councils are encouraged to group together in regions and to look at their needs as regions. It Will take time to develop this concept of voluntary regionalism, but the progress so far has been encouraging. There is a growing awareness at all levels of government that many programs can be best delivered on a regional basis. This sort of regionalism is having an important influence on the work of the Coombs Royal Commission into Australian Government Administration. I am sure that its report will point the way to rapid development in the process of regionalism.

It is disappointing to see that the New South Wales Conference of Local Government Associations has been critical of the development of regionalism. I know that honourable members opposite have also aired their criticism of regionalism. But regionalism is a basis of decentralisation. It is anti-centralism. If we look at the question of centralism we find that it is based more in cities like Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane than anywhere else. Those cities are far more centralised than is Canberra. Looking at the major capital cities we find not only that economic and administrative power is concentrated in the central part of each city but also that the railways and roads all radiate from the centre of each capital city. That is where the basis of centralism is to be found. Centralism was extended more and more under the Opposition Parties when they were in government. This Government is seeking to set up a basis for regionalism. It seems to me that this is the rational way to give power back to the people at the economic level.

No matter what honourable members opposite may say they know that local authorities have never received such financial aid as is proposed to be made available as a result of the legislation now before the House. I therefore seek the support of this Parliament for this Bill. This legislation affecting the Grants Commission has been hailed by all local governments everywhere. It is something positive that is being done by this Government and which previous governments failed to do. In the past, the burden of responsibility was thrown onto local government. The figures that I have given showing the debt burden of local governments under the former Administration demonstrate that the debt situation into which local government fell was like a quagmire. That debt situation increased by some 2000 per cent. The debt situation of semigovernment authorities- that is, sewage authoritieshad increased by 2800 per cent. This Government is doing something positive to try to overcome that situation. It will take some time to overcome the problem. There is no instant solution to it. But the legislation now before the House is a step in the right direction. I ask even those negative forces on the other side of the House to give support to this legislation.

Mr HYDE:
Moore

-Before referring to the Local Government Grants Bill now before the House, let me deal with a matter raised by the Minister for Urban and Regional Development (Mr Uren), who has just resumed his seat. He has misrepresented the policy on federalism of the Liberal Party and the National Country Party. This, I believe, can only be a deliberate misrepresentation. Frankly, I thought better of this Minister although we have become used to misrepresentations particularly from the front bench of the Labor Party in the last few weeks.

The Minister referred to the position of the smaller States under the proposals put forward by the Liberal Party and the National Country Party for the better government of this nation. He implied that they would be worse off and that they would in some way suffer from the proposals that we have put before the Parliament and the people of Australia. In this respect, let me read to the House clause 8. It is very short. It provides:

It is intended that the principle of equalisation and the current advantages accruing to the less populous States vis a vis New South Wales and Victoria shall be sustained at all stages.

This can be done under the terms of our policy by variations in the base grant to the States, as it is done now and as it is done in Canada. The Minister referred to Canada when he misrepresented the policy of the Liberal Party and the National Country Party. The reason why the taxes vary in the manner in which they do in Canada, I am given to understand, is that the wealth of the various areas in Canada has recently shifted. Those provinces that had access to the strongest taxing base ceased to be the provinces that had access to the strongest taxing base and the equalisation grants were not varied rapidly enough. But they can be varied and will be varied, if the same situation should happen in Australia. The truth of the matter is that the equalisation grants will be designed to take account of the tax base as it is at the date of the most recent review of those grants.

The Local Government Grants Bill provides approximately $80m for the States for redistribution to local government. This is approximately $6 a head of population or approximately $25 a family. Before I go any further, I wish to read a quotation to the House. Let me say first that this quotation does not come from Lewis Carroll’s Alice in Wonderland but in fact is a statement by the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam). In the course of his second reading speech on the Grants Commission Bill, the Prime Minister said:

The financial assistance to local governing bodies which will flow from the Commission’s recommendations will in no way be a substitute for the revenues normally raised by them by long established methods such as rates and charges for services, nor will it replace assistance normally provided by State governments to local governing bodies in one way or another. Rather it will be in the nature of a ‘topping-up’ process of the financial resources of lesser endowed bodies to enable them by reasonable revenue raising efforts on their part, to provide a standard of services to their communities that will be comparable with that enjoyed by communities elsewhere.

At first blush, it might sound all very sensible and easy to administer. But I invite honourable members to place themselves in the position of a shire councillor. Do they think that moneys that they receive from one source will not affect the revenues that they raise from another source? I am not suggesting that this should not be the case. I am merely demonstrating the other world in which these financial wizards on the Government benches live. This is the same sort of woolly thinking that sent the Government chasing around the world for enormous sums of money that do not exist. The Minister for Urban and Regional Development, who spoke a few minutes ago, boasted- I am surprised that this came from this Minister too -

Mr O’Keefe:

– You do not want to be surprised at anything from him.

Mr HYDE:

– Well, he is one of those who has tended to talk about the underprivileged and so on. This Minister rises to his feet and boasts about the money that the Government is diverting to affluent areas. It was a policy of the Labor Party to buy off the middle ground to get itself into office, and in this way it sold out all that the Labor movement had stood for. A few minutes ago we heard a Minister boasting to the House about the way the Government had diverted resources from those whom it taxes to affluent areas. The proposals now before us seek to do much the same thing. They divert funds from people who are taxed on their beer, cigarettes, petrol, and income through pay-as-you-earn deductions, to land holders. Any money that comes to local government from that source will quite rightly, because the members of local government authorities have a responsibility to their local ratepayers and their local citizens, eventually result in a reduction in the money raised from other sources. Let the Government not run away from the fact that it is taking money across the board and is applying it to people in the community who own land. Let it think through its financial wizardry in a manner that produces some rational result for the sake of this nation, because it sorely needs better government. It is my belief that in the short term it is going to get it. If the proposals for funding local government are not handled very carefully indeed we are going to have long time mendicant councils, as I think we have now- mendicant not to their State capitals but to Canberra, and frankly I do not see that as an improvement.

The Grants Commission recognises the difficulty of its task. It recognises the difficulty of collecting money at the centre and disbursing it in a rational manner that will be equitable and will preserve some measure of authority and decision making at local government level, the arms of government that are nearer the people. Having recognised the need and spoken of effort and neutrality, the bulk of the commissioner’ report dealt with the difficulty of this task and the fact that they had not achieved their aim. I do not blame the commissioners. I do not blame Mr Justice Else-Mitchell for that. The truth of the matter is that because of the woolly thinking that propounds the policies of this Government those commissioners were charged with doing the impossible. It is quite impossible to gather evidence from 488 councils, to evaluate that evidence against some sort of rational criteria and then with the greatest care in the world to disburse money to those councils in a manner that will not usurp their authority.

What happened? In the first year in particular some very crazy regions were established by the central authority over the heads of the local government bodies. We had regions that did not take account of community of interest. We had regions that did not take account of the natural communication avenues such as roads and rivers. In fact, in my State we had regions which were so unworkable that they were not worked at all. We had allocations that just did not seem to accord with any rational assessment at all, not because the Commission did not try to make a job of it, but because it was charged with doing the impossible.

I compare 2 towns in my own electorate. Last year- the first year of the scheme- the town of

Moora received a grant of precisely nothing. The town of Dalwallinu received a grant of $27,000. 1 know these 2 towns well. I was a shire councillor in the town of Dalwallinu for several years. I cannot for the life of me see why the Commission should have discriminated against the town of Moora. In fact, it had problems that the town of Dalwallinu did not have. It has a flood problem. It has a high percentage of Aboriginal people. It has the housing problems and social welfare problems that unfortunately often attend those communities. In the second year of the operation of the scheme both councils received $35,000, but what had happened by the second year was that all the funds distributed to councils were distributed with a few exceptions- the more conspicuous of them have been detailed by the Minister- on a fairly simple or close to a fairly simple per capita basis as far as one can establish, but the calculations have never been made available to the councils, to this Parliament or to the public.

The difficulties at council level, of course, are legion. The Councils are required to make detailed submissions but because it has been impossible to define disability- I believe it always will remain impossible to define disability adequately- they are not quite certain upon what basis they are to make submissions and how they are to measure their disabilities. They have been asked to quantify that disability. I ask honourable members: What resources have they to quantify a disability which they cannot define? At what level is the disability if they do not know the norms of other councils? The task is inherently impossible. Incidentally, the whole exercise is not conducted at nil cost or anything near nil cost. Funds for the Commission itself have been budgeted this year at about $839,000. The Councils themselves have very substantial costs indeed. No fewer than 2400 witnesses gave evidence to the Grants Commission. These people had to take from their own time or council time- the time required to prepare their submissions, to understand the case they were to put to the committee. They had to travel. They had to find accommodation. In respect of a small council in my own electorate I costed this expenditure as best I was able this morning, at about $900. The aggregate cost around the nation is appreciable indeed. Yet in its report the Commission said, I am certain that it had need to say this if it was to do the job it is charged with doing:

It was a considerable disappointment that a substantial proportion of the written submissions made little or no attempt to list or quantify disabilities.

It is so difficult indeed to quantify those disabilities that I do not believe they will ever be adequately quantified. What we will have will be submissions from councils that rest on rhetoric and on the best use of inadequate figures. If the Commission does not in the end adopt what amounts to an across-the-board formal system of allocation, the greatest grants are almost bound to go to councils that employ the greatest advocates. The money will go to those who are the best speakers and who present their case in the best manner. To my mind that is not what local government is all about and it is certainly not what the distribution of public finance should be all about.

Local government is one of 3 arms of government. It is the arm of government that is nearest to the people. There are 2 requirements if this arm of government, or any arm of government, is to be an arm of government in the real sense of the word and not a mere administrator. It must have appropriate real powers. In other words, its functions must not be taken from it by some back door method. It must not receive its money in a manner that does not allow it to make the essential decisions about the use of that money. It must have adequate funds to fulfil the areas of government administration assigned to it. This Bill does go some way towards providing those funds but it does not go so far as to make a great difference in leaving disposable funds in the hands of those councils. If the councils come to understand the formula by which the funds are distributed their decisions will then be guided by meeting that formula in such a way that they will qualify for the maximum amount of funding from that source and, de facto, the essential decision will have been taken from them. The essential decision will have been made elsewhere.

The purported aims of the grants are to reduce inequalities between councils and to strengthen the status of local government. I suggest that the latest grants do very little to reduce inequalities. In the main councils were given very close to equal amounts on a per capita basis of shire membership. The whole attitude of this Government will do nothing to strengthen the status of local government. Surely the status of local government means status in the area of government itself- the right to make meaningful decisions. At the same time as local government was spending last year’s grant of something less than $80m in areas over which it had some discretion the Regional Employment Development scheme was disbursing $97m on specific projects. We had unequalising grants more than matching the equalising grants. The whole scheme of central funding for specific purposes, funding by any formula that is within the understanding and manipulation of the councils, is completely inimical to the status of local government. There is one system and one system only and that is block funding where discretion is left completely in the hands of the area of government destined to exercise that area of authority.

Mr WHAN:
Monaro · Eden

-The proof of the pudding is in the eating but the facts relating to this debate are to be found in the figures displayed in the various publications associated with the Budget Speech and in the report of the Grants Commission. I want to refer to the Forty-second Report of the Commission. On page 3 1 of that report we find the figures that really count so far as the States are concerned. If we start at 1970-71 and compare the increase in the Australian Government’s general revenue payments to the States we find, in the case of New South Wales, that in successive years the increase was 2.7 per cent, 7.8 per cent- and then the composition of the government changed- 10.5 per cent, 27.4 per cent and 30.6 per cent. Those figures represent the increase. There has been a 30.6 per cent increase in the grants allocated to New South Wales yet the New South Wales Premier has the audacity to condemn this Government for not providing financial assistance to his State. All the words in the world will not overcome the simple fact that under this Government grants to the States have increased by about one-third when compared with the measly less than 3 per cent made available under the previous Government.

We find when we look at the document containing payments to or for the States for local government which was tabled by the Treasurer (Mr Hayden) that the story has continued in this sphere. No matter where we look we find this story in terms of real money. We find the story magnified. Consider the field of education, one of the traditional areas in which the Australian Government makes grants to the States. In 1971-72 the figure was $56m. Then it was increased to $74m. Then we see the effect of this Government gaining office in Canberra because the figure rose from $74m to $16 lm and then $43 3m. In the most recent Budget, which the Opposition has seen fit to obstruct, the figure is $472m. Compare that sum of $472 m with the $56m allocated in the last full year of the previous government’s period in power.

The story continues in new areas where the initiatives of this Government have been displayed for the first time for the benefit of local government and State governments. I choose for example the area improvement plan created by this Government and which has been supervised by the Minister for Urban and Regional Development (Mr Uren). In the present Budget an allocation of $l7m has been made to the area improvement plan. This is a new initiative which was never dreamed of by the Opposition Parties when in government.

I turn now to the very important area of local government- the Cinderella level of government in this country- to demonstrate again the performance of this Government in hard facts. I quote from table 93 on page 122 of Budget Paper No. 7. Australian Government payments direct to local government authorities continued from about 1965-66 to 1971-72 at around the $lm level. They ranged from $ 1.1m in 1965 to $1.9m in 1971-72. Then again we see the dramatic effect of the Labor Party in government in Canberra so far as local government is concerned. The figure increased successively from $2.2m to $5.9m, to $55.2m and to $1 1 lm. These figures are what local government understands. All the pie in the sky, all the half baked projects and programs that the Opposition now deigns to put before the electorate after 23 years of inactivity do not mean anything at all when we compare them with the performance of the Labor Government.

If we look at the $ 1 1 1 m that goes direct to local government from the Australian Government we find that it covers areas that were never considered by the previous Government. These areas include child care and pre-schools, Aboriginal advancement, the arts, handicapped persons’ assistance, homeless persons’ assistance, nursing homes and aged and disabled persons’ homes. The last was a continuation of a previous program at a considerably enhanced level. One can read quite a list of projects and programs which local government is now involved in but which it was unable to participate in under the previous Government due to its lack of initiatives.

If we look at the proposals that the Opposition is putting to the electorate for consideration so far as the finance of local government is concerned, we realise how detailed the approach of the present Government has been. The previous speaker, the honourable member for Moore (Mr Hyde ), has done nothing if he has not illustrated the difficulties of providing an equitable distribution of funds to local government. He spent his entire speech listing the difficulties that are much more capably handled by the Grants Commission under this Government’s legislation than under the diffuse proposals put forward on local government by the Opposition. The Opposition’s policy is just not clear about the details of the method of sharing income tax with local government. The previous speaker has simply enabled me to make my point more forcefully without doing anything but refer the reader or the listener to his speech. He has listed in great detail the difficulty that small local government groups have in establishing their case. How much more difficult would that be if they did not have the assistance of a group such as the Grants Commission whose main mandate is to establish where these inequities occur and to distribute funds accordingly.

The Opposition’s policy is very vague on many of the precise and important details that local government would need to know before it was in a position to endorse that policy. The percentage of income tax for local government under the Opposition’s policy is likely to be small and fixed, unlike the increases which I have cited to the House from the Budget document. It is not clear how local government will get this money under the Opposition’s proposals except from the State, and all of us have had experience of being told by local government officials what sort of deal they got under the State Grants Commission before the new proposals were initiated. All of us were informed by local government people in our electorates how difficult it was for them to expect justice at the hands of the State Grants Commission. It is certainly not clear under the Opposition’s proposals how this justice will be meted out, how that equity will be dealt out. This certainly is clear under the Grants Commission proposals of this Government.

If the Australian Government chose to reduce income tax collections, under the Opposition’s proposals it could not announce a reduction until the Budget was brought down. This would mean that local governments, being forced to make decisions about expenditure, would be committed to an expenditure program which may not be financed simply because for more general economic management purposes the Australian Government found it necessary to reduce income tax collections. There is an element of uncertainty in the proposals of the Opposition so far as local government financing is concerned which would be intolerable to the sensible management of local government. As the present assistance to local authorities is in the form of untied general purpose assistance it is difficult to see how the Opposition’s proposals could provide even greater independence so far as the opportunity of local government is concerned to allocate funds according to its own priorities. It is hard to see how the Opposition’s proposals can give that grass roots support to the idea that the people on the spot would have the autonomy to make decisions according to their local priorities. There can be no doubt that they have that autonomy under the present Government. There can be no question that local government appreciates the freedom that it has received under the Australian Government’s system of allocating grants through the Grants Commission.

The Opposition’s proposals, as very adequately highlighted by the previous speaker, do not ensure that inequalities in revenue raising and expenditure disabilities of local government are taken into consideration. This is the very mandate for the Grants Commission under the present proposals. Yet the Opposition’s vague and generalised proposals make no attempt whatsoever to confront the problems that were enumerated by the previous speaker in his criticism of the present system- criticism which the Grants Commision accepts; criticism that the Minister and this Government accept. Each of the reports of the Grants Commission so far as financial assistance to local government is concerned has emphasised the difficulties of arriving at an equitable base. The Minister for Urban and Regional Development (Mr Uren), in his speech to this House just 2 speeches ago, emphasised the difficulty in establishing such a basis of equity. But it is clear that the mechanism exists. It is clear that the Grants Commission is working very hard on establishing such a basis. It is clear that it is working on the problem of communication with local government. Extremely difficult as this problem is, the Grants Commission is working very assiduously on it.

We do not have to look to just this Government or to Labor Party supporters for criticism of the Opposition proposals. Let me quote what Mr Lewis, the Premier of New South Wales, is reported to have said in an article which appeared in the Sydney Morning Herald of 26 September. In referring to the proposals of the Opposition to finance local government and the States he said:

Until the plan was implemented it would be premature to talk of specifics. The scheme was still years away.

He obviously does not think that Mr Fraser will be Prime Minister for many years. He is then reported as having said:

Nobody knows what it will mean- Mr Fraser has to get into Government first.

Mr Lewis is obviously very uncertain and has no precise idea about how this proposed program would work. Other comments in a critical vein were made by the Queensland Treasurer, Senator Steele Hall, Mr Kevin Cairns and others associated with the Liberal Party or who at least have had past associations with it.

Let me now turn to the question of how the Grants Commission has operated so far as financial assistance to local government is concerned. I wish to quote from the second report of the Grants Commission on ‘Financial Assistance for Local Government’ which was made in 1975. The Commission first makes the point that there were 76 approved regional organisations and local governing bodies that applied to the Special Minister of State for assistance. There is no question that the Grants Commission was confronted with a very large task in processing the applications from these groups. I know from my own electoral experience that this task has been undertaken in a conscientious and thorough way. I will read to the House some comments that were made by the Commission in the introduction to the report that emphasise the awareness of the Commission in regard to this question of equitable distribution. The Commission stated:

Although some progress was made during the year in data collection and management, the lack of uniformity in accounting for local government finances, within and between States, continues to pose difficult problems. Direct comparison of financial data could only be made with caution and the Commission again had to rely heavily on the judgment of individual members concerning the relative merits of applications. A satisfactory system of completely objective measurement of fiscal inequalities may not be possible, but the Commission believes that with the co-operation of local government authorities in providing data and other information in a more manageable form, the area in which the judgment of members has to be exercised can be substantially diminished. This would make it possible for the Commission to consider providing local governing bodies with information concerning the calculations on which the assessment of individual grants were based, a course which is not possible in the present circumstances.

There is only one way to solve the problem, and that is to work on it. The Commission is determined to do just that. It is no good dropping all the activity and all the experience that has been accumulated by this Commission for some vague and nebulous proposition, when in the end we will have to get back to the same basic details as this Commission is now developing. Eventually it will need to concentrate local government group by local government group on the causes of inequalities and inequities between those groups.

In the last 5 minutes available to me I would like to concentrate on the effect that these proposals have had on my own electorate which largely forms the south-east region of New South

Wales, namely, region 8. The Grants Commission has distributed $1.3m to this region. The Eurobodalla Shire Council received $100,000, the Goulburn City Council received $200,000 and the Bibbenluke Shire Council received $35,000. I would like to concentrate on those 3 councils. The Eurobodalla Shire is a coastal shire which has many problems imposed on it by the fact that it is tourist orientated. As time goes on tourism has become an increasingly larger industry in the Eurobodalla Shire. Strains are placed on the shire because of the need for beach facilities in the summer. There is the problem of huge loads and demands during the Christmas vacation and during summer time in general, falling away to a lesser demand in winter. The Eurobodalla Shire Council is plagued by the complications imposed on it by this type of business activity. It is plagued by the need to provide road access to many tourist areas which are used only on a seasonal basis. The investment in that infrastructure is not used adequately during the winter months. In one way or another this would be the main problem confronting the Eurobodalla Shire. It has another ancillary problem and that is that it is flanked by a national park and it is necessary to provide links of communication through an area which fundamentally does not produce rating revenue for the shire. To a greater or lesser extent, that is the problem associated with local government up and down the coast in my electorate.

I now turn to the Goulburn City Council. Here we have a very interesting contrast. We have a long established, gently growing city which is able to use the moneys which the Grants Commission gives it to consolidate and build the significant social services infrastructure which the council provides. It is a city worth examination because it has a very stable economic base and, unlike the coastal shires, has a fairly regular economy in terms of the demand for its services. It has a diversified economy. In that we find many problems are created. In one way or another services have to be offered in the Goulburn municipal area which are completely uncalled for in the Eurobodalla shire area. In some cases those services may be justified in terms of total demand. In some cases they may have to be provided before the optimum demand has been reached. The Goulburn City Council is confronted with a completely different set of problems from that of the Eurobodalla shire. The Grants Commission has the very difficult job of evaluating those problems in terms of the topping up grants.

Let us turn now to the other shire which I selected- the Bibbenluke shire. It is a completely rural shire which has to service a diversified area, a fairly sparsely populated area. Its main problem seems to be roads and how the shire can provide proper road communication through its sparsely populated and diversified area. It is situated on the edge of the Snowy River. Its topography is fairly rough. The Bibbenluke shire is constantly confronted with the problems of communication that characterise the nation as a whole. In my electorate there are those 3 examples of completely different local government problems. Then we come to a fourth local government area- the Queanbeyan City Council, which has the unique problem of being one of the fastest growing cities in Australia and which has been unable to provide the social infrastructure which is so important for the people of that city. Here again the Grants Commission provides an opportunity for equalisation of funds.

The Grants Commission, as it is operating now, has been extremely successful. This is greatly appreciated by the people in local government. The Grants Commission by its record has demonstrated its effectiveness. I believe that without the shadow of a doubt the record of this Government stands unchallenged by the vague and unexplained proposals of the Opposition in regard to finance for local government.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
WannonLeader of the Opposition

– In his obsession to cling to power at all costs, the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) is willing to defy all constitutional processes, to wreck democratic institutions and deliberately to inflict unnecessary hardship on the community. He has a blind, irrational hatred for the Senate which he sees as the one obstacle against his wielding of total power. He has always wanted to abolish the Senate and the 6 State parliaments, and to amalgamate the 930 municipalities and shires into some 60 regions under his control. His avowed aim now is to strip the Senate of the vital protective powers which were the keystone of the Commonwealth Constitution and which remain the one fundamental safeguard of the States and of the people against the total entrenched power of the juggernaut government that he is creating. He is seeking to escape the judgment of the ballot box.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I take a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I understand that the honourable gentleman is speaking on the Local Government Grants Bill. I ask you whether you can attach any relevance to what he is saying.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Giles:

-I thank the Minister for his point of order. I will listen carefully to the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

– I am speaking of the Senate’s power in relation to financial measures. This is a financial measure. Therefore, the Senate’s power in relation to it is of great pertinence and great moment. The Prime Minister is seeking to escape the judgment of the ballot box. His rapidly growing irrationality and arrogance have all the clinical symptoms of a dictator. He is already contriving to cut back pockets of Government spending although he was granted ample Supply to take him to the end of November and beyond. The current 5 months’ Supply is over 49 per cent greater on the revenue side and 1 10 per cent greater on the works side than last year. The Treasurer (Mr Hayden) indicated at the end of August that Supply had been significantly underspent in the first 2 months of the 5 months period.

In the face of these facts, the Prime Minister is deliberately contriving to bring about chaos by bringing Public Service pay and community services to a halt. He will do this to further his own political ends in the hope that he can blame the Opposition for circumstances which he will create himself. He must not be allowed to do so. The Constitution clearly provides that if a government cannot guarantee Supply it must submit itself to the people. In his submissions to the Governor-General in April last year he stated precisely this in order to secure a double dissolution. I quote his own words:

If the Senate rejects any money Bill - that could apply to this Bill- … I shall certainly wait upon the Governor-General and I shall advise the Governor-General not merely to dissolve the House of Representatives but dissolve the Senate as well.

He is now trying to frighten and blackmail the people by the threat of loss of jobs and services, in order to prevent an election. If he succeeds in that blackmail and succeeds in weakening or capturing the Senate, there will be no limits to his power. The community should understand that. Local governments should understand that.

The Senate is no hereditary or restricted franchise upper House like the House of Lords. It is fully elected by the general franchise of the people by proportional representation, an even more accurate reflection of the electors’ will than the preferential system in the House of Representatives. It is unquestionably a democratic chamber, one whose basis of repesentation marks its special purpose in our system. Our Senate was deliberately modelled on the American Senate and was given virtually the same money powers as that body.

Mr Daly:

– I rise to order, Mr Deputy Speaker. May I ask the Leader of the Opposition to advise us with what part of this Bill he is dealing? He is opening up a general debate on the powers of the Senate.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Giles:

-I was prepared to take up the point myself a little while ago, but the Leader of the Opposition then pointed out the relevance of his speech to the 3 Bills before the House. The matter is not very clear. I ask the Leader of the Opposition to stick as closely as he can to the 3 Bills, which are the States Grants Bill, the States Grants (Special Assistance) Bill and the Local Government Grants Bill.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

-The power of the Senate to reject these Bills or to reject any other Bills is something that must be debated and must be allowed to be debated in this chamber.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– You will stick to the Bills, I can assure you.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

-The Minister at the table will not determine the procedures of this House. The Chair will do that and the rules of debate will do that. Our Senate was deliberately modelled on the American Senate and was given virtually the same money powers as that body. The money power in the Senate is vital for 2 main reasons in relation to these Bills or in relation to any other money Bills. It is the one latent power which enables the removal of a disastrous government. It is the sole protection for the 4 less populous States against the possibility that the taxpayers’ money, raised uniformly per capita throughout Australia, may be heavily concentrated within the 2 larger States which have the numbers to dominate the lower House. That has particular relevance to States grants legislation. The essential principle of the money power is this: It should be wholly within the fully elected Parliament controlled by the people’s vote free from the influence of the Crown. The Senate is as much the people’s House as is the House of Representatives. Let the Prime Minister go into the States and argue otherwise. I have some High Court decisions which I should like the permission of the House to have incorporated in Hansard.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Giles:

-Is leave granted?

Mr Daly:

– May I have a look at them?

Mr FRASER:
WANNON, VICTORIA

-The Prime Minister is arguing that a government should be allowed to remain in office for its full 3 year term. This is not a provision of the Constitution, which merely provides a maximum. It is certainly not an inviolate convention. Governments, by choice or compulsion, throughout Australia’s history have frequently run short term. A government may go to the people at any time. Governments often run short term if they think that their stocks are temporarily high or, as with the Dunstan State Government, they fear future loss of popularity.

The death or the crossing of the floor of a handful of people can bring down a governmentin this case, 2 people. There is no protection to guarantee or assert a full term. The reverse is true. The Constitution specifically gives to the Senate the powers and the concomitant responsibility to bring a government to the judgment of the people if in the opinion of the Senate that government will do serious or irrevocable harm to the people of Australia by remaining in office.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I rise on a point of order, Mr Speaker. My point of order is that the 3 Bills before the House, the States Grants Bill, the States Grants (Special Assistance) Bill and the Local Government Grants Bill, in themselves provide for appropriations whereas the Leader of the Opposition is talking about matters which relate to Appropriation Bill (No. 1) and Appropriation Bill (No. 2). I suggest that he is speaking about matters which have been the subject of a separate debate in both this House and another place.

Mr SPEAKER:

-On a strict matter of relevance, the point of order would be upheld. It is normal in this House to allow a fairly general debate on these types of measures. I call the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

– Sections 53 and 57 of the Constitution give those powers in relation to these Bills or other money Bills. Clearly they must be used discreetly and with the greatest of caution. That they have not been invoked before is no argument for their non-use. The simple fact is that the Government is dishonest, corrupt and disastrously inefficient. It has brought this country to its knees. It is the worst government since Federation.

The Prime Minister sought to use section 57 to obtain a double dissolution last year. He can do so now. He could do so on these Bills. The fact that the Appropriation Bills have not been rejected twice over a period of 3 months is no excuse. Last year’s Supply Bills, like the current Appropriation Bills, were simply deferred. The 1974 double dissolution was achieved on the basis of Bills already rejected twice. The Whitlam Government now has some 21 or 22 Bills twice rejected which give it ample opportunity to seek a double dissolution. To argue that the use of this constitutional power to bring a government to the people will create unstable government for the long term future is deliberately to distort the issue. No government which gives good and stable government, even with necessary short term lapses into unpopularity, need fear a dissolution. The Senate Opposition would act only if, as in this case, the Government had a sustained record of grave offences.

In order to support his bid to destroy the Senate and its power to reject these Bills, if that be its will, the Prime Minister has invented another socalled principle that governments are made or unmade in the House of Representatives. There is no such principle. Section 57 was inserted in the Constitution to resolve deadlocks between the Senate and this House. If a double dissolution occurs as a result of a deadlock the Government may be defeated; it has been ‘unmade’, to use the Prime Minister’s words, by the Senate, not by the House of Representatives. There is no such principle. Our Constitution clearly contemplates that except for the introduction and amendment of money Bills the Senate has equal power with the House of Representatives. The Senate not only has the constitutional power to refuse or to fail to pass a money Bill; it is, when circumstances justify it, the voice and instrument of the Australian people. It can require a dishonest and incompetent government to account to the people at the ballot box. If the people agree, the Senate unmakes the Government.

There is talk that the Prime Minister might seek a half Senate election as a device to avoid judgment on the House of Representatives. A half Senate election would be no solution. On the contrary, it could create grave and sustained instability. It does not resolve the Supply problem. Let me examine that problem in detail. A half Senate election must be held between now and 30 June 1976. The primary purpose of that election is to determine the 30 new senators to take their place on 1 July 1976. In addition, such an election will determine the following senators to take their places immediately after that election: Two senators to fill the casual vacancies now held temporarily by Senators Bunton and Field of New South Wales and Queensland; two senators to be elected from the Northern Territory and two from the Australian Capital Territory. The important point to appreciate is that the Party strengths within the Senate immediately after a half Senate election are unlikely to reflect accurately the mood of the electors at that time. Those strengths will comprise the 58 preexisting senators elected at the May 1974 double dissolution, plus the 2 casual vacancies and the 4 territorials.

Whether or not the Whitlam Government could control the Senate substantially or wholly after that election would depend upon a number of factors. The first is whether Labor does badly enough to win the casual vacancies. The extraordinary fact is that if Labor does badly, as seems likely, it will win the casual sixth seats and will gain 2 immediate places in the Senate. It must do poorly enough to win the short term vacancies but not so badly as to allow the Liberal-National Country parties to poll 57.2 per cent in either of the 2. States. The second factor is whether an independent and not a Liberal will gain a vacancy in the Australian Capital Territory, that is, whether the Liberal vote can be reduced below 33.3 per cent. The third factor is whether Labor can prevent the National Country Party and/or independents from winning both vacancies in the Northern Territory. The result, which will in short term determine the numerical strength of the Senate, must be largely a lottery and cannot be said to be a true test of the voters’ will. Indeed, the voters throughout Australia may well indicate by very substantial majority their rejection of the Whitlam Government and yet that Government could gain a short term victory, and that would not indicate the will of the Australian people.

Let me add here words that were written by Sir Robert Menzies on 21 October. Finally I would say this, with unfeigned respect for the vice-regal office: I think it would be a singular piece of impertinence on the part of a Prime Minister to go to the Governor-General whose reputation is high and who understands these things very well and ask him for a premature half Senate election calculated and designed hopefully, because of the recent legislation about senators from the Capital Territory and the Northern Territory, to give the Government control of the Senate for a month or two, in which time of course all its legislation which now has been attacked in the Senate could be carried with permanent and, I think, damaging effects on the Australian political structure. To offer advice to the Governor-General on the lines that have been hinted at would, I think, be both improper and insulting. There is no legal principle that permits a wrongdoer to profit from his own actions. The history of separate Senate elections is that the Government does worse at such elections than at a general poll. A Senate election allows a punishment vote without defeating the Government in the lower House. The current public opinion polls indicate that the Government would suffer defeat but probably would win the 2 casual vacancies at a half Senate election.

The present situation is that Supply is being denied the Government pending a lower House election. This is a classic technique for bringing about an election. Supply will now run out, according to the Government, before a half-Senate election can be held. A minimum timetable for such an election might be: From writ to polling day, 30 days; counting period, 10 days; period for convening the Senate, 7 days; a total of 47 days or 7 weeks in all. In his article this morning the Prime Minister indicated a period of 3 months. This means that if the writs were issued now the new Senate could not convene until about 23 December. Supply will have been exhausted for at least 3 weeks.

A government could not reasonably ask for Supply to cover a half Senate election for the following cogent reasons: It would be asking an Opposition, which has properly used its constitutional powers to bring about a general election, to support it in its gamble to avert such an election. All evidence suggests that a half Senate election will not resolve the present crisis but will merely prolong it for a further 3 months pending a dissolution. The Opposition is unwilling to prolong the period of instability which can be resolved only by a House of Representatives poll.

The Prime Minister is like a protester lying in the middle of the road holding up the traffic by pleading justification in a law which does not exist. His arguments totally fall to the ground. He has one constitutional course available to him- to seek a dissolution under section 57 of the Constitution. If he does not do so and if he deliberately allows and encourages suffering and chaos the responsibility must be his and his alone. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard statements to which I referred earlier.

Mr Hurford:

– That is not what the people think; that is what you think.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

-Put it to the test.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Is leave granted to incorporate the material in Hansard? There being no objection, leave is granted. (The documents read as follows)-

page 2701

THE HIGH COURT ON THE SENATE’S POWERS 1975

Extracts from judgments in the Petroleum and Minerals Authority case on effect of s. S3

page 2701

STEPHEN J

In my view the concept underlying the Commonwealth’s submissions discloses a serious misconception of the place of the Senate as a legislative chamber; from this misconception stems what I regard as the erroneous interpretation which the Commonwealth puts upon s. 57.

The Senate, except as to money bills, possesses legislative power in no way inferior to the House, it has full power of initiation, rejection and amendment of bills coming from the House and even in the case of money bills has the right freely to request amendments or to reject outright. These powers, unusual in a modern upper house, reflect the Federal character of our polity.

page 2701

MASON J

It cannot be suggested that the Senate has a duty to pass a bill transmitted to it by the House of Representatives. Section 53 expressly provides that the Senate has equal power with the House in respect as provided in that section. The exceptions relate only to proposed laws imposing taxation, or appropriating revenue or moneys for the ordinary annual services of the government and to amendments increasing any proposed charge or burden on the people. As such the exceptions have no relevance to this case, for the Petroleum and Minerals Authority Bill (‘the bill’) was not a proposed law of the kind described.

In the exercise of its powers under s. 53 the Senate deliberates upon proposed laws initiated by the House; its power to pass or reject them is unconfined by s. 53 or any other provision in the Constitution; and its power to otherwise deal with them is also unconfined save in so far as contrary provision is made by the exceptions which, as I have said, have no application in this case.

page 2701

GIBBS J

Under the Constitution the Senate does not occupy a subordinate place in the exercise of legislative power. It is an essential part of the parliament in which the legislative power of the Commonwealth is vested: see ss. 1,58. It is expressly provided by s. 53 of the Constitution that, except as provided in that section, the Senate shall have equal power with the House of Representatives in respect of all proposed laws. Only three limitations are imposed on the power of the Senate by s. 53:

Clearly the Senate retains the power to amend any proposed law in any case that is not within the specific prohibitions imposed by s. 53. The power of the Senate to reject a proposed law- a power implicit in its position as one of the chambers of a bicameral legislature- is left untouched by s. 53 so that the Senate may reject any proposed law, even one which it cannot amend.

page 2701

BAR WICK, C. J

It seems to me that this submission is untenable. The Senate is a part of the parliament and, except as to laws appropriating revenue or money for the ordinary annual service of the government or imposing taxation, is co-equal with the House of Representatives. Bills may originate and do originate in the Senate. Section 53 of the Constitution makes it abundantly clear that the Senate is to have equal powers with the House of Representatives in respect of all laws other than those specifically excepted. The only limitations as to equality of the powers of the Senate with those of the House of Representatives are those imposed by the first three paragraphs of that section, to the terms of which the limitations must be confined.

It is evident from the terms of the Constitution that the Senate was intended to represent the States, parts of the Commonwealth, as distinct from the House of Representatives which represents the electors throughout Australia. It is often said that the Senate has, in this respect, failed of its purpose. This may be so, due partly to the party system and to the nature of the electoral system; but even if that assertion be true it does not detract from the constitutional position that it was intended that proposed laws could be considered by the Senate from a point of view different from that which the House of Representatives may take. The Senate is not a mere house of review: rather it is a house which may examine a proposed law from a stand-point different from that which the House of Representatives may have taken.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

-Mr Speaker, I have not finished my speech. There is still some time left. Let me reply to the honourable member for Adelaide, who interjects. He should persuade his Prime Minister to face the people of Australia, to face his masters and ours, if he has such confidence. That is one thing that this Prime Minister will not do, because he is frightened to meet me in debate on the A Current Affair program. He is frightened to debate these current issues in the public forum. He has had 3 challenges and 3 times he has declined to appear.

Mr DALY:
Minister for Administrative Services · Grayndler · ALP

– We have just heard a pathetic cry for mercy from the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Malcolm Fraser) in his attempt to gain power by the sleazy road. He is trying to buoy up his supporters, who at a lunch time meeting today told him to surrender because the task he has undertaken is one in which he cannot win. Honourable members do not have to take my word for it. Seventy per cent of the people say: ‘Pass Supply’. The National Country Party of Australia has forced the Leader of the Opposition to speak to the Parliament. This is the first occasion of late that he has been game to come into the chamber. He only came in because the Country Party said: ‘We are lost. Somebody must save us, because the people do not want what is happening’. Now the Leader of the Opposition says: ‘Let the House of Representatives face the electors’. He said: ‘Under no circumstances have a Senate election. Whatever you do, do not let the Senate face the people. We do not want a Senate election, because the 70 per cent who favour passing the Appropriation Bills will give us the result that we do not want’. That is the position.

Opposition members have chased all round this country for scandals. They have chased them every day. They have moved 2 censure motions in a week in this Parliament. Only a week ago this Parliament passed a vote of confidence in the Australian Government. Why would the Leader of the Opposition not be crying for mercy today? It is said that the gentleman from overseas is leaving again on Monday, so members of the Opposition are going to have an inquiry on Tuesday. They have chased the Treasurer (Mr Hayden) around. They are going back into the past. Every second day they are looking for some new issue. Today the Leader of the Opposition came into the Parliament not to speak on the Bills before it but to apologise for the waning enthusiasm of his supporters in a campaign that has been condemned by all Australian people. We know how he is in his present position. As Steele Hall said, he is carrying the votes of dead men in his pocket in another place. Is it not a fact also that he condones the likes of Field and others coming to the Senate? I suppose he condoned the attitude of the Queensland Governor, who stepped into the political arena. What would he say if Sir John Kerr, the Governor-General, made a similar statement in support of the Government? He would be crying to the high heavens.

The Leader of the Opposition in his attempt to gain power, as Steele Hall has said, by the sleazy road, today has tried to discredit this Government. When the pay is not paid to the people of this country, as will happen shortly, have no doubt this Government will not be blamed; it will be those who sit opposite. If people want money to flow, all those who sit opposite have to do is constitutionally give effect to what is the right of this Parliament and say: ‘This is the Government of the land’. They are not game to reject the Budget. Their own senators said that they are not going to reject it. If they have the power to reject it, why do they not do so? I will tell the House why. They are not game; they are not courageous; they are a lot of political cowards. They are deferring it from hour to hour. They are doing it because the National Country Party in the main will do anything on its sleazy road to power, and a docile, contemptible Liberal Party and a Liberal Leader bend the knee to it.

We all know that the Leader of the Opposition holds his present office because his methods have always been sleazy. I saw the right honourable member for Bruce (Mr Snedden) leave the chamber. Why would he not leave? Honourable members opposite do not know when they are going to be stabbed even when sitting on the back benches. Have honourable members ever noticed that everybody opposite sits behind the Leader of the Opposition? Nobody is game to walk in front of him because he has more knives than any cutlery expert who ever came to this country. They know they will be stabbed. I have been told by Liberals since their meeting today that at the meeting members who wanted to speak in favour of letting the Budget pass were cried down. They were told: ‘It is 2 o’clock. The Parliament is meeting’. The Liberals called a meeting today at 1.30 simply because they knew that in half an hour they could not get a decision that would force the Opposition to do the right thing- to vote for the passing of the Appropriation Bills.

Honourable members opposite today are quivering in their shoes. The results of a poll back surrender by the Senate. The honourable member for Griffith (Mr Donald Cameron) laughs, but it is a hollow laugh. He does not want a Senate election either. He wants a dead man’s vote in his pocket. Do not let members of the Opposition forget this is what they are relying on. Let us hear the words of this famous democrat, the Leader of the Opposition, who just spoke, demanding that the people’s voice be heard. He was not too happy to hear about the 70 per cent mentioned in the Press this morning. He said that he had not read this morning’s paper. The relevant part was in big print too so he could easily understand it, but he did not read about the 70 per cent. Let us hear the words of the democrat who sits opposite. He said:

If the Parliament becomes unworkable by destruction of convention, democracy itself becomes unworkable because democracy rests much more on adherence to convention than to the rigid application of rules and laws.

That was said by Malcolm Fraser on 2 March 1975. ‘RIP’ is how that should have ended, because with that statement out the door went his traditions and all that went with them. The Labor Party is not standing alone on this issue. People all over Australia are clamouring to support the Government in its stand against the Senate, which unconstitutionally seeks to destroy the people’s government. If honourable members opposite do not believe it, let them come and address some of the rallies we go to. The other day a rally of several thousand people was organised by the Liberal Party in front of Parliament House and the people cheered for Whitlam to come and address them. They sent Anthony,

Fraser and others scurrying in the door of Parliament House. At Hyde Park in Sydney on the wettest day ever 30 000 or 40 000 people turned up for a Labor Party rally. Money is coming in in thousands because people will not see democracy destroyed by a collection of individuals opposite who exist on dead men’s votes.

Do not forget that the Government is not on its own. The right honourable member for Higgins (Mr Gorton), a former Leader of the Liberal Party, a former Prime Minister of this country, is one who has come out and said that the action of those who sit opposite should be condemned. Senator Steele Hall, who by no means is a member of the Labor Party, said that members of the Opposition are on the sleazy road to power. They do not like Steele Hall- and he is one of their own. I do not remember seeing him at any Labor Party branch in this country. Senator Bunton, by no means a Labor man, also stands against the Opposition’s action. Is it any wonder therefore that the Liberals are spending $50,000 to try to get the Leader of the Opposition to smile? He has nothing to smile about. He is the man who is destroying democracy. I will give members of the Opposition the good oil: Do not spend $50,000 on a campaign to make him smile. They will get a good laugh for that, but what I suggest is that they buy him a tube of Colgate’s toothpaste for 20c and bring back a ring of confidence to his face.

Let it not be forgotten that the Opposition’s action has not been put on for democracy. It has told us why it was taken. In an advertisement in the Daily News of Friday, 17 October 1975, the Leader of the Opposition said:

We must do it to revive Australia.

It goes on to say a whole lot of other things to revive Australia. There is a photograph. He smiled for once there. But on another page is a big advertisement saying, in effect: ‘We did it because all the leading newspapers of Australia told us we had to do it’. So Murdoch told him; the Fairfaxes told him; the Melbourne Herald and the Sun and others told him. This is why these people say that they are going to wreck democracy. They want to beat the government of the day. They could not do it in 2 elections in 1 8 months.

Do not say that this is a new idea. This Government had not been elected for more than a few months when the Opposition plotted to withdraw Supply from it and to stop its flow of money. Senator Withers said that they arranged to do it even before the votes had been finally counted. Eighteen months ago we took the Opposition to the Australian people and did it like a dinner. Now today it comes again and seeks to put the Government out. We have faced up to this position and have let the people realise that if the Senate is not stopped on this occasion under the domination of men such as those who sit opposite, the Leader of the Opposition and the right honourable Leader of the National Country Party (Mr Anthony), every three or four months in this country the people will face an election when we come for Supply. (Quorum formed)

You can see the guilt of those opposite when they do not like the truth being told to them. I repeat for those who might not have been listening to me a few moments ago that the Leader of the Opposition came up to see whether he could lift up the flagging enthusiasm of those who sit opposite. I understand, for instance, that the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard), who is sitting at the table, was one of those in the Caucus today who said: ‘Surrender at all costs because I want to get back and I cannot stand -

Mr Howard:

– That is not true.

Mr DALY:

– This is what we have heard. There are a lot of leaks from the Caucus and the Whip who just called for a quorum is one of those who helped to stab the previous Leader of the Opposition in the back in order to get his job from his predecessor. Everybody opposite knows that the only way they keep supporters is to have more members in the shadow cabinet than on the back bench. The Leader of the Opposition is always sure of a majority of support in the Senate for the simple reason that if they vote against him he tosses them out. We expect the number in the shadow Cabinet to go to 30, 40 or 50 shortly because at the rate the Opposition is going there will not be anybody supporting the Leader of the Opposition who is not indebted to him.

The Country Party always has two or three members present to watch the Liberals. None of them dares to nod. They have always got to be here to watch the Liberals. They travel like British cops; there is always a couple there, all the time. They are on duty today to make sure that the Liberals support this point of view. Has the House noticed how they had to cheer when the Leader of the Opposition was in the chamber because the Country Party is watching them all? The worst of them is the honourable member for Kennedy (Mr Katter), who is trying to interject.

Let there be no doubt in the minds of the Australian people that the Senate is stopping Supply by deferring it. Opposition senators are not prepared to vote for or against it. If they have the power to stop Supply, why are they not prepared to do it? I will tell them why. It is because they have not the courage to do it. It is because when the pay packets cease this Government will not be blamed but those who sit opposite will be blamed for stopping people with families from getting their pay. They will be blamed when the contractors are closing down, when the funds are not available to provide housing for the people, when work in the Northern Territory is stopping, when in the Australian Capital Territory men cannot get paid and industry is slowing down; when all over this country unemployment is mounting simply because the money is not available due to the action of the Liberal and Country Party senators.

I think it will even penetrate the head of the honourable member for Bennelong who sits opposite, dull as he is, that his is the responsible party. Let there be no doubt about it. They are the first ones, as Senator Steele Hall said, to destroy Christmas. The people who are stopping the money supply in this country are the members of the Liberal and Country parties in the Senate. They are not voting against it. They are afraid to vote against it. They are a cowardly and contemptible lot and will not vote against it. All they are doing is causing harm, dissatisfaction and suffering in the community, simply by following their sleazy road to power. They struggle across the Senate with a dead man’s vote in their pocket, and the Leader of the Opposition supported that attitude today. I can understand the bushrangers who sit over there. They would stand for anything. But I thought the man who wrote the famous words which I read a moment ago had some principle associated with him.

The situation is that in 75 years the Senate has not taken this action and nothing has been done in this country that has destroyed the stability of democracy more than the attitude of those doing it at this time. The people of this country face up to this matter. This Government has been elected twice in 1 8 months for 3-year periods. Those who sit opposite cannot believe that they are not still in government. They cannot read the results. They are born to rule. They are the people who should be running this country. They are even offering the Governor-General advice from the Senate. Who the hell would take their advice on this side, let alone the Governor-General.

They cannot believe that they are not in office. But in another place in a cowardly and contemptible way they defer and defer Supply. They are calling party meetings to try to bolster up their failing support. They have given up reading the newspapers. That is one of the reasons why I stopped having them delivered. I thought they would all have heart attacks over there. I have done them a good turn. If we could turn on the television we would see them smiling again. Those opposite know as well as I do that they do not want a Senate election under any circumstances. It is unconstitutional. But they say that the Senate should stop the supply of money to the duly elected Government and should force this party and this Government to the people. What a perfect arrangement for people who believe in the sleazy road to power. Those are not my words. They are the magnificent words of Senator Steele Hall, who, I understand, is the only liberal in the Senate and consequently has been expelled from the Liberal Party.

We on this side of the House know the situation. The money is running down. All industry may well stop because of the circumstances caused by the lack of Supply. Those who sit opposite will have to give up deferring. If they are courageous, they should stand up and be counted. They should go to the Northern Territory for a week or two. They should visit there once in a while to see whether they can tell the people that they are responsible for cutting off $100m or more and that they will not let it pass in the Senate. We see an Opposition in its death throes. Changes will be made in the not too distant future. The surrender is imminent. The flagging fortunes, hope and faith of those who stood behind the great Fraser are now very shaky. The newspapers of this country have turned against them. The very people who told them to turn this on- the Courier-Mail, the Herald, and others- are now telling them to do the right thing by Australia because they are ruining the country by their action. Every worker who is unemployed as a result of that action, every public servant in Canberra who does not get paid, any industry that has to close down and any man or woman in the Northern Territory who may be out of work because of it should blame the Leader of the Opposition and the top members of the Country Party. Those who sit in Opposition in another place, by using a dead man’s vote, are responsible for the supply of money being cut off at a time when Australia needs it as never before.

It is not a question of this country going broke. It is not a question of not enough money. It is a question of those opposite denying the Government the right to spend that money. Honourable members opposite have stopped the authority of this Parliament to spend that money and consequently they are responsible. Although there are a few brilliant brains opposite not one of them could convince the Australian people that we were the ones who had stopped the supply of money. The people know full well that those members opposite are the ones responsible.

I take no notice of the interjections from the Opposition Whip, the honourable member for Bendigo (Mr Bourchier). He has to sing for his supper. He was put in that position because he used a knife with the dexterity of the Leader of the Opposition. He helped to stab the previous Leader and he is now stabbing democracy. Consequently his interjections do not worry me. The synthetic smiles of members opposite and the strange looks that they have on their faces do not hide the fact that they are facing a very grim future. I know- Liberals have told me- that they are horrified of what they have done. They have told me how their Leader today got a dreadful reception in his Party room. They have told me also that he was the only one there smiling- most people thought it was a snarl; but they said it was a smile. We find that the Leader of the Opposition is now tottering to his political doom because of this action in which he is destroying democracy aided, .abetted and supported by those who sit opposite.

I say to the Opposition members of the Senate: If they really believe in democracy let the Bessells and others stand up and be counted and refuse to vote against Supply as they have said they would. Let the money flow again. Only then will we have again a secure and prosperous Australia. Honourable members opposite deserve to be condemned. I accept the apology of the Leader of the Opposition today. By this time next week no doubt we will get a total surrender and he will find that the 70 per cent of Australians who believe as we do will signal again a great fight for democracy by the present Prime Minister, the Australian Labor Party and all fair dinkum Australians.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I call the honourable member for Maranoa.

Mr CORBETT:
Maranoa

-Mr Speaker -

Motion ( by Mr Nicholls) put:

That the question be now put.

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

AYES: 58

NOES: 52

Majority……. 6

AYES

NOES

Question so 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 Riordan) read a third time.

page 2706

STATES GRANTS (SPECIAL ASSISTANCE) BILL 1975

Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 15 October on motion by Mr Hayden:

Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time.

That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time.

Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

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

page 2706

LOCAL GOVERNMENT GRANTS BILL 1975

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 15 October on the motion by Mr Lionel Bowen:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr CORBETT:
Maranoa

-Quite a number of honourable members have spoken in the cognate debate on these Bills but to date not one speaker from the National Country Party has been called. So I take this opportunity to say a few words on the Local Government Grants Bill.

Motion (by Mr Nicholls) put:

That the question be now put Question put. The House divided. (Mr Speaker-Hon. G. G. D. Scholes)

AYES: 58

NOES: 52

Majority……. 6

AYES

NOES

Question so 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 LUSHER:
Hume

-Mr Speaker, I would like to make some comments in relation to the Grants Commission proposals as they affect my electorate.

Motion (by Mr Nicholls) put:

That the question be now put.

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

AYES: 58

NOES: 52

Majority……. 6

AYES

NOES

page 2707

ADJOURNMENT

Motion (by Mr Riordan) proposed:

That the House do now adjourn.

Mr LUSHER:
Hume

-Mr Speaker -

Motion (by Mr Nicholls) put:

That the question be now put. The House divided. (Mr Speaker-Hon. G. G. D. Scholes)

AYES: 57

NOES: 51

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative. Original question resolved in the affirmative.

House adjourned at 5.49 p.m.

page 2709

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

The following answers to questions were circulated

Trustee Companies (Question No. 2884)

Mr Staley:
CHISHOLM, VICTORIA

asked the Attorney-General, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Do individuals who have an interest in a deceased estate have adequate redress under the law against trustee companies which are dilatory in winding up the affairs of such estates.
  2. Are the interests of such individuals sufficiently protected in times of high inflation.
  3. If not, does he contemplate any action to safeguard such interest.
Mr Enderby:
ALP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: (I), (2) and (3) The question calls for an expression of opinion on the adequacy of the present provisions of the law regulating the operation of trustee companies. It is only in the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory that the Australian Government is responsible for the administration of this law. The State Governments are responsible for the administration of the law regulating the operations of trustee companies within the boundaries of the States.

Broadly speaking, in both the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory a trustee company is subject to the same obligations as an individual executor or trustee. In each Territory, the Supreme Court may exercise the same powers over a trustee company as it may exercise over an individual executor or trustee.

I have not had any specific instances of dilatory action by a trustee company in either the Australian Capital Territory or the Northern Territory brought to my attention. If the honourable member has any particular case in mind, I will certainly ask my Department to investigate it.

Education in Rural Areas (Question No. 2914)

Mr Lloyd:
MURRAY, VICTORIA

asked the Minister for Education, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Further to Question No. 25 17 relating to membership of the Interskola organisation which studies the problems of education in sparsely populated rural areas, does his Department exchange views on this matter with other countries with similar problems or belong to other organisations interested in education in rural areas.
  2. Is it considered that the Australian or State Departments of Education would increase their understanding of these problems by membership of Interskola
Mr Beazley:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) My Department exchanges views on this matter with other countries through international organisations interested in education in rural areas. I believe that Australia has a considerable contribution to make to international discussion on this topic, particularly on schemes of financial assistance to isolated children, correspondence education and use of radio for educational purposes in rural areas. Australia has recently hosted (October 7-16) a Commonwealth Educational Broadcasting Conference at which delegates from many countries of the Commonwealth did discuss the role of broadcasting in education including the provision of education to remote areas. The education program of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) in which Australia is actively involved, includes two specific projects currently being implemented related to education in sparsely populated rural areas. They are: ‘Basic Education and Teacher Support in Sparsely Populated Areas’; ‘Alternative Resources and Technologies for Learning’.

Both projects are part of the program of work of the OECD Centre for Educational Research and Innovation (CERI) Australia intends to participate in each of these projects as pan of its involvement in the CERI program.

Australia has already contributed to international exchanges on this topic in another part of the OECD/CER education program. The Australian project which has been accepted by OECD and included in the Early Childhood Education program is: ‘Evaluation of Pre-School Services for Geographically Isolated Children in Queensland’.

  1. Officers of my Department are currently making enquiries on details of the activities and membership of Interskola so that these aspects can be examined in relation to the activities of organisations such as OECD and their relevance to Australia assessed.

National Aboriginal Consultative Committee (Question No. 3144)

Mr Hunt:
GWYDIR, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice:

Will he publish and distribute the minutes of the N.A.C.C. meetings so that Aboriginal communities are fully informed as to what their representatives have been doing at the various N.A.C.C. Conferences; if not, why not.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

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

The N.A.C.C. adopted the following resolution at its meeting in Townsville in March 1975: ‘That the Minister for the Media be requested to have published the minutes of all meetings of the National Aboriginal Consultative Committee from November 1973 and onward for distribution to Aboriginal communities. That copies be free to each Aboriginal community groups, towns, cities, reserves, settlements and missions. That these be on sale throughout Australia through the Offices of the Australian Government Publishing Service, which is administered by the media department to those interested in Aboriginal policy in the general Australia public. Also at the same time move that the Department of Aboriginal Affairs have for distribution and reading copies of the Minutes of the Meetings of the N.A.C.C. That these be sent as soon as possible on a regular basis. That this be part of the N.A.C.C. ‘s public education program. Also so as to lessen the credibility gap that has developed between the N.A.C.C. and our regions due to inadequate communication ‘.

I have taken the matter up with the Minister for the Media and the extent to which the Government can assist in publishing and distributing the minutes of the N.A.C.C. is being examined.

I hope that it will be possible for the N.A.C.C. to be funded in the near future to establish a Secretariat of its own.

If the N.A.C.C. wishes to use part of the funds made available to it to distribute its minutes I would have no objection.

Medibank (Question No. 3197)

Mr Malcolm Fraser:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice:

Does Medibank own any buildings; if so, where are they, and what did each building cost.

Mr Stewart:
ALP

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

All Medibank premises are leased; the Health Insurance Commission does not own any premises.

Australian National Railways Employees: Compensation for Loss of Hearing (Question No. 3278)

Mr Wallis:
GREY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) How much has been paid to Australian National Railways employees by way of compensation for loss of hearing due to noise.
  2. How much has been paid out by the Railways for providing compensated employees with hearing aids.
Mr Charles Jones:
ALP

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

  1. Since payments commenced in 1966-67, a total of SI 16,31 1.59 has been paid by Australian National Railways to employees suffering loss of hearing as a result of their employment with the Railways.
  2. During that period, the cost of supplying hearing aids to those employees where such aids were considered necessary was $1,1 17.32.

Free Spectacles (Question No. 3281)

Mr Lloyd:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice:

What is the criteria for the provision of free spectacles, and how are they provided.

Mr Stewart:
ALP

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

Spectacles are not generally available from the Department of Social Security in the way that some pensioner concessions are available. However, pensioners and beneficiaries accepted for treatment or training under the Australian Government Rehabilitation Service may be provided with free spectacles.

In most States spectacles may be provided free or at a reduced cost by State Government authorities or instrumentalities or from certain public hospitals. In some States the Australian Optometrical Association and individual optometrists provide services on a similar basis.

Migrants: Foreign Language Letters (Question No. 3290)

Mr Snedden:
BRUCE, VICTORIA

asked the Minister, representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice:

  1. 1) Has the Minister noted the suggestion recorded in Professor Henderson’s poverty report that, as a means of assisting migrants, a footnote be included on official letters in a large number of languages, inviting the recipients to tick a box and return the footnote if they wish to have the letter provided in another language.
  2. What is the Minister’s attitude towards this suggestion and, in particular, will the Minister set in train an examination of the feasibility of adopting such a suggestion in a number of relevant Departments even if only on a limited trial basis initially.
Mr Stewart:
ALP

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

  1. and (2) The suggestion on page 276 of the Report ‘Poverty in Australia’ has been noted by the Minister for Social Security.

The suggestion, taken by itself, would appear to have advantages, but it should also be considered in the context of the costs and administrative complexities that would be involved.

The Government will be making a thorough examination of the recommendations and suggestions contained in the Report ‘Poverty in Australia’ and, in addition of course, of those from related reports prepared by the Poverty Enquiry that deal with problems facing migrants.

Unemployment Beneficiaries (Question No. 3293)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice:

What is the Minister’s attitude to the recommendation of the Poverty Commission that the involvement of the Commonwealth Employment Service with unemployment benefits be restricted to providing certificates of unemployability in the way a doctor does for sickness benefit so that unemployment beneficiaries would deal directly with offices or agencies of the Department of Social Security in the same way as other beneficiaries.

Mr Stewart:
ALP

– The Minister for Social Security has provided the following answer to the right honourable members question:

This suggestion is receiving consideration together with other recommendations of the Poverty Commission.

Foreign Language Publications (Question No. 3316)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister, representing the Minister for Social Security, 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. 3 ) In what languages are they published.
  4. 4 ) When were they first published in this way.
Mr Stewart:
ALP

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

I refer the right honourable member to the reply provided by the Prime Minister to question number 3304.

Dental Service (Question No. 3085)

Mr Lloyd:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

What progress has been made with the implementation of the Prime Minister’s May 1974 election promise of a domiciliary dental service for the chronically ill and frail aged.

Dr Everingham:
ALP

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

Unfortunately, as a result of the need for reductions in Government expenditure, it has not been possible to proceed with the implementation of a domiciliary dental service at this time.

Young Men’s Christian Association (Question No. 3102)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Tourism and Recreation, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) What was the nature of the research program conducted by the Young Men’s Christian Association of Australia, which was funded by a grant from the Australian Government.
  2. Has the research program concluded.
  3. If so, was a report prepared, and are copies of the report available.
Mr Stewart:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) A grant of $6,000 was made available to the Young Men’s Christian Association of Australia (YMCA) to commence data collation and assessment as an initial stage in the creation of a Division within the YMCA to conduct further research into youth needs and the development of resources and planning.
  2. The Planning and Resource Division has been set up and quantities of information and resources have been obtained from overseas and are being collated and indexed for use by the Australian YMCA and other community organisations. The research is ongoing in nature.
  3. Copies of progress reports are available within my Department.

Pharmacy Guild (Question No. 3145)

Mr Hunt:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) What is the current position regarding the Pharmacy Guild of Australia and the Australian Government and the matters in dispute resulting from the Scott Report.
  2. Has an arbitrator been appointed.
  3. Will the Government, which purports to believe in the fairness and justice of the arbitration system, honour the resulting determination.
Dr Everingham:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) The four matters in dispute on which recommendations were made to me by Sir Walter Scott, Chairman of the Joint Committee on Pharmaceutical Benefits Pricing Arrangements, were the subject of a letter of 5 September 1975 to me from the Pharmacy Guild of Australia. In this letter the Guild set out its request for arbitration on these matters. The Guild ‘s request for arbitration is currently being examined.
  2. No.
  3. The Government has not yet decided what course of action it will be taking on the Guild ‘s request.

Hearing Aids (Question No. 3210)

Mr Lloyd:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

  1. Will the new National Acoustic Laboratory at Chatswood be also used for the assembly and testing of hearing aids.
  2. If not, where will this be done once the Laboratory moves from its present site.
Dr Everingham:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) The acceptance testing and calibration of hearing aids and the assembly of pre-production prototypes of new models of hearing aids will be undertaken in the new premises.
  2. The assembly of Calaid hearing aids for issue to eligible clients will continue to be carried out by commercial contractors and the Department of Manufacturing Industry.

Skin Cancer (Question No. 3211)

Mr Lloyd:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

Is it a fact that the incidence of skin cancer is higher among people on polyunsaturated diets.

Dr Everingham:
ALP

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

No. There have been some suggestions that people, who by virtue of inheritance and solar exposure have a high risk of skin cancer, may be more prone to this affliction if they habitually consume large quantities of polyunsaturated fatty acids. This hypothesis is based on only a small number of observations and no corroborative human studies have been reported to date.

Nurses (Question No. 3212)

Mr Lloyd:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Are United Kingdom qualified nurses accepted in all States of Australia, or are there some States which do not recognise British standards.
  2. If some States do not recognise them, is there any reason why they should not be recognised.
Dr Everingham:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) and (2) United Kingdom qualified nurses are accepted in all States and Territories of Australia provided that the program of nurse training that they have undertaken in the

United Kingdom is equivalent to the program of nurse training which leads to registration in the professional area in which they seek recognition. There are some nurse training programs in the United Kingdom which have no equivalent in Australia. Applications by nurses from the United Kingdom are assessed on an individual basis by each registration board.

If the training program undertaken by the applicant is deficient in any field which the State or Territory registering authority has declared mandatory in their equivalent program, the nurse seeking recognition would be required to rectify the deficiency before being recognised.

Analgesics (Question No. 3236)

Mr Lloyd:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Has the National Health and Medical Research Council investigated and made recommendations on the use of analgesics.
  2. If so, when, and what are the recommendations.
  3. Does he accept the recommendations, and are his statements in accord with the recommendations.
Dr Everingham:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) and (2) The National Health and Medical Research Council (NH&MRC) has had the matter of the use of analgesics under review for a number of years and has made the following recommendations:

    1. A warning label, similar to that required by the United

States Food and Drug Administration, drawing attention to the possible dangers of taking phenacetin should be required on all preparations containing phenacetin when sold without prescription; the warning should read as follows:

‘WARNING- THIS MEDICATION MAY BE DANGEROUS WHEN USED IN LARGE AMOUNTS OR FOR A LONG PERIOD’.

(64th Session, April 1967)

  1. A warning label drawing attention to the possible dangers should be required on all packages of preparations containing salicylates, phenacetin or paracetamol when sold without prescriptions; the warning should read as follows: .

’ WARNING- THIS MEDICATION MAY BE DANGEROUS WHEN USED IN LARGE AMOUNTS OR FOR A LONG PERIOD’.

(68th Session, May 1969)

  1. A warning label drawing attention to the possible dangers should be required on all packages of preparations for internal human therapeutic use containing salicylic acid, its salts, its derivatives and their salts, phenacetin or paracetamol when sold without prescription; the warning should read as follows: ‘WARNING- THIS MEDICATION MAY BE DANGEROUS WHEN USED IN LARGE AMOUNTS OR FOR A LONG PERIOD’. ( 69th Session, November 1 969)
  2. Council approved the following warning labelling for analgesic preparations containing salicylic acid, its salts, its derivatives and their salts, phenacetin or paracetamol when sold without prescription. This warning might be used as an alternative to the warning label recommended at the 69th Session: ‘CAUTION-THIS PREPARATION IS FOR THE RELIEF OF MINOR AND TEMPORARY AILMENTS AND SHOULD BE USED STRICTLY AS DIRECTED. PROLONGED USE WITHOUT

page 2712

MEDICAL SUPERVISION COULD BE

page 2712

HARMFUL

(76th Session, May 1973)

The NH&MRC has the matter under continuing review.

Offal on Ashmore Reef (Question No. 3246)

Mr Bungey:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

With reference to the answer to question No. 1032 relating to reports of animal offal on Ashmore Reef, has he or his Department any information as to whether the cow’s head came from Australia or from Indonesia.

Dr Everingham:
ALP

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

No, it was reported that the head was in a state of decomposition which precluded positive identification of the breed.

Department of Foreign Affairs: Communications Centre (Question No. 3266)

Mr Peacock:
KOOYONG, VICTORIA

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

  1. When is it estimated that the new communications centre being constructed as an extension of the Department of Foreign Affairs will be completed.
  2. What is the estimated total cost.
Mr Uren:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) The new communications centre being constructed as an extension of the Department of Foreign Affairs is scheduled for completion late in 1 976.
  2. $3,844,700.

Fawnmac Companies (Question No. 3284)

Mr Lloyd:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

  1. With reference to the Fawnmac Companies, what reason was given for the increase in net profit from $62 1 ,8 1 9 for 1972-73 to $1,327,1 19 in 1974-75 at a time when pharmaceutical manufacturing companies were suffering a profit squeeze.
  2. Did the partners take a salary from enterprise; if so, how much.
  3. Was there a major export order for a particular product which boosted profit for 1 year; if so, and if this product was penicillin, from which manufacturer was it obtained.
Dr Everingham:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) The reason for the increased profits over the two years was an increase in sales combined with the fact that operating expenses in some areas did not increase proportionately to the increased revenue. No doubt good management control also contributed to the increased profit.
  2. The Fawnmac Companies are companies registered under the Victorian Companies Act. As such there are no partners in the enterprise.
  3. No.

Fawnmac Companies (Question No. 3285)

Mr Lloyd:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

With reference to the purchase of the Fawnmac Companies,

what was the value of stock, and on what basis was it valued,

what was the value of the promotional material,

what was the amount of unappropriated profits in the business at the time of purchase by the Government,

d ) were there any loans from the Lowe family or estate; if so, what amount,

what was the original value of the land and what value was listed for the purchase by the Government, and

what was the percentage of gross profit made in each year since 1970.

Dr Everingham:
ALP

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

  1. Value of stock as at 30 June 1975- $1,65 1,394. The basis of value of the stock was the lower of cost or replacement value.
  2. Stocks of promotion materials were not valued as these costs are written off in the year of purchase of the promotion materials.
  3. Unappropriated profits at 30 June 1975 of the Fawnmac Companies the shares for which were purchased by the Government

Unappropriated profits reserve 1 ,280, 1 50 Capital profits reserve . . . 777,219

Total……. 2,057,369

  1. No- the loans from the Lowe family were repaid prior to the purchase of the companies by the Australian Government.
  2. The Australian Government did not buy the land as such. It purchased issued shares in the Fawnmac Group of Companies. The purchased price of these shares was based on earning capacity of the Companies and not on asset backing.
  3. The percentage of gross profit to turnover in each of the years since 1970 is as follows: 1969- 70-24.7 percent 1970- 71-24.8 percent 197 1- 72-25.6 per cent 1972- 73-29.7 percent 1973- 74-3 1.6 per cent 1974- 75-29.1 percent

Fawnmac Companies (Question No. 3286)

Mr Lloyd:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Has the manager of the Fawnmac Companies written to suppliers of drug materials to the effect that as the Company is now Australian Government owned, it should receive special treatment
  2. If so, has the letter also been sent to overseas suppliers, including those in Eastern Europe which do not observe the patent conventions.
  3. Will there be privileged treatment given to the Companies by his Department in processing applications to import drug material.
Dr Everingham:
ALP

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

  1. No.
  2. I am aware that Fawnmac has written a letter to thenoverseas suppliers informing them of the change of ownership of the companies and this would include suppliers in Eastern Europe.
  3. No.

Pharmaceutical Benefits (Question No. 3333)

Mr Lloyd:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Is it considered that there are any preparations on the Pharmaceutical Benefits List which could be removed because they are not particularly effective, have possible side effects or dependency complications, or are for everyday complaints.
  2. Is it considered that there are any preparations which are generally available by prescription which should be restricted; if so, what are they.
Dr Everingham:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) and (2)1 have asked the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee to review the list of pharmaceutical benefits with a view to the possible deletion of items which fall in categories such as those listed by the honourable member. I am presently awaiting relevant recommendations from the Committee.

Fawnmac Companies (Question No. 3334)

Mr Lloyd:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

Did the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories, earlier in 1975, terminate a contract with the Fawnmac Companies and sign a contract with Sigma for penicillin tablets.

Dr Everingham:
ALP

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

The present agreement between CSL and the Fawnmac Companies expires on 17 February 1976 and in accordance with that agreement 12 months notice of termination was required. Notice of termination was given accordingly and a new arrangement is currently being negotiated.

No contract has been signed by CSL with Sigma for penicillin tablets.

Sand Mining on Fraser Island: Survey of Public Opinion (Question No. 3375)

Mr Hunt:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. Did he, his Department or the Government commission a firm of consultants to undertake a survey of public opinion in regard to sand mining on Fraser Island.
  2. If so, what was (a) the name of the firm and (b) the cost of the survey and what were the findings of the survey.
Mr Whitlam:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) and (2 ) As pan of its environmental public awareness program the Department of the Environment and Conservation in February 1975 commissioned Spectrum International Marketing Services Pty Ltd to carry out an exploratory research study to determine current public awareness of and examine attitudes to the environment. The report of the study, entitled ‘Public Attitudes to the Environment’, was presented to the Department of Environment on 30 April 1975 and tabled in both Houses on 20 August 1975.

As part of the study, a number of questions were asked about current environmental problems and issues, including sandmining on Fraser Island. The responses to the questions on Fraser Island are summarised in the following table:

The total cost of the research study was $20,234.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 30 October 1975, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1975/19751030_reps_29_hor97/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant