House of Representatives
18 May 1976

30th Parliament · 1st Session

  1. House of Representatives
  2. 30th Parliament
  3. 1976

Mr SPEAKER (Rt Hon. B. M. Snedden, Q.C) took the chair at 2. IS p.m., and read prayers.

page 2089

PETITIONS

The Clerk:

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

Aurukun Community: Mining

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:

Whereas the Aurukun Associates Agreement Act was passed in contravention of a 1968 agreement;

Whereas this Act conflicts seriously with Commonwealth Government Policy on Aboriginal Affairs and on Australian equity in multinational corporations working in Australia;

Your Petitioners therefore note with appreciation the statements already made on the matter by Government members but humbly pray that the Commonwealth Government will also

  1. initiate a Commission of Enquiry into the whole matter
  2. insist that no mining take place on the Aurukun Aboriginal Reserve until a full environmental impact study has been made by the Commonwealth Department of the Environment, Housing and Community Development
  3. refuse to grant an export licence to the Consortium until detailed negotiations are held at Aurukun by Consortium representatives with the Aurukun people, the traditional owners of the land and advisers of their choice, and an agreement satisfactory to all has been reached.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Ellicott, Mr Viner, Mr William McMahon, Mr Baillieu, Mr Baume, Mr Brown, Mr Connolly, Mr Connor, Mr Crean, Mr Dobie, Mr Garland, Mr Gillard, Mr Peter Johnson, Mr Les McMahon, Mr Millar, Mr Moore, MrO’Keef e and Mr Shipton.

Petitions received.

Australian Heritage Commission

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

There is a growing interest and concern in all sections of Australian society for the conservation of the environment, natural and man-made.

That there are also rapidly growing pressures by powerful forces tending towards the destruction of the Australian heritage.

That it is therefore urgent to appoint the Australian Heritage Commission, which was approved by both sides of this

Parliament and to give the Commission sufficient independent staff, resources and funds.

That Technical Assistance Grants and Administrative Support Grants to community organizations are needed to partially redress the gross imbalance in technical expertise and resources suffered by community groups in pressing the community’s case against the exploiter.

That a proper balance between the Governments programme of public austerity and the need for action in conservation would be a modest increase in the budget allocations in these areas over that of 1 97S-76.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray,

Petitions received. by Mr Killen, Mr Connolly and Mr Simon. Petitions received.

Petitions in similar terms were lodged by Mr Malcolm Eraser, Mr Brown and Mr Drummond.

Petitions received.

Pharmaceutical Benefits: Milk Substitutes

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

  1. That reduction of the age limit from six years to eighteen months for patterns eligible to receive cows milk substitutes as a pharmaceutical benefit under the schedules of the National Health Act will cause serious financial hardship to many families;
  2. That children allergic to cows’ milk and other dairy products who often include asthmatics and sufferers of respiratory complaints depend on Soya Bean milk such as Isomil or Prosobee as a main source of protein;
  3. That the Government’s action is responsible for a 100 per cent increase in the cost of milk substitutes frequently involving parents in expenditure of $10 per week to sustain desirable protein intake for an affected child;
  4. That there is an urgent, humane need to restore milk substitutes to children up to six years of age to the schedule of Pharmaceutical Benefits.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that milk substitutes be restored to the schedule of Pharmaceutical Benefits for children up to the age of six years as soon as possible.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Crean, Mr Les Johnson, Mr Jull and Mr Lies McMahon.

Petitions received.

Overseas Development Assistance

To the Speaker and the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that many Australians are concerned at the announced decision by the Australian Government to reduce the 1975-76 Overseas Development Assistance vote by $21 million, and by the abolition of the Australian Development Assistance Agency.

We your petitioners do therefore humbly pray that the Australian Government:

  1. as a matter of urgency, reverse the decision to cut the 1975-76 Overseas Development Assistance vote, so as to ensure that the full amount appropriated by Parliament for Overseas Development Assistance is spent this financial year to meet the pressing needs of those in the developing countries;
  2. reaffirm Australia’s commitment of Overseas Development Assistance being a minimum of 0.7 per cent of GNP, and
  3. establish a fully independent statutory authority to administer Australia’s official Overseas Development Assistance.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray,

Petitions received. by Mr Newman, Mr Chipp and Mr Simon. Petitions received.

National Employment and Training 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 respectfully showeth:

That many students employed by the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations are suffering distressing economic strains due to drastic alterations in the payment of M.F.A.T.S. allowances.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the conditions applying to trainees approved prior to March 1st, 1976, remain until these students complete their training.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray,

Petitions received. by Mr Aldred and Mr Chipp. Petitions received.

Australian Assistance Plan -

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 since the Australian Assistance Plan is making it possible for citizens to help themselves, thereby ensuring best possible use of limited Government resources, as shown by the fact that over 200 community projects have been initiated or funded through the A.A.P. in the Outer Eastern Region.

Your petitioners most humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament will take immediate steps to continue the Australian Assistance Plan as recommended in the Report tabled by the Honourable the Minister for Social Security, Senator Margaret Guilfoyle in Parliament on the 4th March 1976 and your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Baillieu and Mr Falconer.

Petitions received.

United Nations Conference on Trade and Development

To the Speaker and the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that many Australians are concerned that Australia take a strong role of leadership at the forthcoming United Nations Conference on Trade and Development.

We your petitioners do therefore humbly pray that the Australian Government instruct its delegation to the fourth session of UNCTAD

  1. . to speak in support of the principle of an integrated program of commodities
  2. to take pan in follow up activities after the fourth session to help bring about the integrated program
  3. to offer financial assistance to these activities
  4. to give special consideration and attention to tea, bauxite, copra and other commodities of particular importance in our trade with the third world and the Pacific Islands in particular, and to work for the inclusion of these commodities in the program.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray,

Petition received. by Mr Anthony. Petition received.

Church in Monaro Park, Canberra

To the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled. This Petition of residents and lessees of the area adjacent to the small public park bounded by Stokes Street, Monaro Crescent and Arthur Circle, Griffith, A.C.T., on Block 20 Section 3 (Plan C.S. 494) do respectfully show that the parishioners of the Canberra Gospel Trust, i.e. on Section 19 of Section 3, of the small Church on the corner of the said Dedicated Park, contemplate an enlargement of the said Church of the Exclusive Order of Plymouth Bretheren and are seeking approval to use a further section of this Gazetted Park as a car park for their congregation.

Your petitioners therefore duly pray that no further encroachment on this small Park is approved for any purpose whatsoever. Already a Pre-School on Lease 21 of Section 3 occupies a large section of the Park leaving an inadequate area for recreational purposes.

Your petitioners further pray that the Bretheren of the Canberra Gospel Trust are requested not to cut down any more trees on Monaro Park. As it is obvious that the congregation of the above Church is increasing rapidly,- as many as 74 cars have frequently been counted bordering the streets around when a service is in progress,- we the undersigned residents of this area would be grateful if the Minister for the Capital Territory would offer the Plymouth Bretheren a larger site in another area a head Church for this Territory as the only solution to this problem. by Mr Staley.

Petition received.

Australian Assistance Plan

To the Speaker and the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that many Australians arc concerned at the possibility that cuts in Government expenditure will adversely affect the operations of the Australian Assistance Plan.

We your petitioners do therefore humbly pray that the Commonwealth Government endorse the continuation of the Australian Assistance Plan as a long-term program to be implemented on a regional basis throughout the nation.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray, by Mr Carige. 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 three service cadet forces have great value in the development of the youth of Australia.

That the disbanding of the cadet forces will disperse accumulated expertise and interest of those involved, and in some cases negate the efforts of many people over many years.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government will reconsider its decision and that the Government will reinstate the cadet forces.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray, by Mr Carige. Petition received.

Fraser Island

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

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

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

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

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

Petition received. by Mr Connolly. Petition received.

Australian Assistance Plan

To the Speaker and the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that many Australians are concerned about the future of the Australian Assistance Plan.

We your petitioners do therefore humbly pray that the Commonwealth Government support the Australian Assistance Plan:

We believe the Australian Assistance Plan should continue because we believe the Australian Assistance Plan helps to make people self reliant and more aware of what they can do to help themselves. In this it is anti-bureaucratic and contary to the idea of the welfare state which encourages dependence on Government.

We believe the Australian Assistance Plan should continue in such a way as to give all citizens the opportunity to participate through a Regional Council for Social Development in their region.

We believe the idea encompassed in the Australian Assistance Plan is an effective way for citizens to work cooperatively with all levels of Government.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray,

Petition received. by Mr Connor. Petition received.

Woodchip Industry

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

  1. That Australia is not well-endowed with natural forest areas only amounting to 4.5% of the total land area.
  2. That very little of this forested area, is reserved in national parks, most of the remainder being directly (as State forests etc) or indirectly (as Crown lands, over which forestry exercises umber extraction rights) under forestry control.
  3. That most of this remainder is liable to be totally destroyed by woodship projects, due to soil erosion, nutrient loss, fire damage to young saplings in artificial forest regeneration projects.
  4. That many forms of arboreal wildlife are thus threatened with extinction.
  5. That grossly inadequate consideration has been riven to the process of recycling packaged paper.
  6. That it is not in the long-term interest of the Australian people that these forests are converted into material for short-term use of excessive packaging.
  7. That it is a severe abuse of democratic rights to subsidise forestry practice with public money without adequate consultation of public interest.

We, your petitioners, therefore humbly pray that you will:

  1. Immediately cancel all current woodchip export licences.
  2. Immediately provide more funds into research for the recycling of used packaged material.
  3. Ensure that any future applications for woodchip leases be preceded by an environmental enquiry, to be conducted by a panel of environmentalists and public-spirited conservation bodies independent of the Australian Forestry Council or any State Forestry Commission.

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

Petition received.

Aboriginal Land Rights

To the Speaker and the House of Representatives in Pariament assembled, your petitioners humbly pray that:

  1. The Aboriginal Land Bill 1975 will be re-introduced into the Parliament and passed at the earliest possible date, and that administration of land rights (hall remain the responsibility of the Australian Government following the decision of the Australian people at the 1967 referendum.
  2. Mining shall not be permitted on aboriginal lands without the consent of the aboriginal communities concerned having been established through full and fair processes of consultation.
  3. The Aboriginal Legal Service shall not be impeded in any way in its work of seeing that Australia’s aboriginal citizens have a proper access to legal advice and proper legal representation in proceedings before the courts.
  4. d ) The full purchasing power of Australian Government assistance for aboriginal welfare and advancement, including assistance to aboriginal groups establishing pastoral companies and other enterprises on land to which they have established rights, shall be maintained in the 1976-77 Budget.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray, by Mr Falconer. Petition received.

Australian National Library

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 as of the 29 March 1976 opening hours of the Aus.tralan National Library have been reduced to the following times: Wednesday and Thursday, 9.30 a.m. to 10.00 p.m.; Monday Tuesday, Friday, Saturday and Public Holidays, 9.30a.m. to 4.45 p.m.; Sunday, 1.30 p.m. to 4.45 p.m.
  2. That the expenditure cutbacks and consequent reduction it the hours of opening of the Australian National Library have seriously disadvantaged part-time students who are able to devote only evening hours to study.
  3. That because of the reduced hours of operation, student!, particularly those in the Arts Faculties, have a very limited time available in which to consult primary source materialheld at the Australian National Library.
  4. Tha the suspension of purchasing of books on an individual basis, and of university theses on micro-film will seriously disadvantage research students.
  5. That the Australian National University Library and the Canberra College of Advanced Education have only limited collections, both requiring to be complemented by the Australian National Library collections.
  6. That the lowering of educational standards as a consequence of the restrictions on educational facilities, would result in immeasurable non-economic cost to the community.

We, your petitioners, therefore humbly pray that the Australian National Library be accessible to readers 9.30 a.m. to 10.00 p.m. daily. by Mr Fry.

Petition received.

Taxation: Home Mortgage Interest

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

  1. That the proposal to exclude all persons from the ben,fit of tax deductibility for mortgage interest rates other thar. first home buyers in their first five years of home pur.chase is a repudiation of the Government’s election undertaking to maintain the scheme.
  2. That the effect of the proposal will cause hardship to many current beneficiaries of the scheme, in that existing benefits will terminate, thus putting housing loan repayments beyond reach.

Y,ur petitioners therefore humbly pray:

  1. that the Government reconsider its decision to drastically curtail the scheme;
  2. that the principles applying to the scheme as introduced by the Labor Government be maintained; and
  3. that benefits be upgraded by indexation to take account of the effects of inflation.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray,

Petition received. by Mr Les Johnson. Petition received.

Television and Radio Licence Fees: Medibank and Pharmaceutical Benefits

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 new Government during the recent election campaign, promised lower taxation and more money in people’s pockets.

Your Petitioners therefore humbly prayThat the House of Representatives will take immediate steps to prevent the introduction of Television and Radio licence fees, the imposition of a tax levy for Medibank and the introduction of higher charges for drugs dispensed under the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received. by Dr Klugman. Petition received.

Trade Union Ballots

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 whereas the Democratic control of organisations registered under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act is essential to a sound system of industrial relation.

And whereas Democratic control can only be guaranteed by the Opportunity for all rank and file members of organisations to vote in elections for all officials and all Committees of Management and whereas some forces within the Trade Union Movement are attempting to deny rank and file members the rights to vote in all Union elections.

Your petitioners humbly pray, that the members in Parliament assembled will take steps to:

  1. Preserve Democracy in Trade Unions by guaranteeing the right of all members to participate in rank and file ballots for officials and Committees of Management.
  2. Resist the pressures from those elements in the Trade Union Movement seeking to deny members the right to vote.
  3. Ensure the widest participation in Union ballots by making voting compulsory in union elections.
  4. Resist the re-introduction of the undemocratic collegiate system of union elections, which enables control and manipulation by minority and extremist elements.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Dr Klugman Petition received.

Overseas Development Assistance

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 400 million people in the world are undernourished; inflation is hitting the poor countries more than the rich; every reduction in aid affects people; Australia can afford to help; Australian aid helps people help themselves.

If we are to achieve the united nations aid target, Australia must give at least O.SS per cent of gross national product (G.N.P.) in the next Budget. by Mr Les McMahon.

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,

Petition received. by Mr Morris. Petition received.

Aurukun Community: Mining

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble Petition of undersigned citizens and/or residents of Australia, all members of the Dutch Congregation in the Presbyterian Church of Australia, respectfully showeth:

That we are appalled that the Queensland Government should have passed the Aurukun Associates Agreement Act in contravention of a 1968 agreement between the mining company, the government and the Aurukun community that, should the company apply for a mining lease over portion of the Aurukun reserve, further negotiations on stated Key issues would take place between the mining company, the mission and the community.

These negotiations have not taken place.

We note that the actions taken by the Queensland conflict seriously at several points with the policies outlined by the Australian Government Parties in their policy statement on Aboriginal Affairs issued immediately before election.

Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that you

  1. Initiate a Commission of Enquiry into the whole matter, and
  2. refuse to grant an export license to the consortium until a satisfactory agreement is negotiated with the Aurukun people with regard to the mining of the bauxite, or take such other action as will ensure that justice is established.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray,

Petition received. by Mr Ruddock. Petition received.

Overseas Aid

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The Petition of the Undersigned Citizens of the Commonwealth humbly showeth:

That the undersigned believe that hunger, illiteracy, abject poverty and injustice are intolerable anywhere in the world: that Australia has the capacity to play a significant part in enabling the developing countries to achieve true freedom and improved social conditions for all their people.

Your Petitioners most humbly pray that overseas aid be exempted from any decrease in its level of giving because of financial problems in the Australian economy.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray, by Mr Simon. Petition received.

page 2093

MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
Prime Minister · Wannon · LP

– I inform the House that in the absence of Senator the Honourable Ivor Greenwood, Q.C., the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development, the Honourable M. J. R. MacKellar, Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, will act for him. As a consequence, the following representational arrangements will operate in the Senate: Senator Carrick will represent the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister in Public Service matters, and the Acting Minister for the Environment, Housing and Community Development. Senator Withers will represent the AttorneyGeneral. Senator Cotton will represent the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs.

I inform the House also that the Minister for Foreign Affairs left Australia this morning for discussions in Papua New Guinea relating to Torres Strait. He is expected to return tomorrow evening. During his absence the Minister for Primary Industry will act as Minister for Foreign Affairs.

page 2093

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

page 2093

QUESTION

AID TO EAST TIMOR

Mr UREN:
REID, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I direct a question to the Prime Minister. He will be aware that the union movement supply ship containing humanitarian aid for the people of East Timor is expected to leave Australia shortly. He will be aware also that the

Catholic bishops also wish to charter a vessel to send aid to East Timor. I ask: Will the Australian Government guarantee protection to those ventures in the light of the provocative statements by the Indonesian Government and the so-called Provisional Government of East Timor?

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

– My colleague the Minister for Foreign Affairs has already replied on one occasion to a question asked in this House regarding this matter. A number of members of the Opposition came to see me, when I was acting on Mr Peacock’s behalf, before the House rose about 10 days ago to put to me the question of the Australian Government’s giving protection to this aid ship. The position is that the Australian Government is pursuing every possible endeavour to persuade both the Provisional Government of East Timor and the Indonesian Government to permit International Red Cross aid missions into East Timor. We believe that international aid certainly should be encouraged and that every possible effort should be made to enable reasonable relief and assistance measures to be provided in that sector.

With respect to other aid- a number of institutions in Australia is seeking to send aid; it is not only the Australian trade union movement that has an interest in despatching assistance to the people of East Timor- the position remains that the Australian Government is not prepared to permit Australian citizens to go into a position of total uncertainty as to whether they will be able to land their vessel or take their vessel into the waters of East Timor. However, following the approach that was made to me 10 days ago, the Department of Foreign Affairs has again taken up with the Government of Indonesia and the Provisional Government of East Timor through the Government of Indonesia the prospects of permitting Australian aid to flow as soon as possible. It is on that basis that the present position rests. From the Australian Government’s point of view, it is hoped that the International Red Cross and international aid agencies will be permitted to function normally in East Timor at the earliest possible opportunity.

page 2094

QUESTION

ANTARCTIC DIVISION

Mr HODGMAN:
DENISON, TASMANIA

– Can the Prime Minister inform the House whether any decisions have been made by the Government on the transfer of the headquarters of the Antarctic Division to Hobart?

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
LP

– So that there could be no equivocation about this matter, I had it raised in Cabinet this morning. The Antarctic Division will be transferred to Hobart. It will not necessarily be transferred to the site that has in fact been chosen- I understand that there is some doubt about the wisdom of transferring it to that site- but it will be transferred to Hobart; there is no doubt about that. Because of measures that my colleague the Treasurer will be announcing in detail on Thursday, the honourable gentleman will understand that there are some financial stringencies upon us at the moment. Therefore the transfer will not be taking place forthwith or in the forthcoming financial year. But it is going to take place.

page 2094

QUESTION

LOCAL GOVERNMENT

Mr GARRICK:
BATMAN, VICTORIA

– My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. I ask: Is the Prime Minister aware that the new policy of federal aid to municipalities is worrying all people in local government because it is a departure from such main sources of finance as the Australian Grants Commission and the area improvement program? Does he know that the lack of precise information as to the implementation of this policy is a chief cause of concern and that, more importantly, the fact that the -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable gentleman is giving too much information. He is required to ask a question.

Mr GARRICK:

– Because the paramount worry is the fact that the total amount of the allocations to councils this year is unknown, will the Prime Minister give an undertaking that such allocations will exceed the funding received from federal sources in 1974-75 so as at least to cover inflation?

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
LP

-The honourable gentleman was right when he said that the local government authorities are waiting with some degree of eagerness to know the Government’s commitments in this area. It has already been announced that local government will participate in the new proposals from 1 July. It is our intention to announce the total sum that is to be available under the federalism proposals well before that time so that local government will know where it stands and so that the State Grants Commissions can make their decisions concerning that pan of the funds that should be divided on the basis of needs within a particular State. I also remind the House that it will be at the next Premiers Conference that the nature of the division between that part which goes on a needs basis and that part which goes on a per capita or per capita weighted formula basis to all local governing authorities will be determined. The determinations will not necessarily have to be the same for each State because the circumstances of the different States are not all the same. The amount of money that will be available to local government authorities, I believe, will be of significant assistance to them and I also believe it will give them a security in revenue, not just for this year but for future years.

One of the main deficiencies in past arrangements was that grants would come one year but there would be nothing the next year. There was no certainty, no security under the arrangements that had been made that grants would continue to flow year by year. One of the main purposes of our program is to give certainty to local government authorities so that they know what the position is and so that they can plan accordingly and secondly, of course, to have equalisation grants on the basis of recommendations from State Grants Commissions to make up for areas of particular need or deficiency in certain local governing areas. I think the honourable member may assure the local government bodies which might have been in touch with him that the Government is fully aware of the need to have information made available in relation to these matters and I do not think he will have to contain his patience all that much longer.

page 2095

QUESTION

UNION ELECTIONS: AUSTRALIAN ELECTORAL OFFICE

Mr CHIPP:
HOTHAM, VICTORIA

-I ask the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations a question. Has he seen the reported statements attributed to the President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, Mr Bob Hawke, that the Government has agreed not to proceed with its proposals to legislate for the conduct of all union elections by the Australian Electoral Office? If he has seen them, can he say whether these statements are correct?

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

– Honourable members will recall that it is part of the Government’s clear policy that it will consult with national employer and union organisations before the introduction of any industrial legislation. I fulfilled that obligation in relation to our current proposals on S May when I had discussions with representatives of both employers and the union movement. At those discussions I outlined proposals that the Government had in mind, including proposals for the election of officers to organisations. As a result of the views that were put by both sides at those discussions I have taken proposals to Cabinet and we have been considering, consistent with our basic objective of ensuring that every member of an organisation should have an adequate opportunity to vote without intimidation for those persons that he or she wishes to represent them, whether our objective could be met while having in mind the very substantial objections which were put to us by the union movement on 5 May. As a result of these considerations we believe that we can do this.

We propose to introduce legislation which will provide for secret postal ballots in all organisations, and of course this already is the case in a number of unions and employer bodies. What I have said underlines the Government’s commitment to genuine and constructive consultations and a willingness to be flexible, to listen to different points of view consistent with our basic objectives. I would expect a positive response from both the union movement and the employers to the Prime Minister’s proposals put last night for discussions on the economy including the question of wages policy and that a similar constructive and flexible approach will be shown by the representatives of unions and employers who we trust will take advantage of that invitation and attend discussions in the near future.

page 2095

QUESTION

TASMANIAN SENATE ELECTION

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

– I ask the AttorneyGeneral a question. It concerns the petition filed last February in the High Court of Australia, sitting as a Court of Disputed Returns, by a person who claims to have lodged a valid nomination for last December’s election of senators for Tasmania but whose name was omitted from the ballot-paper. I ask: When is it expected that the Court will hear this petition? Since the petition asks that the election of the present 10 Tasmanians who sit in the Senate be declared absolutely void, is it open for the Minister to ask the Court to settle the issue as early as possible, and in that case will he do so?

Mr ELLICOTT:
Attorney-General · WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– I cannot answer the question at the moment. I will take it on notice and give the Leader of the Opposition an answer.

page 2095

QUESTION

DAIRYING

Mr LLOYD:
MURRAY, VICTORIA

-My question is addressed to the Minister for Primary Industry. He will be aware that the dairy industry will face a crisis situation after 1 July, when the present underwriting ends and the new production year begins, at least until the long term arrangements for the industry are developed after Sir John Crawford reports at the end of August. The Minister may have noticed also a statement that the Commonwealth Government is not prepared to continue the present underwriting beyond 1 July. Has the Minister or the Government ever indicated this?

What did the Minister tell the States on this subject at the meeting of the Australian Agricultural Council on Friday? If the Commonwealth Government is prepared to continue the underwriting, will casein also be included? Finally, what arrangements were made at that meeting for production restraint for the coming season?

Mr SINCLAIR:
NCP/NP

-I know that the honourable member for Murray has been most assiduous in his representations on behalf of the very much aggrieved dairy industry in his area, as indeed have a good many honourable members on both sides of the chamber up to the aisle dividing the National Country Party and the Australian Labor Party, after which there seems to be a significant variance in attitude. A good many representations have been made to me about the plight of dairy farmers with respect to both the support scheme announced for skim milk powder and the possibility of its extension. As to that part of the honourable gentleman’s question with respect to casein support, let me say that a number of plants of course have complete mobility between various alternative types of manufactured milk products. In general it was felt that the provision of the underwriting guarantee for skim milk powder meant the position would be adequately protected until Sir John Crawford had an opportunity to examine the position of the industry as a whole.

At the special meeting of the Australian Agricultural Council held in Sydney last Friday a number of matters was examined in relation to the circumstances for control of production to which the honourable gentleman referred, and a program has been developed which I believe will enable some significant reduction in the quantity produced during the next financial year. This will entail necessarily co-operation between State governments, producers, industry organisations and the Federal Government. In recognition of the necessity to contain production I think that the decisions of the Agricultural Council can be said to be a milestone.

In addition we are looking at other ways by which in the application of other programs, for example the brucellosis and tuberculosis eradication campaign, we can provide some further assistance towards containing future production levels. With respect to the other part of the honourable gentleman’s question about underwriting assistance after 30 June, Ministers recognise that there is a problem that will apply until such stage as governments can take a decision on the Crawford report. No decision has been taken, nor have firm recommendations been made, as to whether further assistance should be provided after 1 July. However, Ministers generally recognise the problem that will flow unless this position can be resolved before 30 June. I will be taking a paper to the Federal Government to examine what alternatives are available to us, and I hope that as a result the position of dairy farmers might be protected until a final decision can be taken on the long term future of the industry after the receipt and examination of the Crawford report.

page 2096

QUESTION

PRIME MINISTER’S RADIO AND TELEVISION STATEMENT

Mr HURFORD:
ADELAIDE, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Prime Minister. What was the purpose of his statement on radio and television last night? Why was the statement not made in this Parliament? Why the timing? Was it designed to influence the national wage decision? At what rate will the Medibank levy be applied? Will tax indexation be in full? And so on.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
LP

– I thank the honourable gentleman for his most thoughtful question. I can only suggest that he ask the Australian Broadcasting Commission to replay the tape for him or alternatively that he listen to the Treasurer on Thursday.

page 2096

QUESTION

MEDIBANK

Mr HODGES:
PETRIE, QUEENSLAND

-I ask the Prime Minister: Do the Government’s proposals for Medibank mean that people on middle and higher incomes will be forced out of Medibank and into the private health insurance funds?

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
LP

– The answer to that is a plain no. Medibank remains a universal scheme but at the same time we will be wanting, as I indicated last night, to offer people lower down the income scale and also other people a choice. Medibank remains a universal scheme. I would have thought that it was within our philosophy that an element of choice ought certainly to be built into that. Again I have to say to honourable gentlemen that if they wish further details it is a question of having some degree of patience and waiting until the Treasurer’s statement and also the statement that will be made by the Minister concerned. I think that it ought also to be mentioned, in view of one or two of the reports this morning, that there is not really a trade-off between anything that is proposed in relation to Medibank and other particular matters that the Government has made decisions about. Questions concerning tax indexation are continuing ones that have their impact year by year. The impact of whatever might be done in relation to Medibank obviously has its impact to a major extent in the first year.

One of the major objectives, of course, in relation to tax indexation is to establish a circumstance in which governments are forced to be honest with the electors of Australia and to make it plain that if governments want more of a person ‘s income they will have to legislate for it and not steal it by the illicit process of inflation. Governments would then be in a position of having to justify any particular program that they might want if they are seeking additional funds for that program. The continuing benefits of tax indexation, I believe, will accrue not only to individual taxpayers but also to the better government of this country. I also add, because this is part of the good news, that the cuts in expenditure, which I indicated only in the broadest terms and which will be indicated by the Treasurer and by other Ministers in detail on Thursday night, have of necessity had to be severe. Those cuts in expenditure and reductions in programs have had to be severe to bring back into reality the Government’s command over the resources of Australia, to leave adequate room for individuals, for families and for businesses so that jobs and opportunities can be created for people all over Australia. Our philosophy is the reverse of that of the Australian Labor Party which would seek to take unto itself not only all political power but also all financial power leaving this whole community utterly dependent upon what it decides. That is not our philosophy.

page 2097

QUESTION

GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURE CUTS

Mr SCHOLES:
CORIO, VICTORIA

-I ask the Prime Minister. What sections of those cuts proposed by the Government will in fact be transfers of functions back to the States? Will they be accompanied by substantial increases in allocations to the States, or will the amount of money the States will require to fund those functions have to come from separate State taxation?

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
LP

– I think the honourable gentleman would be much better off to wait until Thursday night to get the details when, as I have said, there will be full and complete details of what the Government has in fact proposed.

page 2097

QUESTION

TAX INDEXATION

Mr WILSON:
STURT, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

-I direct my question to the Prime Minister. Does he agree that indexation of personal income tax will involve not a true cost to the present revenues but only a diminution of those unlegislated increases caused by the impact of inflation? Does he also agree that, to the extent to which personal income tax is not fully indexed, the Government will continue to have available to it a significant source of revenue for which it is not required to legislate? Is it desirable that features of the tax system which result in unlegislated increases in tax should be removed from the system sooner rather than later?

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
LP

– I think that the sentiments expressed in the honourable gentleman’s question are admirable ones. He will be able to understand the extent to which the Government has endorsed that view when he listens to the Treasurer on Thursday night. Not only are the honourable gentleman’s sentiments admirable in this respect but also it ought to be noted that for quite some time it has been the policy of the Australian Council of Trade Unions to achieve indexation of taxation. The ACTU has always regarded this as one of the elements that will help us to achieve some moderation in wage demands.

page 2097

QUESTION

TELEVISION RECEPTION

Mr INNES:
MELBOURNE, VICTORIA

-Is the Minister for Post and Telecommunications aware that residents of the inner city areas of both Melbourne and Sydney experience television reception that can be described only as a disgrace? Is the Minister aware that this substandard reception is due to inadequate installation precautions by the builders- both private and State- of high rise developments in these areas? Is the Minister aware that the technical expertise to remedy the situation is already available? Will the Minister assure the House that he will arrange an immediate conference of representatives of the local councils and other interested consumer bodies involved and the technical staff concerned from the Australian Broadcasting Control Board and the Minister’s department with a view to implementing a plan to eradicate the problem? Will the Minister take whatever steps are available to him to initiate machinery similar to the uniform building code in order to establish a code to secure the protection of the consumer in the area of television reception by ensuring that the work on electrical installations and television aerial structures is carried out in a manner that will provide maximum efficiency in television reception?

Mr Eric Robinson:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

-I appreciate the interest of the honourable member in the quality of television and broadcasting right throughout Australia. Of course it is true that there are pockets of areas in which the quality is not as high as we would wish it to be. It is not news to me that this occurs. All sections of the industry are interested and concerned. It is not a matter for me to take initiatives because they are ongoing -

Mr Innes:

– What are you doing?

Mr Eric Robinson:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

– The honourable gentleman asked a long question. Now if he will listen he will receive a bit of information that will help him. The initiatives are continuing all the time and that is one of the reasons for the inquiry into the system generally which we are undertaking. Its aim is to achieve the best possible relationship between all the authorities involved. The honourable member asked me for a lot of detailed comments on matters involving local authorities and State governments. I will have a look at his question in detail and whatever I can do to assist in achieving the highest possible standard will of course be done.

page 2098

QUESTION

PUBLIC SERVICE STAFFING

Mr CONNOLLY:
BRADFIELD, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Can the Prime Minister inform the House as to the progress made in achieving reductions in Public Service staffing?

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
LP

– The program set out by the Government some weeks ago has advanced very well indeed, not only in relation to the Public Service proper but also in the nonPublic Service area. The honourable gentleman will recall what was said at the time about normal wastage, retrenchments and resignations. Ministers and the Public Service Board were to advise me if there would be any particular areas of difficulty in achieving the ceilings set. A week or two ago I indicated that the then level for the Public Service proper was below the ceiling set for 30 June 1976 and I can now inform the House that the number employed under the Public Service Act is already 1200 below the ceiling set for 30 June 1976. The number of persons employed by the Commonwealth but not under the Public Service Act is nearly 800 below the ceiling. So the total figure is about 2000 below the ceiling set for 30 June 1976. There have been one or two high priority areas where some minor expansion in the number of people available has been approved but I doubt whether this number would total 100 positions in all. The process will continue. However, it will continue only after examination of the particular circumstances and functions of each department. Quite obviously decisions being announced in detail by the Treasurer will enable the Public Service Board and other people to examine these matters again. I think that the achievement in relation to these matters, as a result of the process of wastage, resignations and retirements, indicates the extent to which the Public Service had become overblown under the previous Administration at the taxpayers’ expense.

page 2098

QUESTION

MEDIBANK

Mr HAYDEN:
OXLEY, QUEENSLAND

-The Prime Minister may remember answering a question a few seconds ago in which he said that the impact of the Medibank levy would go away after the first year, more or less. Does this mean that he is proposing to reduce the levy or even eliminate it after the first year, or does it mean that he expects that the public will be foolish enough not to notice that it is around after the first year? Or is it again evidence that the Prime Minister has not realised what he has said?

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
LP

– I can only compliment Opposition members on the quality of their questions. They really are quite remarkable. I can only say that the questions do even Opposition members credit. The point missed by the honourable gentleman, who was once the Treasurer of this Commonwealth, is that indexation is a continuing process. It applies not just to this year but to next year and the year after. If the honourable gentleman did some sums he would be able to understand that the continuing impact of indexation would be a good deal more significant than the continuing impact of the other matters that he had in mind.

page 2098

QUESTION

NEW ZEALAND TIMBER

Mr MILLAR:
WIDE BAY, QUEENSLAND

– Is the Minister for Overseas Trade aware of reports of alleged dumping of New Zealand timber on Australian domestic markets? Is he also aware of claims that this New Zealand timber is priced at approximately half the price of timber ex some Australian mills and that as a result many of these mills face closure? Will the Minister assure the House that the Government is giving urgent attention to this matter?

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

– No requests have been made to me concerning the dumping of New Zealand timber in Australia. Timber has been an important item of trade between our 2 countries. It is one item that has been included in Schedule A of the New Zealand Australia Free Trade Agreement. If severe harm is being inflicted upon our Australian industry I would be very pleased to have a look at the matter and advise the Government as to what action should be taken. I will take note of the honourable member’s question and ascertain the situation.

page 2099

QUESTION

PURCHASE OF ELECTRA AIRCRAFT

Mr Peter Johnson:
BRISBANE, QUEENSLAND · LP

-Will the Minister for Transport tell the House the true reasons for, and background of, the purchase of Electra aircraft by Trans-Australia Airlines, Ansett Airlines of Australia, Tasman Empire Airways Limited and now Air New Zealand and Qantas? Does the Minister realise that the wild assertions of the now even more temporary Leader of the Opposition show a truly great lack of understanding of the reasons for the decision to purchase these aircraft?

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

– Last week or the week before last when this matter first arose, because of the statements made by the Leader of the Opposition I did call for the files from the Department. I can tell the honourable member and the House that I have been through at least 2 series of files. I understand that there are a couple more files of a purely technical nature relating directly to the Caravelles, the Viscounts and the Electras that have nothing to do in any sense with the allegations.

The matter goes back to 16 August 1957 when Ansett Airways Pty Ltd sought permits to import 3 Electra aircraft. Ansett Transport Industries Ltd took over Australian National Airways Pty Ltd on 3 October 1957. Perhaps at this point I should explain to the House that in order to make it easy I have made some notes that are a brief summary of events that occurred. I might add in passing that it is a summary of events that the Leader of the Opposition when Prime Minister could just as easily have made by calling for the same files.

The request made by Ansett Transport Industries Ltd was later amended to 4 aircraft by letter dated 7 October 1957. Ansett Transport Industries Ltd confirmed the request for 4 Electras on 4 November 1957. The then Director-General of Civil Aviation recommended on 26 November 1957 to the then Minister, the late Senator Sir Shane Paltridge, that the import permits be issued. This recommendation was approved but advice was not passed to ATI because the 1957 airlines agreement was under debate in Parliament. This agreement was approved on 12 December 1957. At that time Qantas Airways Ltd had an option on 6 Electras. Tasman Empire Airways had 3 positions held for early 1960 but did not have a formal option. Trans-Australia Airlines had no order for Electras but had advice from Lockheed that it could have two for delivery in July and August 1959. On 3 December 1957 TAA applied for permission to import 2

Caravelles. On 26 March 1958 the Cabinet approved the purchase of Electras by Qantas, but Ansett-ANA and TAA were to be advised that the purchase of Electras and Caravelles respectively could not be approved because the marginal economic conditions of the airline industry could be thrown into a state of serious imbalance by such purchases. Both airlines were to be advised further that as pure jet operations were likely to add substantially to national air transportation costs and to the need for accelerated airport development Cabinet should not be expected to approve the introduction of this type of aircraft into domestic service for some years to come. I should point out- this bears very much on the question raised by the honourable member and some honourable members will knowthat the Caravelle was a pure jet and the Electra was a prop jet requiring different requirements in facilities at airports and the like.

Approval was given at that time for the import of four 800 series Viscounts to Ansett-ANA. Both airlines were to be advised that Cabinet would give favourable consideration to any reasonable request for the purchase of additional 800 series Viscounts. These decisions were as recommended by the Department and put to Cabinet by Senator Paltridge. I have to say that on reading the files at that point, it is quite clear that Senator Paltridge was opposed to the purchase of the Caravelles because of the advice he had received from the Department that they were unsuitable on the long stretch to Western Australia. He was vigorously opposed to the Electras because it was in prospect that if Ansett were to be granted the Electras at that point Ansett would have an advantage in selling seats over TAA which would have had the Viscounts only and which had not taken up an option or sought to take up an option to purchase Electras. Mr R. M. Ansett, as he was then, sought to have the Government decision changed to permit his company to import Electras. Again the files make it clear that Sir Reginald Ansett, as he is now, was very keen to gain that very advantage I spoke about by the purchase of Electras. He thought it would put Ansett-ANA up to a capacity equal to or better than TAA.

So we come then to the critical period. A series of conferences followed, including one between the Ministers for Civil Aviation of Australia and New Zealand and one between the Prime Minister and the Chairmen of Ansett and TAA. At a conference held in Canberra on 9 May 1958 between representatives of the airlines and the Government the Government’s policy to avoid a competitive equipment race for a multiplicity of jet types was explained to the domestic airlines. It is quite clear that the representatives of the airlines agreed then to purchase the Electras. The position as I have explained it is supported by the public statement of Sir Reginald Ansett of, I think, last week.

The then Minister for Civil Aviation announced on 22 May 1958 the Government’s decision, after reviewing all the factors affecting the various applications by major airlines for licences to import new aircraft, to approve the purchase of the following Lockheed Electra turbo-prop airliners: Qantas was to get four; Ansett-ANA two and TAA two. It was further announced that it had been agreed that Tasman Empire Airways Limited should re-equip with 3 Electras. I am totally satisfied that there is nothing in the files that in any way impugns the reputation of Senator Sir Shane Paltridge. Indeed, quite the contrary, on reading the files it is quite clear that Senator Paltridge followed very closely, right through, the advice given to him by his Department. As I said, it is a bit hard to understand why the Leader of the Opposition should embark upon an exercise of this nature when in fact he was Prime Minister and had 3 years either to hold a public inquiry, if he had such doubts as he expressed the week before last, or to call for the files.

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

-The Church Committee reported only this year.

Mr NIXON:

– It is no good the Leader of the Opposition hiding behind the Church Committee or any other committee. He had a duty to investigate during his period as Prime Minister the allegations he has raised in the last weeks. If he had information in his little heart over the period of years when he was Prime Minister and he did nothing about it he reflects upon his own credibility and does nothing more nor less than that. The Leader of the Opposition could have had an investigation into this matter at any time. He could have set it up with his own terms of reference and done anything about it he liked. He chose not to do so. In fact he chose the contrary, to wait until he was back in Opposition, when he was no doubt looking for some way of covering up some other matter, and then to embark upon one of the worst mud-slinging exercises this Parliament has ever known. It is certainly the worst since I have been a member of this Parliament and I have seen one or two experts at the business of mud-slinging. He was prepared to attack the integrity of a man who cannot answer for himself. He was prepared to impugn that man’s integrity and honesty and to cause worry to his family. This is what the

Leader of the Opposition did. In my view he has failed in his duty as a member of this Parliament. He ought to put up the information that he claims that he has- I do not believe for one moment he has it- or have the decency to apologise. The last thing I want to say, Mr Speaker, is that whilst the Leader of the Opposition is taking his 6 weeks’ jaunt overseas, as I read in the newspapers he is about to take, he might at least have the decency when he is out of the country to reflect on the situation that affects the Paltridge family and to send them a cable apologising for the whole of his actions.

page 2100

QUESTION

CANBERRA MOTOR VEHICLE TESTING STATIONS

Mr FRY:

-Is the Minister for the Capital Territory aware of considerable delays in the Australian Capital Territory in the registration of motor vehicles and is he aware that his Department is considering lowering the standards of inspection to the extent that motorcycles, some caravans and some industrial vehicles may be registered without any inspection at all in the interests of achieving staff ceilings? Would the Minister agree that this situation represents a less efficient inspection service, a service which is now regarded as one of the best in the world, and that this example, as well as many others in his Department, makes nonsense of the Prime Minister’s recent statement that staff ceilings have been achieved within the Public Service without any loss of efficiency?

Mr STALEY:
Minister for the Capital Territory · CHISHOLM, VICTORIA · LP

-The situation in the motor registries is under study at the moment and I am not ready to make any announcement. Therefore I think that any further comment on the honourable member’s question would be out of order at this stage.

page 2100

QUESTION

MEDIBANK

Dr KLUGMAN:
PROSPECT, NEW SOUTH WALES

-Does the Prime Minister remember that the introduction of noncontributory Medibank last year meant that there was almost no increase in the consumer price index for the September quarter? Does he agree that this benefited the economy? Is it not true that the introduction of a specific Medibank levy will, under the methods used by the Bureau of Statistics, add over 3 per cent to the consumer price index and that this will markedly increase inflation in Australia?

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
LP

-The honourable gentleman is making assumptions. I think he would be well advised to wait a day or two before he comes to firm conclusions. I think that honourable gentlemen on both sides of this

House should all agree that if there is a substantial benefit that is virtually universal for all people in this country it is obviously a benefit that bears a cost, and health cover of high quality for all Australians is plainly costly. There can be no avoiding that. There can be no avoiding the fact that it has to be paid for and that the cost cannot be hidden.

page 2101

QUESTION

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES AT GARDEN ISLAND

Mr DOBIE:
COOK, NEW SOUTH WALES

-I ask the Minister for Defence: Can he inform the House whether there has been any delay in settling the well publicised industrial disputes at the Garden Island Naval Dockyard in Sydney Harbour? Is there any reason for this House to believe that a series of industrial disputes at Garden Island has brought about the situation wherein the Royal Australian Navy is threatened with a virtual blockade in its own ports?

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

– This matter is to come before an arbitrator tomorrow for exploratory and informal talks. I readily acknowledge the facts which are both implicit and explicit in the honourable gentleman’s question. This is an issue which has caused the Government and myself a great deal of anxiety. I excuse myself from saying anything at this stage until the arbitrator, who is now seised of the matter, has given his adjudication. It would be a tragedy for the parties involved if this matter could not be speedily resolved.

page 2101

QUESTION

GOVERNMENT WAGES POLICY

Mr WILLIS:
GELLIBRAND, VICTORIA

– I ask the Prime Minister a question. Is it a fact that if the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission were to award only partial wage indexation, as sought by the Government, then even if full tax indexation were to be introduced this year the real level of after-tax wages would decline? Is it also a fact that the decline in real after-tax wages would be even greater if a Medibank levy were imposed? If so, can he inform the House whether he seriously expects that the trade union movement will cooperate in such a policy?

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
LP

– I think the honourable gentleman overlooks the fact that the prime target for this Government is to overcome inflation. I also believe that an increasing number of members within the trade union movement and an increasing number of people on the shop floor recognise that that is an essential prerequisite for the maintenance of their standard of living. It is not insignificant that major leaders in the trade union movement, and some people who hold not insignificant positions in the organisation of the party to which the honourable gentleman belongs, have supposed a position that is somewhat less than the one hat the honourable gentleman supports in relation to wage indexation. That has been done on fie basis of responsibility and concern for the future of Australia. We have to have a situation h which all Australians are prepared to co-operat in breaking the back of inflation. I believe that a great number of responsible members of the trade union movement wish that objective to be pursued and want to co-operate in realising it. The decisions which I announced in broad outline, but which the Treasurer and other Ministers will announce in detail, give, as I indicated last night, an unparalleled opportunity to break inflation in this country and get Australia moving and provide jobs for those who want 10 work. If the honourable gentleman had been a little more concerned for jobs and less concerned for politics he might have given some credit to that aim.

page 2101

QUESTION

CANBERRA MILK SUPPLIES

Mr SAINSBURY:
EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES

-I direct a question to the Minister for the Australian Capital Territory. He will be aware that the Bega Co-operative Society Ltd has supplied quality milk to the Canberra market on a regular and reliable basis for many years. Can he assure the people of Canberra that in future discussions on market shares for milk producers in the Australian Capital Territory, the cost competitiveness and long term reliability of the Bega milk supply will be given due weight?

Mr STALEY:
LP

– I can assure the honourable member that the considerations which he mentioned will be taken into account by the Australian Capital Territory Milk Authority.

page 2101

QUESTION

ELECTION EXPENSES: MINISTERS’ RETURNS

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

– I wish to ask a question of the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations in his capacity as the Minister representing the Minister for Administrative Services. He will remember that the honourable member for Parramatta and I hae asked on notice for the names of the Ministers who lodged returns of their election expenses after the last 3 elections and that he has passed on to us the written replies that ‘every return is open to public inspection upon payment of the prescribed fee of 50c’ and that ‘it is not proposed to make information from the returns otherwise available’. Is he aware that in 1970 the honourable member for Prospect put a question on notice to the Minister who was then responsible f«r the

Electoral Act-the present Minister for Transport- in precisely the same terms, except as to rate, and received the names of the 12 Minister; who did not make this return for the 1969 elections? I ask him whether he will try to secure for the honourable member for Parramatta and ire as courteous and informative a reply from the present Minister as my colleague received on the earlier occasion from the then Minister?

Mr STREET:
LP

– I shall take up with my colleague the point that the Leader of the Opposition has raised, but I cannot help feeling that he is taking an economy campaign to extreme lengths when he is apparently not willing to contribute 50c to the national revenue to find out the answer to his question.

page 2102

AUSTRALIAN FILM COMMISSION

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
Prime Minister · Wannon · LP

– For the information of honourable members, I present the first annual report and financial statements for the Australian Film Commission covering its initial operations from 5 May to 30 June 1975.

page 2102

AUSTRALIAN WATER RESOURCES COUNCIL

Mr ANTHONY:
Minister for National Resources · Richmond · NCP/NP

– For the information of honourable members, I present the record of the seventeenth meeting of the Australian Water Resources Council held in Melbourne on 24 October 1975.

page 2102

VIP FLIGHTS

Mr KILLEN:
Minister for Defence · Moreton · LP

For the information of honourable members I present details of the VIP flights or, as I prefer to call them, the special Royal Australian Air Force flights for the period 25 March 1975 to 8 February 1976. Details of the period subsequent to 8 February are being prepared and it will be my endeavour to see that they are tabled prior to the rising of the House for the winter recess.

page 2102

INDUSTRIES ASSISTANCE COMMISSION REPORTS

Mr HOWARD:
Minister for Business end Consumer Affairs · Bennelong · LP

– For the information cf honourable members, I present a report b* the Industries Assistance Commission entitled:’

Weldig Consumables and Flux Cored Solder

I also present an interim report entitled: Footwear

page 2102

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

Mr CONNOLLY:
Bradfield

-Mr Speaker, I claim to have been misrepresented.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Does the honourable gentleman wish to make a personal explanation?

Mr CONNOLLY:

-Yes, Mr Speaker. In last Saturday’s Melbourne Age an article appeared entitled ‘Selection of top Public Service men attacked’. The article purported to report comments I had made to a meeting of the Royal Institute of Public Administration in Sydney during the previous week. The Age stated that ‘the appointment of departmental heads was usually based on their political capacity’. That is a very inaccurate record of my statement, which in fact read as follows: . . . much of the administrative and financial inefficiency for which the Public Service was being criticised stemmed from the fact that few Permanent Heads had ever received formal administrative training. They were usually appointed for their policy capacity and their previous administrative record was rarely considered.

I wish to dissociate myself from any suggestion that Permanent Heads are usually appointed for their ‘political capacity’. Although the previous Government did make a number of senior appointments in -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable gentleman will not argue the matter.

Mr CONNOLLY:

– I am not arguing the question, Sir. May I continue my statement?

Mr SPEAKER:

-Is the honourable gentleman quoting from his statement?

Mr CONNOLLY:

-I have quoted from my statement, Sir. I am merely explaining the context in which the statement was made.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable gentleman has made it clear to the House that he was misrepresented.

page 2102

ASSENT TO BILLS

Assent to the following Bills reported: Superannuation Bill 1976. Superannuation Amendment Bill 1976.

Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits Amendment BUI 1976.

Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits (Pension Increases) Bill 1976. States Grants (Schools) Bill 1 976.

page 2102

MEDIBANK

Discussion of Matter of Public Importance

Mr SPEAKER:

-I have received letters from both the Leader of the Opposition (Mr E. G. Whitlam) and the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) proposing that definite matters of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion today. I have selected the matter proposed by the Leader of the Opposition, namely:

The Government’s failure to honour its election commitments on Medibank.

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

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

– Amid all the platitudes and banalities of the address to the nation by the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) last night, one fact stands out -

Mr Sullivan:

– You are a clown.

Mr SPEAKER:

-That interjection is totally unnecessary and most unparliamentary. I ask for it to be withdrawn.

Mr Sullivan:

– I withdraw it.

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

-The Prime Minister served notice last night on the Australian people that Medibank will be destroyed. There is no way he can disguise his intentions. There is no point in evasion or in mincing words. Medibank, as we know it, is to go. One of the greatest social reforms in Australia’s history- the most important single achievement of the Labor Governmentis marked for destruction. The Prime Minister will convince no one in the House or outside it, supporter or critic, by saying as he did again and again in answer to questions without notice today from both sides of the House that we must wait till Thursday night for details. This is one more breach- and the worst so far- of Liberal election promises. During the election campaign the Prime Minister gave repeated undertakings that Medibank would be preserved. Innumerable instances can be cited of the Prime Minister promising to maintain Medibank. I will give just one. On 9 December, after the right honourable member for Bruce (Mr Snedden) - Mr Speaker- revealed that Medibank would be reviewed under a Fraser government, the caretaker Prime Minister said:

I have said repeatedly that essential programs in health, education, welfare and urban development will be maintained. Medibank will be maintained.

The Prime Minister went further. He insisted that a Liberal government would not keep Medibank in name only but would preserve the basic concept of the scheme. The Prime Minister not only said this throughout the election campaign right up to the concluding days of the election campaign but he also repeated it after the election was over.

In particular I ask honourable members to read the interview that he gave on 3 February last to the editor of the Australian Financial Review. I will quote the essential parts of the question put by the editor, Mr Maximilian Walsh, and the reply by the Prime Minister. The question reads: . . . You frequently use the expression ‘essential’ to say that we will not cut them back below the essential level … in respect of health care … 1 just wonder whether you have any feelings, whether your essential was a blanket essential or whether it had a cut-off point.

The answer reads:

Well, you’ve got to look at it against a commitment to maintain Medibank and that’s not just a verbal use of the term Medibank. 1 think the concept of Medibank was endorsed.

I think a short answer to your question is that, yes, there is a commitment under Medibank to the total community . . .

The Prime Minister’s statement last night reveals that the central concept of Medibank- free universal health insurance- will be dismantled. The Government has caved in to the private health fund lobby. It will force millions of Australians to return to the private funds. This is the plain meaning of the statement that people will be given ‘an element of choice’. He repeated that phrase, ‘element of choice’, in question time today. Some choice there will be! Medibank will be made so expensive for many taxpayers that they will have to take out private insurance or risk leaving their families without protection. Medibank- intended as a full, automatic free service for all Australians, the birthright of all Australian citizens, the entitlement of every migrant to Australia- will become a second-best welfare scheme for a minority only. Health insurance will be divided into public and private sectors. The division will create inevitable social divisions in the community itself. All the inequalities and injustices, all the competitive snobberies and wasted energies built into our education system will be perpetuated in health insurance.

The concept of universal health insurance has been repeatedly endorsed by the Australian people. It has been the policy of the Australian Labor Party since 1968. It was first put to the voters in the 1969 election, when it was the central issue. It attracted enormous popular support. It was endorsed again by the people in 1972 and in 1974 when they elected and re-elected a

Labor Government. It was endorsed again in the 1975 election when both sides in the Parliament undertook to preserve Medibank. The Liberals are now welching on that undertaking. Medibank is to join the long list of broken Fraser promises- no double taxation, support for wage indexation, maintenance of home loan interest deductibility, abolition of the means test, automatic and immediate pension adjustments. The attack on Medibank was concealed during the Liberal election campaign. So were the Liberal Party’s other threats and cutbacks- cutbacks in the Children’s Commission, cuts in foreign aid, threats to the Australian Broadcasting Commission, higher pharmaceutical charges, reductions in drug supplies for the chronically ill, the abandonment of the housing corporation with its help for low income families, the abolition of funeral benefits for pensioners, penal clauses against unions, a campaign of harassment and intimidation of those on the dole and restoration of radio and television licence fees.

The broken promise on Medibank is destroying the last vestige of goodwill possessed by this Government. How can any government which attacks Medibank seriously appeal to employees to moderate their wage demands or expect unions to co-operate m furthering economic recovery? The Liberal record on Medibank has been one of utter cynicism and irresponsible obstruction right from the outset. The Liberals opposed Labor’s original proposal for a levy on all taxpayers. They blocked the original Medibank Bills in the Senate. When these became the basis of a double dissolution in 1974 the people voted for Medibank in the subsequent election. The Liberals persisted in wanton, reckless, blind obstruction. They rejected the basic Medibank Bills again in the Senate. The Bills were finally passed at the Joint Sitting of Parliament in the middle of 1974. Frustrated by the people’s decision the Liberals proceeded to obstruct the machinery Bills needed to implement Medibank. That is why they blocked the levy- not from any logical or reasoned opposition on grounds of principle, but in a furious attempt to block Medibank itself. When my Government set up the scheme on a different financial basis the anti-Labor States resisted it to the last. They joined the doctors and the conservative health funds in a rearguard action. They resisted the hospital side of the scheme while it became obvious from the success of Medibank in the Labor States that no State could afford to be without it.

Despite this unparalleled record of hostility to Medibank the Liberals maintained the pretence that they would keep Medibank if they came to office. They went on deceiving the electorate. Last September the present Prime Minister went so far as to discipline his official spokesman on social security, the honourable member for Hotham (Mr Chipp), for daring to suggest publicly that Medibank would be scrapped if the Liberals came to power. The honourable member was being more honest on this subject than his Leader has ever been. He let the cat out of the bag. He was forced to recant at a Party meeting a few days later. The then Leader of the Opposition was forced to cover up. When it comes to Medibank the Liberals can never be trusted. We need only look at their record. In the late 1940s, as a result of the Chifley Labor Government’s policies, every State in Australia secured a free hospital system. When the Liberals got in they broke off these agreements with the States after the double dissolution in 1951 and they made the people pay for their hospital treatment in standard wards. The only State that kept its free hospitals going was Queensland- and that was due to a State Labor Government at the time. Eventually, even the present discredited Queensland Government accepted the Medibank hospital scheme. It fell into line with the other States which had fought Medibank for so long. The Liberals in Canberra destroyed one Medibank scheme before; now they are trying again.

Even when he announces the end of Medibank the Prime Minister lacks the courage to spell out his intentions. He resorts to verbiage and evasion. He goes on asserting that the ‘essential elements’ of the schemes will be preserved but gives no definition of ‘essential’. This was the subterfuge used in the election campaign when he conned people into believing that Medibank would remain. I warned of this deception at the time. My warnings were justified.

What justification can there be for attacking Medibank? We all remember the evils and weaknesses of the old system- the multiplicity of inefficient and competing private funds, the waste, the plight of a million or more Australians who had no health insurance at all. People talk glibly and without evidence of ‘rip-offs’ and ‘swindles’ under Medibank. Does anyone imagine that doctors were not exploiting the old system? Of course they were. Inevitably there were loopholes in Medibank which need to be closed. My Government was doing this. Medibank was working well. As the Melbourne Age said yesterday in an editorial:

Contrary to the critics’ expectations, and in spite of some abuses by a few doctors, Medibank has not turned out to be a wasteful extravagance. There are no signs of any significant increase in demand for doctors’ services or standard ward hospital beds. Medibank claims are running below budgeted projections. Certainly some weaknesses have been exposed and some loopholes nave been exploited; none is difficult to remedy. If administrative costs are regarded as too high this is due mainly to the refusal of many doctors to bulk-bill and of major private funds to act as agents.

As the article points out, Canada’s experience has shown that public health insurance schemes covering everyone can operate more economically than voluntary private funds. In 1973, in Canada for every dollar appropriated 97.7c was paid out in benefits; in the United States contributors to private funds had to pay $1.20 for every dollar’s worth of benefits. Similarly, Canadians are paying less per capita for public health, including universal health care, than United States citizens, who have no national health insurance scheme.

I make it clear that the Opposition has no objection in principle to a levy for Medibank. After all, we sought to introduce one. But our levy would have fallen on every taxpayer in equal proportion. There would have been a ceiling of $150 payable by any taxpayer. It would not have driven higher income earners out of Medibank and created a dual system of health insurance. There would have been no opting out. Medibank would not have become a poor man’s health fund for the infirm, the unemployed, the Aborigines and the migrants. It would not have been limited to the disadvantaged sections of the community. Labor does not believe in a 2 -class system of health insurance- one for the rich and one for the poor. We believe in full, automatic health insurance for everyone.

It is humbug for the Government to complain about the growing cost of health care to the community. The community will pay a far greater cost in the long run if health care is neglected. The cost of health is increasing in every country in the world. These rising costs have nothing to do with Medibank. The community has to pay these charges whether they are met by the public or the private sector. The only way the ultimate cost can be reduced is by making the method of insurance as economical and efficient as possible. This can only be achieved by a single national fund. This is the real purpose of Medibank. By undermining the basis of Medibank and restoring health insurance to private funds, the Government is ensuring that the ultimate cost to the taxpayer, to business, to hospitals, to society at large will be greater. As the Nimmo Committee reported, the private funds are bureaucracies; they are not democracies. The members of the funds are not given the right to elect the directors, who are a self-perpetuating hierarchy. Through inaction by the Federal Government people are compelled to pay hundreds of millions of dollars more through compulsory insurance for health, third party claims and workers compensation than they would need to pay to a truly national scheme in each sector. The Prime Minister is placing his ideological obsessions, his hatred of the public sector, ahead of the community’s needs. Merely to satisfy his prejudice against public initiative he is destroying one of the finest achievements of the Labor Government. He is condemning the Australian people to a more costly, more inefficient system of health insurance. He is creating needless social divisions in the community. He is ensuring that the better-off, privately insured patient will have immediate access to the best hospital and medical facilities while the poorer Medibank patient will receive inferior facilities. Australians have come to accept Medibank. The GovernorGeneral, in his Speech opening the Parliament, said:

Medibank will be retained and the Government will ensure it operates efficiently.

The Government’s intentions as revealed by the Prime Minister last night amount to a breach of this undertaking. The Government stands condemned for its deception, incompetence, disregard for the true health needs of the Australian people and its threatened destruction of a great social reform.

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

-The Leader of the Opposition (Mr E. G. Whitlam) commenced his address in this debate by saying: ‘Medibank is about to be destroyed; Medibank is to go’. He chose to speculate and make assumptions and then to make out his case on those speculations and assumptions. It is characteristic of his misguided tactics- tactics that have proved to be disastrous to his own Party in the past. No doubt he hoped that, in any confusion he may generate, some political capital would flow to him and to his discredited Party. The Leader of the Opposition would have done his cause and the cause of his Party more credit if he had shown the patience to await an announcement of the Government’s decisions in Parliament on Thursday. The Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) last night informed the Australian people that the Medibank Review Committee has been examining every aspect of the scheme. He assured the nation that it is not a question whether Medibank will be retained or not, because it certainly will be. The Prime Minister gave that assurance. He quite rightly raised the question how Medibank is to be financed.

The Australian Labor Party, when in office, had a scheme to finance Medibank by imposing a straight levy of 1.35 per cent of taxable income. The purpose of this levy was to provide 50 per cent of the cost of Medibank and the other 50 per cent was to come from Consolidated Revenue. The then Opposition opposed that idea, and quite rightly so, because all the straight levy would have done would have been to lock into Medibank the rapidly rising cost structure of health care in Australia. It would have provided no opportunity to stabilise rising doctors’ fees or health costs. Under the Labor Party proposal or formula it would have required not a 1.35 per cent levy to meet the next financial year’s expenditure but a levy of over 2 per cent to raise the $900m that would have been necessary to meet half the cost of the anticipated $ 1,800m expenditure to cover Medibank in the next financial year. Such a proposal would have shown no regard or preferential treatment for the lower income earners, especially with the application of a ceiling, because this in fact would have protected higher income earners and would have put the great burden of the levy on those who had to pay the full amount under such a levy. As the Prime Minister said last night, high quality health care for all Australians is plainly very expensive.

The Government believes that payment of health costs should be made in a way that can be seen by the doctors and the individuals concerned. The Government has consistently made it plain that Medibank will be retained, that the principle of universal coverage for health care will be retained, that there will be no means test at the point of service, but because of Medibank ‘s great expense and because of alleged abuses, rip-offs and overuse, we have always reserved the right to review its operations and methods of financing the scheme. In paying for Medibank the Government will make sure that the poorest people in the community do not have to make any payment. The Prime Minister said again last night:

Those further up the income scale will still have very heavily subsidised cover under Medibank. Those who are better off still will be paying much more nearly the full cost of what Medibank provides.

It will be well for the House to know something of the escalation of health costs and health care in Australia. Sure, Medibank in its present form has achieved universal coverage, but it also has some very serious weaknesses. Medibank has achieved universal coverage in its present form at the expense of very largely disregarding the need for economy and efficiency in overall health care expenditure by the individual and the community. It provides few incentives to economy in the use of health services either on the part of the consumer or, more particularly, on the part of the medical profession which has a key role in determining overall health costs.

In its present form Medibank places on the State and Federal governments virtually the whole responsibility for financing the basic level of hospital and medical insurance. It does this not only for those who need assistance with their health care costs but also for those who can afford to pay for themselves. While funds for health services flowed from both the public and private sectors, the share of the burden accepted by the public sector has grown sharply in recent years- from 52 percent between 1963 and 1970, to 57 per cent in 1972-73 and to an estimated 74 per cent in 1975-76. Within the public sector the Commonwealth’s share has risen from 55 per cent in 1972-73 to an estimated 73 per cent in 1975- 76. Not only has the Commonwealth’s share grown quickly but also the actual amount of expenditure has risen from $260m in 1963-64 to an estimated $2,500m in 1975-76, which represents an increase of about 1000 per cent in a 12-year period. At the same time the State expenditure has risen from $20 1 m to $950m and private expenditure from $4 18m to $ 1,200m. Total expenditures on health in Australia are estimated at $4,700m in 1 975-76 and $5,400m in 1976- 77. The largest proportion of total expenditure, that is 54 per cent, goes on public and private institutional care- $202m goes to general hospitals; $107m goes to mental hospitals; $348m goes to nursing homes; and $1 17m goes to miscellaneous institutions. Another 42 per cent is spent on pharmaceutical goods, medical appliances and private medical and dental services.

It is against this background of mounting expenditure for the treatment of the sick and a growing incidence of abuse and over use of medical services that the Government has reviewed the operations of Medibank. Any government that did not look at the total rising cost structure and analyse whether in fact every dollar spent is being spent wisely and that the health of the community has improved as a result, would be failing in its duty. One of the great factors that has been contributing to increasing costs of health care in Australia has been the rising costs in the medical profession itself. The Government has honoured its electoral commitments on Medibank as events will establish. However, it is characteristic of the Leader of the Opposition and the Labor Party to see no occasion to control costs or to attempt to achieve efficiency in health care to the advantage of the general public and certainly to the advantage of the more disadvantaged sections of the community. The former Labor Government’s irresponsible and crazy record during its 3 years of office earned it the humiliating defeat that it deserved on 13 December last year. The present Government has set to work to re-establish some stability, some sanity in Government spending in order to restore and maintain one of the highest standards of living in the world.

Our task has not been easy. As most people would know, it is easy to destroy; it is harder to build. Labor’s policies were destroying the economic stability of Australia and thus threatening its social structure. The present Government is committed to rebuilding Australia so that there is job security for the people, production of wealth and social security in a real sense for the people. Notwithstanding the enormous task confronting the Government in restoring economic stability, the Government is not about to destroy Medibank or universal health coverage. Therefore I submit that the matter of public importance brought forward by the Leader of the Opposition is based on assumption. It is a nonsense, and the Government rejects it.

Mr HAYDEN:
Oxley

-The Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) is a man who prides himself on being as good as his word. He has just broken another promise. Before the election he said very clearly in his policy statement:

We will maintain Medibank and ensure that the standard of health care does not decline.

The Parliament is now preparing to watch the dismemberment of the Medibank concept. What is left of the carcass will not be recognisable; only the name will be. It seems that the Prime Minister is satisfied that he has fulfilled his commitment to the Australian electorate merely by retaining the name ‘Medibank’. This is not the first of the undertakings given to the Australian electorate by the Prime Minister which, within a short period of assuming office, he has completely jettisoned.

Before I go to the substance of other remarks I want to make, let me attend to some of the comments of the Minister for Health (Mr Hunt). He asserted quite falsely- he would know quite falsely from his experience in debates in this House and from the points which he made when we were the Government- that the levy of 1.35 per cent on taxable income which we originally proposed to apply was aimed at raising half of the cost of Medibank. He was one of a number of Liberal-Country Party speakers who pointed out that we had- we had done so consciouslyretreated from the original proposition and that a 1.35 per cent levy on taxable income would raise only about 40 per cent of the total cost. We accepted that. We accepted that the greater the proportion of the total cost which was funded from general revenue, the more equitably the cost would be distributed between income groups because a progressive tax burden associated with general revenue raising is a much fairer and more equitable system of raising income than a flat percentage level which, in turn, is a much fairer and more equitable system of raising income than the old discredited and totally unsatisfactory system of private health insurance whereby a flat poll tax was imposed on all those who desired to join the funds- and there were not many who had anything but a sense of necessity because there was no alternative.

The Minister said, again quite falsely and wilfully so, that our scheme paid no attention to low income earners, that they were not regarded. They were exempted specifically from making any contribution under the original proposal for a levy for the Medibank program. He went on to assert the virtue of what is to be proposed under the dismembered program of Medibank namely, that members of the public will be better for being able to see that they are making a payment to the Medibank concept as it survives. As a general statement maybe there is something to support that proposition, but not a levy so severe that the public will groan under its burden, not a program that will be so cruel in the way in which the cost burden falls that there will be massive dissatisfaction in the Australian community.

He went on to renew another old, tired and totally disproven fallacy about the alleged abuses and ripoffs which have flourished under Medibank. The fact is that the abuses and ripoffs flourished under the old system of private health insurance. The Minister will recall that in the first medical fees review tribunal there were startling disclosures of the way in which pathologists were ripping off on a massive scale and paying commission rates on a very generous basis to private practitioners who over-utilised in referring pathology tests to particular laboratories. That happened under the old scheme. Under Medibank, with the sort of utilisation profiles which can be accumulated by the Medibank computer, it is possible to identify exactly where this abuse is occurring, to sheet home the responsibility and to take effective action to prevent it in future. If honourable members doubt the force of that argument they ought to look at the experience in

Canada where the capacity to divulge these sorts of utilisation profiles- not to identify particular medical practitioners- led to a salutary contraction in the rate of growth of this sort of utilisation.

The Minister asserts, again falsely, that Medibank places the full burden of health insurance on to State governments and the Federal Government. While it is true to say that the State and Federal governments are meeting costs which, in a significant proportion in the past, were met by the public directly, the fact is that the total cost is still being met by the same people- the taxpayers in the community. The virtue of Medibank is that it raises money more efficiently, distributes it more efficiently and does not waste money on clumsy administrative requirements or on ripoffs for people in private health insurance funds who like to fiddle about the city with investment and grab whatever influence and prestige that may or may not give to them. The fact is that the States do not meet more of the outlay than they would have met before. By and large the SO /SO formula is represented to the States. In the case of Queensland in a full financial year the amount is $60m. The public hospitals system in the States of this Commonwealth could not have continued to function much longer without the advent of Medibank. If the Minister or anyone else wants to know, the State Health Ministers, regardless of their political affiliations, urged me to enter into long-term contracts with them on the cost sharing formula because they did not trust their colleagues in the coalition parties and they feared that if they came into office this would be one of the first agreements to be destroyed. That is why in all cases the agreements are long term.

The Minister fiddled about with statistics which are totally meaningless. Unfortunately, I do not think he realised how meaningless they are. Of course the cost of health care in Australia, in any way in which one likes to look at it, has increased enormously in the last decade. It has increased faster than the rate of growth in national expenditure, faster than the rate of growth in the national product. But this is not a novel experience for this country. Every advanced country is experiencing the same problem. This rate of escalation was unleashed long before Medibank came into operation. In fact the existence of this rapid escalation and the problems it portended for the future were substantial reasons why Medibank had to be brought in. Medibank meant that money could be spent more efficiently and that the same total volume of money could be spread further and could provide adequate attention for all people in the community.

Let us be clear on what is being proposed. The public is not going to be saved in any way at all. The proposals of the Government are to shift a large amount of the funding on to individual income earners in the community. The Prime Minister said last night:

Those who are better off still will be paying much more nearly the full cost of what Medibank provides.

Nearly paying the full cost of Medibank would represent a levy of somewhere near 3 per cent of taxable income. So we are talking about a range of levy probably between 2.5 per cent and 3 per cent of taxable income. This comes from the coalition parties which declaimed in such a falsely virtuous style when in Opposition up until last December their complete repugnance of the proposition that there should be any levy at all. On average, their levy will be more than twice as high as the levy the previous Government was proposing as a proportion of taxable income. As far as one can calculate from the inferences of the Prime Minister’s statement and from the informed comment of the Press, it means an increase in personal tax of up to 20 per cent because, make no mistake about it, people paying this earmarked contribution are adding to total revenue. It is an increase in tax. Indexation will not give that sort of tax relief.

Finally, because time is running out, I pose a pertinent question which the Prime Minister could not understand at question time today: What happens when inflation becomes more tractable? The rate of increase in inflation drops considerably. This means that indexation- the rate of reduction in the otherwise increased tax burden- will be much less than the rate of increase in total tax which will arise as a result of the Medibank levy. Is it proposed by the Government that the Medibank levy should be indexed too, or is the devious effect sought by the Government to increase the total tax collection at a rate higher than would otherwise be achieved if indexation worked right across the spectrum of personal tax contribution? The public is about to be conned. The coalition Government has turned its back on every virtue it espoused in Opposition. It is the high cost Government, the high tax Government. If the full benefit of indexation is not provided in the forthcoming Budget it will represent a reduction in consumption in the community.

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

Mr LLOYD:
Murray

– I believe that the Government has no case to answer in relation to the Opposition’s charge. The Opposition has proposed for discussion as a matter of public importance:

The Government’s failure to honour its election commitments on Medibank.

The Government’s commitments on Medibank- I will refer to them later- are quite clear. The Government has been quite sincere and consistent in the attitude which it has taken. This will be revealed on Thursday. The Opposition has shown itself to be too eager by far in listing this matter for debate today. Honourable members opposite were told quite clearly that a full statement would be made on Thursday. So anything they say today is pure conjecture and will only add to the confusion which the shadow Treasurer, the honourable member for Adelaide (Mr Hurford), suggested last night was the result of the statement by the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser). Honourable members opposite themselves are deliberately adding to this confusion.

One may ask what is the real reason for the Opposition’s bringing on this debate today. After a week’s recess honourable members opposite felt that they would be failing in their duty if they did not propose a matter of public importance by which to criticise the Government. A lot of rumours have been floating around Parliament House in the last day or two as to what the Opposition would actually produce today. It cannot use the subject of East Timor again because in the recent debate in this House initiated by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Uren) the division between the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr E. G. Whitlam) on this important issue of East Timor was shown clearly. There is a split within the Australian Labor Party on that subject. It was also rumoured that the Opposition would move a censure motion in relation to the economy. Why did honourable members opposite not do that? I would say that they did not do it because any argument they put forward about the ills of the economy could be neatly and easily turned around and put back at their door for having caused the present ills in the economy. It was said that the Opposition would censure the Government on the Prime Minister’s statement last night, on the whole statement, not just one section of it. Why did the Opposition not bring that up for debate today when it was there very clearly?

Dr Klugman:

– Because he said nothing.

Mr LLOYD:

– If he said nothing, why did the Opposition pick out a part of it today for debate? Honourable members opposite, on their own words, are debating nothing. Therefore the point that the Government has no case to answer is substantiated. If honourable members opposite were to bring up the Prime Minister’s statement today it could be turned around and used against them because obviously what he said last night is common sense for the future of Australia. The other matter which we are all waiting to hear about from the Opposition side is the overseas loans affair. Why did honourable members opposite not bring that matter up? The reason is obvious. It is because any further debate on the overseas loans affair would only produce further revelations of the misdeeds of the previous Government in this regard and further damaging publicity on its activities.

The Opposition is endeavouring to use Medibank as an emotional issue. It is attempting to cloud the facts and to confuse the people of Australia. One does not only have to use today’s debate to realise that fact. The Opposition introduced an earlier debate on this same subject on 19 February. The subject of the matter of public importance debated on that day was:

Conflicting statements by Government spokesmen on the future of Medibank and their failure to specify how the scheme will continue to operate.

Members of the Opposition are over-anxious. They will hear all this on Thursday. Instead of them waiting for that announcement we already have had 2 ill-timed debates on this proposal which is particularly important for all Australians. If members of the Opposition are sincere in wanting to debate Medibank why do they not wait until after Thursday when the facts will be known and they will have a basis for debate instead of busily throwing their conjectures around at the present time.

I want to refer to the central point of this debate raised by the Opposition- its claim that the Government has failed to honour its election commitment. The Prime Minister had said:

We will maintain Medibank, and ensure that the standard of health care does not decline.

One should remember the second part of that statement, that the standard of health care will not decline, as well as the first part. As the Prime Minister said last night, it was in danger of declining for the most underpriveleged section of our community because of increasing competition for standard wards beds, the only hospital accommodation for such people. Other people should have a greater choice. In the program This Day Tonight on 28 November last year Mr Fraser said:

Well keep Medibank but we didn’t say it would be unchanged. We want to make quite sure that Medibank does not lower the health standards available to people in Australia and Tor the poorer people in particular, those who would have got priority in standard ward beds in public hospitals before, they now get no priority, they can’t afford to go to private hospitals, they have to take their queue with everyone else for the standard ward beds in public hospitals.

If one reads through all the statements made by the Prime Minister, both before the election last December and since, one cannot say that he has been anything else but remarkably consistent in the attitude he has taken- that Medibank will be retained but there will be changes.

What are the basic features of Medibank? The first is that there is universal and automatic cover for those who desire it, particularly those who cannot afford any other choice. The second is that there is no means test for these people. It was obvious from the statement made last night that the basis and whole being of Medibank will continue unchanged. What is different? Let us read between the lines of what the Prime Minister said last night about what is to happen in regard to a revised Medibank and what would have happened under the original scheme of the Labor Government. Under both forms of Medibank the poorer sections of the community would be covered at no cost. I refer to the people whose incomes fall below the tax level. The next group of people would be partly subsidising Medibank and would be partly subsidised by it. There is to be no difference for that group. The basic difference is that the Labor Government aimed to kill the religious and private hospitals in this country and, under the rules of the Medibank game that it was playing, people would be forced from that form of hospital accommodation and would have to join the queue of people waiting for standard ward accommodation in this country.

As I see the situation the only change being proposed is that people in Australia who want the freedom to choose religious or private hospital accommodation will be better able to achieve that wish. At the same time they will not put undue pressure on standard ward accommodation to the detriment of the poor. The Opposition says that the Government is introducing a dual system. It was the Opposition, the Labor Party, which introduced a dual system by which an elitist or very wealthy group had a disproportionate share of the health care resources of this country. If honourable members want examples of how this is happening they should consider the situation in the United Kingdom and New Zealand. The Government’s proposal will maintain a healthy balance in providing health care in this country.

Private or religious organisations own 20 per cent of all hospital beds in this country and if they are forced to close, and some are on the brink of being closed at present because of Medibank, there will be an enormous charge on the taxpayers of our society to replace those hospital beds. Those beds would not be replaced immediately; it would take years. We would lose the services of these people who had made health care their vocation. The Opposition could never guarantee that those hospital beds would have come into the standard ward system. The existence of these hospitals provides a freedom of choice. They illustrate cost effectiveness in health care and they should be preserved.

Members of the Opposition talk about levies and total payment in our society. They should look at the capital cost as well as the running cost required to continue the present Medibank system on that basis. People who say that there is no need to change Medibank are not aware of the situation. They are not aware of problems associated with pathology, workers compensation, phantom patients claimed by some doctors and over-usage of outpatient departments. I could continue my remarks along those lines. If I have any criticism to offer about what the Government may be doing it is that it would appear that it is more concerned in arguing the financing of health care on an illness basis than expending money to provide good health in this country. I hope that when the decision on Medibank is made and announced there will be an opportunity to channel some of the funds that go into illness care to illness prevention in order that there will be a better cost effective basis.

The Government has no case to answer. I believe that the Opposition has a lot of questions to answer. It is trying to confuse the issue for the people of Australia at the present time. Why does it not bring forward for discussion as matters of public importance such subjects as the situation in East Timor, the economy, the Prime Minister and the overseas loans affair? The answer is quite obvious. The Opposition is discredited and has no proposals for the future.

Dr CASS:
Maribyrnong

-Mr Deputy Speaker -

Motion (by Mr Sinclair) agreed to:

That the business of the day be called on.

page 2111

QUESTION

TIME LIMITS FOR SPEECHES

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

– I move:

  1. 1 ) That, in lieu of the time limit specified in standing order 91 for speeches on the ‘Motion for adjournment of House to terminate the sitting-‘, the following time limit shall operate: ‘Each Member … 5 minutes (no extension of time to be granted):

Provided that, if no other Member rises to address the House, a Member who has already spoken to the motion may speak a second time for a period not exceeding 5 minutes’.

  1. That, unless otherwise ordered, this sessional order shall operate for the remainder of this period of sittings.

This motion relates to the changed practice which permits each honourable member to have S minutes in which to speak in the debate on the motion for the adjournment of the House. The practice has been in operation for the last few weeks of the sitting. The Government does not believe that there has been sufficient time to try it fully and therefore it intends that the procedure be tried at least until the end of this period of sittings. I do not believe there is any need for me to argue the contents of the motion or its purpose. I believe it is in the interests of the House to persist with this alternative form relating to the length of speeches in the adjournment debate. I commend the motion.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 2111

QUESTION

ADJOURNMENT OF SITTINGS

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

– I move:

  1. 1 ) That, in lieu of the final proviso to the sessional order of 18 February 1976 relating to the adjournment of sittings, the following proviso be substituted: ‘Provided further that, if at 1 1.00 p.m. the question before the House is-

That the House do now adjourn-the Speaker shall interrupt the debate, at which time-

  1. a Minister may require that the debate be extended until 11.10 p.m. to enable Ministers to speak in reply to matters raised in the preceding adjournment debate; at 1 1.10 p.m., or upon the earlier cessation of the debate, the Speaker shall forthwith adjourn the House until the time of its next meeting.

  2. if no action is taken by a Minister under paragraph (0. the Speaker shall forthwith adjourn the House until the time of its next meeting.’

    1. That, unless otherwise ordered, this amendment of the sessional order of 18 February 1976 shall operate for the remainder of this period of sittings.

This also is a procedure which it was intended to try for a longer period of time before determining whether it should be adopted permanently by the House. Obviously there will be difficulties if Ministers interrupt private members in the course of debate. I know that the Opposition had some reservations about this motion when the matter first came before the House. However we want to ensure that Ministers do not interrupt the adjournment debate but are not denied some opportunity to respond, if need be, as a result of matters canvassed during the adjournment debate. The procedure has been used on very few occasions since it was introduced. It is not intended by the Government that it should be abused but rather that it should be available for use if necessity requires. Therefore I recommend to the House that this variation of the sessional order be extended for the remainder of this period of sittings.

Mr SCHOLES:
Corio

-The Opposition again opposes this proposition but we do not intend to divide on the motion because that would be pointless. We agree that this procedure has not been properly tried at this stage but when it comes up for consideration we would like to see some safeguards built into the proposition that Ministers have an additional 10 minutes in which to speak. I think Ministers should be restricted to answering matters which fall within their ministerial responsibilities. This is the main reason for the Opposition opposing this particular proposal. We do not like sitting duck propositions where 2 Ministers can get up one after the other and take advantage of an opportunity to make political speeches. That is something which I think will eventually be discussed by the Standing Orders Committee. The Opposition opposes this proposal but we do not intend to divide at this stage.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 2111

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

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

– I move that:

Notice No. 3, Government Business, be postponed until the next day of sitting.

Before the motion is put I intimate to members of the House that the present parliamentary program is likely to be varied insofar as we do not now intend to sit this Friday. We shall, however, almost certainly be sitting the following 2 Fridays as originally intended in the sitting frame. The House will probably be sitting then into a fourth week before rising for the winter adjournment. The timing of the sittings of the House will be determined in relation to the preparedness of the Opposition to consider and debate the motions before the House.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– You could not run a raffle.

Mr SINCLAIR:

-In order to ensure that members have adequate notice, which I thought would interest even the honourable member, I am intimating to the House that this is the intention of the Government. In other words, honourable members may now feel quite free to make outside commitments for this Friday, but the House will be in session on the following 2 Fridays and will probably be sitting for a fourth week.

Mr SCHOLES:
Corio

– I think it ill becomes the Leader of the House to indicate that the Opposition is not co-operating in the Government ‘s program. It has been noticeable that in almost all debates the Government is listing possibly 2 speakers to each one for the Opposition. Some debates have obviously been very protracted. We do not object to that. We think that debates should be, but if the Government’s program is tight then it is up to the Government to make sure that its own members meet the Government’s commitments. The Government should not ask the Opposition to drop out while the Government continues to list more and more speakers.

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

-The motion actually before the Chair is that notice No. 3 be postponed until the next day of sitting. Out of courtesy I allowed the Leader of the House and the honourable member leading for the Opposition to make comments which were outside the motion before the Chair. I feel that as I have allowed that, and as somebody from each side has spoken, the matter should rest there. Any debate on this matter should be at the actual time when the motion itself is moved at the next sitting. The question is that:

Notice No. 3, Government Business, be postponed until the next day of sitting.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 2112

TARIFF PROPOSALS

Mr HOWARD:
Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs · Bennelong · LP

– I move:

Customs TariffProposals Nos 10 and 11 (1976).

The Customs Tariff Proposals that I have just tabled relate to proposed alterations to the Customs Tariff 1966-1974. Customs TariffProposals No. 10 ( 1976) formally place before Parliament, as required by law, tariff changes introduced by Gazette notice last week. The changes, which operate from 1 1 May 1976, implement the Government’s decision on the short term assistance to be provided for the production of injection moulding machinery pending consideration by the

Government of the report by the Industries Assistance Commission on Miscellaneous Industrial Machinery.

Customs TariffProposals No. 11 (1976) give effect to the Government’s decisions on recommendations made by the Industries Assistance Commission in its reports on welding consumables and flux cored solder; precision ground steel ball bearings; and filament, fluorescent and other discharge lamps. The new duties operate from to-morrow. Proposals No. 11 (1976) also contain a number of administrative changes which do not involve variations in rates of duties. A comprehensive summary of the changes is now being circulated to honourable members. I commend the proposals.

Debate (on motion by Mr Young) adjourned.

APPROPRIATION BILL (No. 3) 1975-1976 Second Reading

Debate resumed from 6 May, on motion by Mr Lynch:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr GRAHAM:
North Sydney

– I am resuming this debate from when this matter was last before the House about 10 days ago, when I spoke for some 4 minutes. As there has been this break of more than a week I return to the introductory speech made on behalf of the Opposition by the honourable member for Adelaide (Mr Hurford), the distinguished member who is the shadow Treasurer. He will be responsible for the Opposition’s main economic speeches and statements of policy during these next several years prior to the next general election. Having regard to the background of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr E. G. Whitlam) I am most interested in some of the comments that the honourable member for Adelaide made. I ought to explain this by saying that it is well known in this House that the honourable member for Werriwa, the Leader of the Opposition, is a man very interested in history. He is extremely interested in European history.

People may recall that on the defeat of the McMahon Government in 1972, on 2 December on that year, the now Leader of the Opposition was heard to announce to the spellbound people of Australia that this was a great anniversary. It was the anniversary of the Battle of Austerlitz, when a distinguished Corsian general masquerading as a French emperor inflicted enormous casualties upon the armies of Russia, Prussia and Austria. Here was this manifestation of the Leader’s intense interest in European history, in the use of an historical reference that would impress those people in our country less familiar with the details of European history than the honourable gentleman is. I find that the most reliable form of praise is imitation. The future Treasurer of a Labor Government is using words in the opening speech on a debate of this nature that I can only describe as rather crass and, to my mind, a little absurd. He said:

In opening this debate on these 2 Appropriation Bills, I am bound to mention the occasion when Appropriation Bills were last before this Parliament. I am referring of course to Appropriation Bills (No. 1) and (No. 2) which eventually were passed by the Senate, after a damaging delay, on that infamous coup d’etat day, 1 1 November 1975.

I am hoping that the honourable member for Adelaide will go back to his history teacher, the Leader of the Opposition, and ask him to be painstaking, to be serious in his revelation of his knowledge of history and to tell him of the last occasion when what is called a coup d’etat in the French language was followed within a period of 4 weeks by a general election. Here is a clear manifestation of the Labor Party technique, bereft of integrity as it is, unencumbered by conscience, as is well known, of describing events in dramatic terms which are the grossest misrepresentations.

It was utter drivel for those honourable gentlemen to refer to the events of last November as a coup d’etat. It was in fact a judgment that resulted in the Constitution of Australia functioning properly, functioning so as to permit the electors of Australia, at an appropriate time, there having been a block- a complete confrontation between the Senate and the House of Representatives- to make up their minds and to cast their decision. There is nothing further from the truth than the words of the Australian Labor Party speakers who describe that series of events as a coup d’etat. In fact when that French emperor of whom the Leader of the Opposition is so keen to speak found himself in a situation where he was to be elevated from the position of consul-general or something of that nature and to be crowned an emperor, he was rather like the Leader of the Opposition, so fascinated with power that, to the amazement of all present, from the hands of the Pope he grabbed the crown and put it on his own head. I cannot help feeling in this context that on those occasions when the Leader of the Opposition was addressing the rowdy people who had surrounded him on 1 1 November he rather felt in those circumstances that he had been crowned and had lost the crown. A further statement that was made by the speaker leading for the Opposition, the honourable member for Adelaide, was this:

The stark fact is that a parliamentary democracy anywhere is a system which requires tolerance on the part of those operating it if it is to survive.

I would have thought that the history of parliamentary democracy over the last five or six hundred years in the countries that speak the English language or the French language has proved that that statement historically is utterly wrong. In fact, parliamentary democracy has survived in circumstances of conflict, where in the United Kingdom a king had his head chopped off and in the United States of America, as it became on the North American continent, colonists were prepared to rise in rebellion and establish themselves as people prepared to operate the parliamentary system as they saw it.

There is no evidence that parliamentary democracy is a fragile system. The honourable member for Adelaide said that it is a fickle flower and a fragile mechanism. If the Labor Party had any real reasons for complaint it might be kind enough to explain after these extraordinary words at this extraordinary opening of this debate why it has in its platform a portion which states that its aim is to destroy the Senate, to take away from the States the right of representation in a house in which all the States are equal. Why should the Labor Party do such a thing? Is its ambition to concentrate all power in the House of Representatives, to destroy the Constitution? This has again and again been made clear by the Leader of the Opposition and appears to be confirmed by the Opposition’s future Treasurer in so many of his comments.

I hope that his reference to codifying the Constitution and making it clear to the Australian people will be looked at by the Government and that it will not be possible for those pseudo great men, interpreters of the Constitution who wish to misrepresent the facts, to put the GovernorGeneral into a position where his situation is falsified. The fact of the matter is that, in spite of these complaints, the Governor-General personally was appointed by the Labor Party Government, and the speech that was made on his appointment by the Labor Party’s Prime Minister, the honourable member for Werriwa, was full of praise. When that jurist came to a conclusion that he had reached the stage at which a decision had to be made that the question would be put to the Australian people so that they could make their decision, he made it because he had no alternative. This constant barrage and attack, fostered within the ranks of those who espouse socialism and the brotherhood of mankind, that has followed the Governor-General around this community in the last 6 months has been disgraceful in the extreme and by no means anything of which the Opposition as a political party should be proud.

I turn now to some of the other comments that have been made that have aroused great interest in this debate and in particular to the comments of my colleague and friend from Mackellar (Mr Wentworth). I believe that there ought to be a statement from the Treasurer of Australia (Mr Lynch) dealing with this particular matter. I refer to the reference of the honourable member for Mackellar to the deficit as set out by the Treasury, to the deficit as admitted by the former Treasurer, the honourable member for Oxley (Mr Hayden) in the Labor Party Government, the deficit which has excited so much concern in Australia. The honourable member for Mackellar said that the effective deficit as at the end of March was not the $4.95 billion of which the Treasury speaks; in terms of the use of central bank credit it was $ 1 . 1 90 billion. We use that word ‘billion’ in the American fashion, as representing one thousand million dollars. He said that even this deficit is mythical because if one looks at the last Treasurer’s statement one will see that on his estimates no less than $4.8 billion worth of capital works were included in the Federal Budget and charged in as part of this mythical deficit. I believe that this ought to be clarified for the House of Representatives and that there ought to be a serious statement so that we can have at least some criticism from my friend the honourable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr Crean), who was Treasurer some time ago, or some explanation how it is that these investments can be so included if they are going in fact to affect what we call the domestic deficit. Then someone might explain- I do not think one would need Professor Friedman to help onehow inflation has so grown in Australia that we have a resultant diminution in the value of all of the assets of our people, of all those people who have worked for decades, for 20 or 30 years or more and who are watching their assets being diminished in Australia at more than 10 per cent per annum. They are aware of the fact that all the contributions that they have put away to help them in their years of retirement are diminishing in value at that rate. Surely it must be possible for these points to be clarified. I think it is essential that it be done because I think that it is an impossible situation that we should find the integrity of the Treasury advisers to the Government being questioned in the House of Representatives with no recognition from the Ministers of State that this is taking place.

I can recall the comments that were made during the Budget Speech of my friend from Melbourne Ports when he referred to the fact- 1 think it was in 1973- that it was an appropriate time for a transfer of assets from the private to the public sector. I believe that was what he said. There is another way that one can transfer assets from one sector to another sector. It does involve one with trouble with the police. It is called stealing. One moves into someone’s home and says: ‘I am transferring from your sector some assets to another sector which will be under my control’. In fact this is what Treasurers do when they take from people who live in this country assets which in fact are theirs, that they have spent a lifetime developing and accumulating, and transfer them to what is airily known as the public sector. Then we are told by someone with a very flexible mind and a very flexible sense of the truth that this means that the assets of the entire country- of all people living within the country- have been expanded by this transference from the private to the public sector. I have yet to meet the Australian citizen who can tell me that anything transferred from his sector to some government-owned, controlled and directed sector ever finds its way back to him. I do not believe it does.

I believe, as I said at the commencement of my remarks, that honourable gentlemen opposite stand charged with having engaged in an extraordinary debate on economic matters in which they devoted an enormous amount of time to vituperative, impertinent and out of order references to the Queen’s Representative in Australiatheir own appointment in any event. History will record that the honourable gentleman who was prepared to worship the victory of the Emperor Napoleon on 2 December 1 806 at Austerlitz was a conqueror who put his foot in a hole and fell flat on his face, where he properly belongs.

Dr KLUGMAN:
Prospect

-The final statement of the honouable member for North Sydney (Mr Graham) about an honourable member putting his foot in a hole and falling flat on his face makes it fairly obvious to many of us who know both him and the Governor-General why he was so keen to protect the GovernorGeneral. It was because they have a lot in common, especially late in the evenings. I address myself to the Appropriation Bills which are before us for debate today. One of the points with which I shall deal concerns alleged savings by the Government. When the Treasurer (Mr Lynch) introduced these Appropriation Bills he also presented a statement of savings expected in annual appropriations. The alleged total savings amount to in excess of $477m but let us examine closely what is involved in the proposed savings.

The Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) during his election campaign and when refusing Supply last year talked about wasteful expenditure by the previous Government. Let us examine what the present Government has been able to save and in what areas. I point out in passing that of the savings of $477m an amount of $93m relates to savings on Medibank. But nothing really has been done because this amount arises from the proposed expenditure for the first year of Medibank not being as high as was estimated. I will give details of this aspect later.

The Government has estimated a saving of $64m on the Childrens Commission by not establishing it, but of course the Government proposes an expenditure of $55m under Appropriations Bills (3) and (4) on an interim committee, which is the same sort of organisation. This is just a sleight of hand. Where, in fact, is the Government saving money? According to the statement of savings provided by the Treasurer an amount of almost $7m will be saved in respect of the Commonweaalth Police. I submit that is not a true figure because I know that it has now been decided to replace Commonwealth police officers at many Commonwealth factories and other locations with locally recruited guards. The net result is that whatever is saved on the Commonwealth Police will be spent on guards who will be performing duties previously performed by the police. This is exactly what happened at the munitions factory at St Marys in my area. Some of the employees panicked because they thought that the removal of the Commonwealth Police was an indication that the munitions factory was about to close. I suggest that this is not a true saving but a transfer of expenditure from one department to another.

It is proposed to save $20,000 in running expenses of the Institute of Family Studies. It is ridiculous to try to save such a small amount if by its expenditure some families could be prevented from breaking up with resultant deserted wives and children getting into trouble. An amount of $102,000 is to be saved by not appointing an Australian ombudsman, even though the Government said it would make such an appointment. Legislation was introduced by the previous Labor Government but nothing has been done about it. A sum of $210,000 is to be saved from expenditure on cadets. All honourable members will recall what was said about the cadet corps when Government supporters were in Opposition. It is proposed to save $ 1.75m on housing for servicemen through advances to the States. Money will not be given to the States to house servicemen. I ask honourable members to recall this Government’s promises to servicemen.

I turn now to the matter of education. This is important because the statement of savings shows not only where the Government proposes to save money but also how elitist it is. I should have hoped that the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr MacKellar), who is at the table, would have fought for more reasonable proposals, even though this matter is not directly under his administration. Expenditure on assistance for Vietnamese and Cambodian students is expected to be reduced by $80,000. In other words, 25 per cent of the money previously allocated to help these refugees is to be saved. This is an action by a government which was responsible for many of the refugees from Vietnam and Cambodia. It is proposed to save $276,000 on Aboriginal secondary grants. An amount of $7 1 ,500 is to be saved on Aboriginal study grants and $538,000 is to be saved on assistance for isolated children. There is to be a saving of $419,000 on the adult migrant education program and $983,400 on the child migrant educational program. It is proposed to save more than $4m on these aspects of education. The Government proudly announces these savings on education, especially as they affect Aborigines and migrants.

In respect of the Universities Commission- an elitist organisation- the total saving is to be $6,750. I ask honourable members to compare that amount with the $4,047,900 to be saved on education generally, especially migrant education and the education of Aboriginal children. Of course we know why the Government has made such proposals- it represents people who benefit from being able to send their children to universities at no cost. The Government also proposes to save $940,000 in its payment of teaching subsidies to mission authorities in the Northern Territory. Honourable members can imagine how the churches would have screamed had the Labor Government reduced payments to the churches by $1,000. This Government is reducing its payments by more than $900,000 yet I have not heard any screams from the church authorities. Expenditure on the National Employment and Training scheme- the NEAT scheme- is to be reduced to result in a saving of $5. lm. A saving of $2m is to be made in expenditure on the Regional Employment Development scheme- the RED scheme- at a time when we have more unemployment than ever before.

The interest subsidy to the Australian Housing Corporation is to be cut by more than $3m. What a way to save money. People will now have to pay more interest on their housing loans. Bilateral aid to Papua New Guinea is to be cut by $7.2m. Food aid through the Australian Development Assistance Agency by way of food grains is to be cut by $5.3m. This is happening because the Government knows it can sell food grains overseas. It is now suggested that we should be giving away beef cattle instead. A total saving of more than $l6m is estimated for the Department of Foreign Affairs, most of the savings- $ 14m- being achieved through the Australian Development Assistance Agency and not from savings on wasteful expenditure within the Department itself.

I turn now to the proposed saving of $93m on the Health Insurance Commission. This Commission was established by Act of Parliament in 1973. Much of the discussion on Medibank has been focused, I am sorry to say, almost completely on the cost of financing it. We have the Prime Minister talking about everybody having to pay for Medibank. The Minister for Health (Mr Hunt) is speaking in the same way. I am not for one minute suggesting that we do not have to pay for medical care. Obviously we have to pay for it. It is a question of who pays for it and how the payments are distributed amongst different sections of the community. But let me discuss some of the non-financial aspects of Medibankthe good aspects of Medibank- that are threatened by the proposed changes in the financing of Medibank.

The most important point about the introduction of Medibank as far as I am concerned is that it has reduced the incentive to doctors to perform unnecessary operations because of the feeforservice factor. That is an important point as far as I am concerned. It has removed the application of a means test in public hospitals in all of the States. Such a test has not applied in the case of Queensland. It has made it possible for people to enter standard wards and there be treated by doctors who are paid on a sessional basis. In standard wards there is no incentive to the medical profession to perform unnecessary surgery. That is one of the most important points that those of us- there were quite a few of us- on this side of the House who are medical practitioners and who helped in the introduction of Medibank in this country tried to bring about. A lot of unnecessary surgery is performed in this country, but relatively little research has been carried out on this matter. In this respect I refer to a couple of points which to me are quite clear cut.

There is very little difference between the Australian medical profession and the medical profession in corresponding countries- for example, the United States of America or Canada. Let us look at what happens in those countries. They have been able to look at the figures in more detail than we have been able to do so far. All the evidence so far in this country shows quite clearly that the number of operations performed in private hospitals and in the private and intermediate wards of public hospitals is much greater than the number of operations performed on public ward patients. There are two main systems of health insurance in the United States, namely, the health maintenance organisations such as the Kaiser Permanente organisations, and the Blue Cross organisation. The Blue Cross organisation corresponds to the medical funds as they existed previously in Australia and to some extent to Medibank insofar as it applies to private and intermediate ward patients. In other words, the patients pay their doctor for a service and get a refund from the insurance organisation- the Blue Cross organisation- for that service. With respect to the health maintenance organisations- the Kaiser Permanente organisation and similar organisations- a fixed amount is paid to the medical profession, which contracts to provide all the necessary health care to the people who belong to that scheme. So it is obviously in the interests of the medical profession under that sort of scheme to perform as few operations as possible and to have as few people as possible in hospital.

I am not suggesting that that by itself is the solution. Obviously one could get the extreme position arising where doctors would collect the money and not perform necessary work or not admit people to hospital for necessary care. The advantage in the United States, of course, is that the two systems are running side by side. The important point there is that when one matches exactly as to age, income and previous medical history the people who belong to the health maintenance organisation and the Blue Cross organisation one finds that the number of operations on backs, the number of hysterectomies and the number of tonsillectomies are 2 to Vh times as great in the case of those covered by the Blue Cross organisation. In other words, they are 2 to 2Vi times as great in the case of those people on whom it is in a doctor’s financial interest to perform an operation. In a study carried out in Winnipeg in Canada the amount of surgery performed on doctors’ wives was compared with that carried out on women in the same age group whose husbands were in the same professional bracket and in the same income bracket. In other words, there was a comparison of the incidence of surgical operations involving doctors’ wives and the wives of barristers, solicitors, members of Parliament and such like. There was a clear cut difference. Nearly twice as many operations were performed on non-doctors’ wives- on the wives of other professional people- than on doctors’ wives. I assume that a doctor would be just as keen as a solicitor or banister to have his wife’s ailments cured, but it would appear that he is not nearly as keen as the solicitor or the barrister to have her submitted to surgery.

Mr Martyr:

-Cut up.

Dr KLUGMAN:

– As the honourable member for Swan has said, cut up.

Mr Birney:

– Is that because of his professional knowledge?

Dr KLUGMAN:

– Yes, it is because of his professional knowledge. Exactly. The doctor knows that many operations are completely unnecessary. He knows that a large proportion of the hysterectomies are completely unnecessary, that a large proportion of the back operations are completely unnecessary and that a large proportion of the tonsillectomies are completely unnecessary. If it was just that they were unnecessary and cost money it would not be a sufficient ground to get terribly het up about. But unnecessary operations cause morbidity and cause a certain amount of mortality. It is important not to have unnecessary operations. I am sure that the honourable member for Phillip will agree with me when I say that members of the legal profession are less likely to get involved in legal actions that they would have to fund themselves than other similarly placed people outside of the legal profession. In other words, legal practitioners know full well that advice is often given to clients to carry out legal action because there is a benefit to be gained by the legal practitioner out of it. I am sure that the honourable member for Phillip has never fallen into that category, but he will probably agree with me when I say that a certain proportion of the legal profession would act in that way.

This is exactly what happens in the medical profession. The medical practitioners do the same. I do not know whether they do it consciously. When I was in medical practice I occasionally used to send to a consultant surgeon people whom I believed had no physical condition which would be ameliorated by surgery. I had watched such patients for a long time, but I was not 100 per cent sure about them. So I sent them along to a consultant surgeon. A proportion of them were operated on. I would then ask the surgeon: ‘Why did you operate on Mrs SoandSo? After all, I think you would probably agree with me that it is not going to do her any good’. He would say: ‘If I had not, somebody else would have done so’. But that somebody else would have done so only because a financial benefit was involved. I think that such actions can often be quite subconscious, but there is a clear cut financial benefit involved.

A very interesting seminar was held on this subject at the Australian National University. The leader of the seminar was Professor Brown from Calgary University in Canada. He compared the cost of health care in Canada, New Zealand and Australia. People from the Department of Health were at the seminar, as was Mr Austin Holmes, who is one of the members of the Medibank Review Committee. There were other people at it who obviously have some influence with this Government. I am sure that they were impressed, if they needed to be impressed, with the point that Professor Brown was making, namely, that a large amount of unnecessary medical treatment is carried out if doctors are paid on a fee-for-service basis.

I would like to interpolate here one point that is not often mentioned. Supporters of the Government and members of the Australian Medical Association and other medical organisations often talk about Canada going broke under its scheme and say that we have the same scheme as Canada. I suggest that one of the important points that people ought to take into account is that the doctors in Canada are paid on a fee-for-service basis even for services provided to standard ward patients in public hospitals, and therefore the cost is unlimited. Firstly, there is no disincentive there to doctors to operate because they are paid on a fee-for-service basis; secondly, a doctor will just call in at a hospital there and say to his patient ‘Good afternoon’, ‘Good morning’ or whatever it may be and be entitled to a fee on a fee-for-service basis. That is the scheme New South Wales surgeons are striking for.

I meant to deal in more detail with the deficit and general economic questions but I got carried away with Medibank because I think it is a most important issue. I hope that when honourable members, especially Government supporters, discuss Medibank they will realise that money is only one part of Medibank. I know that money is all-important in many of the discussions that we have in this Parliament but it is not the only point. The other important thing to be remembered is that after all most doctors who would be affected by changes to the Medibank scheme probably pay something of the order of 65 per cent tax as a marginal tax rate, so the Government in fact recovers two-thirds of the money. Therefore the question of money is not the only point we have to talk about when we talk about Medibank. We have to make sure that Medibank is not changed in such a way that it encourages the unnecessary treatment of patients and the potentially dangerous treatment of patients.

I would like to make one final point in regard to the Prime Minister’s speech which was broadcast on radio and television last night. He made the point that tax indexation makes governments more responsible. In principle I support that proposition. Tax indexation means that there is not an automatic increase in Government revenue. Therefore in theory when a government wants to start a new program or wants to spend more money on defence, immigration or whatever it may be, it has to go out and defend that proposition before the public. That is important in a democracy, but it is not necessarily absolute because deficit financing will obviously also be used. We were a contributing factor here; I am not going to deny this but it is quite obvious that this Government will not reverse the position in the coming Budget- I have no terribly strong objection to deficit financing. I was going to deal with that at greater length in my speech but I was sidetracked onto Medibank. It is important to remember that tax indexation does not make governments more responsible if in fact they can still expend the money on their pet schemes whether they be our pet schemes such as Medibank or schemes to help the rural sector or Cabinet members with which this Government is concerned.

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

Mr HODGMAN:
Denison

-In rising to support the Appropriation Bills may I say first and foremost how delighted I was today to hear the unequivocal assurance from the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) that the Antarctic Division would be transferred to Hobart. There has never been any doubt that our Government would honour its commitment in respect of the Antarctic base. However, largely as a result of a deferral of the project due to the economic chaos which we inherited from the previous Government, there was a certain degree of Press speculation aided and abetted by certain people in the Australian Labor Party who tried to spread the story that the Antarctic base would not be coming to Hobart. I do not think anybody in Tasmania can be in any doubt after today’s answer to a question asked in this House when the Prime Minister said clearly and unequivocably that that base will be transferred to Hobart.

Dr Klugman:

– But not now!

Mr HODGMAN:

– I congratulate the Government on this decision. The honourable member for Prospect says not now. Let me remind him that my predecessor for the electorate of Denison had 3 years in which to get the Whitlam Government to get that base to Hobart. The original decision was made in April 1973. The Government of the day fiddled around with it. It dithered and delayed. It did not even get the matter to the Public Works Committee. It went so slowly with this that it gave it second-grade treatment and then it had the gall to criticise us because we took 6 months to do it. The Prime Minister said back in February that the deferral was necessary because of the economic situation. The people of Hobart will live with that deferral but we will honour our word. We will carry out our commitment and the Antarctic base will be transferred to Hobart.

Secondly, I would like to take this occasion publicly to congratulate the Government on the new federalism policy. I am amazed to read the extraordinary comments in the Press to the effect that the result of the New South Wales election was in some way affected by the federalism policy. An independent observer of standing in the community such as Professor Don Aitkin has made it quite clear and my own observations in that campaign make it quite clear that the attempts to describe the federalism policy as one of double taxation and the attempts to discredit it failed miserably. I think the truth must be known that the New South Wales election was fought basically on local issues together with one other matter raised in this House by the back bench supporters of the Government, namely the $40 funeral benefit for pensioners. I want to say publicly that I support Mr Dunstan, the Premier of South Australia, and Mr Neilson, the Premier of Tasmania, who have welcomed this federalism policy. I want to say publicly that I support the remarks of Sir Charles Court and of Mr David Tonkin and the remarks of many others from big and small States who have commended this policy because it is going to give back to the States a most precious right which was taken away in the years of centralism under the previous Governmenta right to determine their own future, a right to make decisions for Tasmanians in Tasmania and decisions for Queenslanders in

Queensland. We were sick and tired at decisions for Tasmania being made in Canberra by people who did not know, who did not understand us and did not care about us.

Mr Yates:

– They did not like you.

Mr HODGMAN:

-We had a gutful of it. I want to commend the new federalism policy. I am proud to be associated with it. It is a winner. It is a particular winner for the smaller States and at long last we are going to see a situation in which Tasmania will no longer be medicant, a situation in which Tasmania will no longer have to come creeping and crawling to Canberra for favours from certain people up here who make decisions, people who as I say do not know us and do not understand our problems.

Thirdly, I want to commend the Government on the speed with which it is proceeding to honour a sacred election commitment, namely to bring in a freight equalisation scheme for Tasmania. At this very moment in this building the final touches are being put to the legislation which was promised back in 1972 by Mr Whitlam, promised again in 1974, but never came forward. All we had was the Nimmo report which dragged on and on and in the meantime Tasmania has had to contend with freight increases of over 50 per. cent. Unlike the Whitlam Government we are going to honour our commitment on freight equalisation. I publicly commend the Minister for Transport (Mr Nixon) whom I have publicly attacked on many occasions in the past because of his apathy and lack of concern for Tasmania. He has changed. He has definitely changed. The legislation will come in and we will have freight equalisation for Tasmania operative as from, I believe, 1 July.

The fourth matter I desire to raise relates to a speech by the honourable member for Hindmarsh (Mr Clyde Cameron). I am very sorry that the honourable member is not present because I did tell him last week that I would be raising this matter.

Mr Young:

– He is too frightened.

Mr HODGMAN:

-I hope that in his absence the honourable member for Port Adelaide, with his usual skill and ability, will spring to the defence of the silver haired orator, a man who is I think affectionately regarded by honourable members on both sides of the chamber. If ever the honourable member for Hindmarsh led with his left and left his chin completely unguarded it was a few nights ago when he spoke on the Appropriation legislation He spoke on a matter which I think is of concern to all Australians particularly in view of the dictatorial comments of

Mr R. J. Hawke who seems to think that he does not have to be elected Prime Minister, who seems to think that he can make statements that he can hold the Government to ransom and seems to think that he can stand over the Parliament.

The honourable member for Hindmarsh made a statement in his speech on the Appropriation legislation to which I take the most strong exception and which I will demonstrate is frankly not correct. The honourable member’s speech of 5 May is recorded at page 1955 of Hansard. I will read what he said verbatim. He said: 1 knew that if we did not have an officially conducted ballot in the AWU we would not have a fair dinkum ballot: it would be a corrupt ballot. Therefore I was in favour of officially conducted ballots inside the Australian Workers Union.

The honourable member went on to say a lot of things about the collegiate system and a lot of things about the National Civic Council. I am not concerned with that, but I am concerned to correct a statement which was not true. The honourable member, intentionally or otherwise, misled the House when he said that he was in favour of officially conducted ballots inside the Australian Workers Union. The honourable member has a long and colourful career both in the trade union movement and in this Parliament. I go back to 1948 and a report of a committee which was appointed to deal with representations made by representatives of Australian Labor Party groups in Victoria. A motion was moved by Mr Monk and seconded by Mr Cameron in respect of the adoption of a certain report which recommended against court controlled ballots. The honourable member for Hindmarsh made very well known at that 18th Commonwealth Triennia Conference that he was opposed to court controlled ballots in the trade union movement. He was consistent again in 1951 on the question of union ballots. I quote again from the minutes of the 10th session conducted on Sunday evening, 4 March 1951.

Messrs Cameron and Boland moved: Having regard to the fact that Conference has discharged Agenda Items 96-99 inclusive, Conference now directs the Federal Parliamentary Labor Parry to oppose and vote against any legislation by an anti-Labor Government to amend the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Act in respect to the conduct of union ballots.

The honourable member for Hindmarsh took it further. A short time later he was elected a member of this honourable chamber, a position which he still holds. On 29 June 195 1 the then Minister for Labour and National Service, the Honourable Harold Holt, brought in a Bill to give effect to court-controlled ballots for union elections.

Mr Holt, in his speech recorded in Hansard at page 728, said this:

Secondly, the bill permits officially conducted ballots not only when an industrial organization requests them, as provided by the 1949 amendments enacted when the present Opposition party was on the treasury bench-

I remind honourable members that it was the Chifley Government that put the first provisions in the statutes for court-controlled ballots for the trade union movement. I suggest that the spirit of the Chifley Government in seeing that there were fair and clean elections is still very much alive in 1976. I commend the present Government for the tenacity it has shown in bringing clean courtcontrolled ballots to the trade union movement of this country. I suggest that the overwhelming majority of Australians from the shop floor of the factories, the members of the trade union movement, support us in what we are doing. This is what Mr Holt said in explaining his Bill: … as provided by the 1 949 amendments enacted when the present Opposition party was on the treasury bench, but also where a group of members petition the Industrial Registrar feeling that only by such a ballot can they be certain there will be no irregularities.

What was the stand of the honourable member for Hindmarsh, this man who said in this chamber 2 weeks ago that he was in favour of officially conducted ballots inside the Australian Workers Union? The honourable member for Hindmarsh virtually went into orbit. Some of the things he said are worth repeating, because his language was classic and his opposition was violent. I shall just read a passage which appears at page 1040 of Hansard to indicate the spirit of the man in 1 95 1 -although he tells us in 1 976 that he supported it. Let me read what he said in 195 1. It could almost have been Sir Robert Menzies. He said:

The trade unionists of this country must fight all forms of tyranny. If they permit the form of tyranny to which this bill will give rise to stalk the country, sapping the life-blood of the trade union movement and the strength of the Labour movement, it will not be long before they will find themselves in the position in which their forebears were placed in 1890. 1 believe that all sections of the movement will combine in an effort to destroy or make impotent this piece of infamous legislation.

That piece of infamous legislation was to give the trade unionists of Australia the right to a clean ballot; yet the honourable member for Hindmarsh tells us he supported it. He went on in the same speech to describe it as the most deadly legislation in the annals of this Parliament. I will admit that I was in short pants in 1951, but how in 1976 can the honourable member for Hindmarsh expect to whack it over members of this Parliament by saying that he has always supported it? I quote again his words:

Therefore I was in favour of officially conducted ballots inside the Australian Workers Union.

At the time of his 1948 speech he was an officer of the AWU in South Australia; at the time of his 1951 speech he was an officer of the AWU in South Australia; and when the matter was debated in this Parliament he still had a strong, long-standing connection with the AWU. I want to say from the outset that I have no connection with, nor am I a member of, nor, as far as I am aware, have I ever had any dealings with the organisation called the NCC. I am not speaking now of the honourable member for Hindmarsh, who in my opinion sought to raise this matter a few days ago, but because it seemed to me that

Questions of sectarianism were creeping into the debate on whether the collegiate system ought to be retained. I want to say as a person coming from a small State that I believe it would be devastating to the small States of Australia if the collegiate system of voting in trade unions was taken away. Whilst I do not claim any expertise in the field, I will support to the hilt the Minister for Labor and Industrial Relations (Mr Street) in his endeavour to ensure that those unions which wish to have access to the collegiate system are given that right. At least under the collegiate system the representatives from the smaller States have an opportunity of serving on federal executives with a possibility of becoming national president, national vice-president or national treasurer. But that possibility is taken away from them by the creation of a system under which New South Wales and Victoria have the weight of numbers. The only exception could be a person of outstanding ability. I concede that the honourable member for Hindmarsh in his own way is outstanding, as is the honourable member for Port Adelaide (Mr Young). He is an exception to the rule. But nine times out of ten South Australians, Western Australians and Tasmanians can kiss goodbye any chance of getting a significant union position if the collegiate system is taken away.

I make this plea as a federalist: The collegiate system is a system which is recognised not only in this country but also in the United States of America as being a fair system. We are watching two of the great political parties of the world at this moment proceeding to elect delegates who will nominate their respective candidates for the position of President of the United States of America. The fascinating thing is that after they have chosen their candidates there is a vote and everybody in America gets a vote. But that is not the end of the election. The votes that people cast go to electing members of a college and it is the college which formally elects the new President of the United States of America.

I ask those who are opposed to the collegiate system: Why? What is the reason behind their opposition? I do not hesitate to say that there seem to be 2 groups determined to get rid of the collegiate system. First there are those who live in New South Wales and Victoria and who think that Australia begins in New South Wales and Victoria. The honourable member for Port Adelaide and I will be as one when I say we cannot have a bar of that argument. Secondly there are those who want to see certain right-wing unions in this country taken over by the communists. I will not be party to any debate in this chamber nor will I back my cart to change in any way the legislation if it will lead to either centralisation of power in the trade union movement or a communist takeover.

As I said, I have a lot of affection for the honourable member for Hindmarsh, but my ears nearly fell off when I heard him say what he said in the chamber the other night, because for him to say that he supports and always was in favour of officially conducted union ballots in the Australian Workers Union is not correct. He knows it is not correct, unless his memory has reached the stage, which I do not believe it has, that he cannot remember back to 1948. The honourable member for Hindmarsh is a very capable and experienced parliamentarian and he should not make statements in this chamber which are demonstrably untrue. Quite frankly, if that is the basis of the argument of those who are out to destroy the collegiate system, I believe they will not get very far in their attempts.

In supporting the Appropriation Bills may I in conclusion make one final remark in respect of Tasmania. One is entitled occasionally to be parochial. It has been said that Tasmanians have been stirring things up in Canberra, that Tasmanians have been causing trouble, that Tasmanians apparently have not been behaving as quiet little boys. I want to say 2 things: First, I do not believe that any Tasmanian member of this chamber came here to be a quiet little boy; secondly, and more importantly, I do not believe the Prime Minister or the Cabinet want us to be quiet little boys. I believe that is a point of some significance. When I read in the Press clap-trap about having knuckles rapped because one had the temerity to stand up and oppose the Party line in respect of funeral benefits, when I hear people saying that the Tasmanians have gone mad again, and when I hear the statement: ‘If you keep carrying on like this you will be appointed as official food taster at the Lodge for the next 6 months’, I just want to say that the Prime Minister of Australia has had at least 3 opportunities privately, and many publicly, to rap me over the knuckles. I want to say publicly that not only does he not rap over the knuckles people who have the courage or otherwise to disagree with his point of view, but I think he welcomes disagreement. I think that is very refreshing after 3 years of one-man government in this country when, with all due respect, the previous Prime Minister dominated the scene and, because of his strength and because of his power, was able to make decisions which perhaps were not in accordance with the overall wishes of his Party. Because he was surrounded by his yesmen the previous Prime Minister of Australia was almost in a situation where he was able to rule single-handed. The Prime Minister of the country today is not a man who wants yes-men. He wants a strong, virile back bench to keep the Cabinet, and the Government, on its toes. He has a good, strong, virile back bench, and I suggest he has a dashed good Cabinet.

I welcome the initiative and the drive that the new Government is showing. How refreshing it is to see a government which is tackling the problems of inflation and unemployment. How refreshing it is to see a government which is honouring its commitments. These are things which we did not see in Australia from 1972 to 1975. Whilst we do not expect miracles overnight, I believe our Government is on the right track. I believe it has the support of the overwhelming majority of Australians and I believe this country will be a better country in 1978 when we next face the people, because we had the strength and courage to take the tough decisions and to do the job that the people sent us here to do. I support the Bill.

Mr YOUNG:
Port Adelaide

-In speaking to the Appropriation Bills, firstly let me say to the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) that he will probably get a smack across the knuckles one of these days, probably as soon as the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) finds out he is here and knows what he is up to. I do not have to apologise for the honourable member for Hindmarsh (Mr Clyde Cameron). I think it was rather presumptuous of the honourable member for Hindmarsh to make comments on the trade union movement, considering he was almost 25 years of age before he became the General Secretary of the Australian Workers Union in South Australia; considering that he spent only 13 years in that profession; considering that he spent another 20 years as an executive member of the South Australian

Branch of the Union and was a delegate to the International Labour Conference; considering that he was shadow Minister and Minister for Labor for many years in the national Parliament; and considering that the first trade union college in Albury-Wodonga was named after him. So, I would think that we ought not to take too seriously his comments on the manner in which trade union ballots are conducted! As the honourable member for Denison said, the honourable member for Hindmarsh might have said something different in 1 95 1 .

Let us relate to something a little more relevant. The present Prime Minister of this country said, in the lead up to the December election: ‘I support, my Government will support and we will continue to support full indexation’. It may interest honourable members opposite to know that the Government Parties have had 5 policies on indexation since 1 December last year. Now they are asking the trade union movement and the wage and salary earners of this country to put trust in the Government. They say: ‘We will do the right thing by you’ when they have already announced, as I have said, 5 policies on indexation. Now we have the amazing performance of the Prime Minister last night on television trying to assure the people of Australia that everything will be rosy, that whatever he does to hurt them he will do something else to help them overcome that problem. It is very difficult to question anybody making a speech on television, but when given the first opportunity today in the national Parliament of this country to expand on some of the comments he made last night he was unable to do so.

I want to refer to the Statement of Savings Expected in Annual Appropriations which was tabled with the Appropriation Bills by the Treasurer (Mr Lynch) because it does not seem that the Prime Minister is too anxious to do so. It must be very demoralising for the Government to find that its greatest supporter, the Sydney Morning Herald, criticised what the Prime Minister said last night. Not only that; it did so on its mad page, page 6, where one would expect the Sydney Morning Herald never to deviate. Whatever it says on pages 1 to 5 and from page 7 to the classifieds, never ever on page 6 will it say anything to condemn the conservative forces of this country. The Sydney Morning Herald editorial contains criticisms of what the Prime Minister had to say, or in fact criticisms of what the Prime Minister did not say. Of course this Government, as the Sydney Morning Herald points out, will destroy the concept of Medibank as it was introduced by the Labor Administration. There will be no such thing as national health insurance in this country after Thursday night’s statement. The Government will divide the country between the low and middle income earners, and the high income earners. Of course it will see that the people who earn most will be treated under private health insurance and that others will be looked after by Medibank, which will be looked upon in this country, after the Thursday night announcement, as a second class health system. If the Sydney Morning Herald can see it, as it appears from this morning’s editorial, everyone ought to be able to see it.

The honourable member for Denison says that the back bench members fought very hard on the $40 funeral benefit even though in the final analysis they capitulated and voted for the legislation to go through the House of Representatives. We predicted accurately what would occur. We said it would come back from the Senate amended. Members of the back bench bowed to the master who said that the legislation involving a sum of $1.7m must go through the House- a most amazing political decision if ever there was one. Now we are being told that they will stand up to some of the major decisions that will have to be made by this Government on questions like Medibank. Who on the other side of the House has raised any of the questions contained in the document entitled The New Investment Allowance”! Has anyone said in the Party room that this may not be the best thing for Australia? Honourable members opposite do not give all the flamboyance to publications relating to taking money away as they do to publications relating to money which is being given out.

Perhaps there may be no great criticism from this side about the 40 per cent investment allowance instituted by the Government to get the private sector going. Let me just read some of the things that are in the publication to try to attract people to invest their money, and which show how much they will save. The New Investment Allowance states:

At the company tax rate of 42.5 per cent an investment of $50,000, for example, gives a tax bonus of $8,500 that is itself tax-free- the bonus is $850 for an investment of $5,000.

Everybody is asked to go to the addresses of the offices which are printed on the back of the publication and to find out how they can get money from the Government. If people go to a different office they can obtain the document Statement of Savings Expected in Annual Appropriations and find out how their hopes and aspirations for a decent community in this country are being dashed by this Government. This

Government says that it has to save money. Let us look at what savings really do right across the board when talked about in these terms. They mean reduced services to the public in health, social welfare and education, and reduced employment opportunities both in the private and public sector at a time when hundreds of thousands are out of work. It is gross waste as projects on which money has already been spent are left uncompleted, and it is gross inefficiency as public servants are denied the means to do their job. There are dashed hopes and expectations and broken commitments as communities are denied the funds for projects for which they have worked and planned. It has reduced spending on research and planning, and it has reduced the information available to the public. Let us look at one item in the publication entitled Statement of Savings Expected in Annual Appropriations. One item on page 17 shows that $102,000 has been set aside for the operations of the Ombudsman of the national government. How much has the Government saved? It has saved $102,000. No one comes out and says: ‘We will not have an ombudsman’, but that is what has happened under this Government This is something that Government supporters were beating their chests about in the December election campaign. They said: ‘We will give out information. There will be none of the secret things; none of these loan affairs. Under this Government everything will be done right. You will all be applauding us in 3 years ‘. No one is applauding after 3 months.

This is the worst group, laughingly called a government, that we have had in Canberra for years. Honourable members should look at all the things that are being said. Let us look at some of the observations that have been made about Mr Fraser’s contribution last night. Let us look at what Allan Barnes had to say in the Melbourne Age about Mr Fraser’s contribution. He said:

The disorganised state of the Fraser Government was never more obvious than in the Prime Minister’s misconceived address to the nation last night. Mr Fraser set out to reassure the Australian public. He succeeded only in confusing them. Instead of setting the scene for his Treasurer’s major economic statement on Thursday night, the Prime Minister pre-empted it.

Further on he said:

It was a time for simple, direct, honest words from our head of Government. Instead, we got vague promises of substantial ‘savings’ in Government spending. There was no explanation of what priorities had been applied in achieving these cuts or how they would offset extra expenditure on the investment allowances, the superphosphate bounty, the aid for dairy farmers or income tax indexation and still reduce the dreaded deficit.

Granted that the Prime Minister was serious about making a broadcast to the nation. Perhaps he could not say as much as he wanted to say last night because of the television time made available to him, although I doubt that extra time would ever be refused if he asked for it. But here in the national Parliament today he could have expanded on his statement. He could have told all honourable members and the people of Australia he was the person who was not going to have any secrets- what all these savings mean. Of course public servants are an easy target. We can all get stuck into them. Public servants were carrying out certain programs but because of the Government’s savings many public servants are sitting in their offices twiddling their thumbs. They cannot carry out their duties. Let us take a couple of examples. The first one relates to Aboriginal vocational officers from the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations. The job depends very much on travelling throughout their areas of responsibility in the country and country towns finding jobs for the Aboriginal people. It depends on travel and travel allowances. Now it has been disbanded. That concept was applauded by honourable members from both sides of the House. It was designed to assist people who had additional difficulty in finding employment. But what do we find? The Government is now boasting that it has made a gigantic saving. What the saving means is that fewer and fewer Aboriginal people will be able to find employment. I hope that the Government is proud of that little saving.

We see on page 66 of the Treasury Information Paper how much money is to be saved on housing. Honourable members opposite know as well as I do that we have too much housing in Australia, that no one is waiting for a house, least of all those on low incomes! A lot of honourable members opposite represent areas in which people are queued up all the time trying to find accommodation. But they sit on the Government benches boasting of saving $20m when housing is desperately needed in Australia. Those are the people who are feeling the blow. Let us look at the area improvement programs. If there was one policy of the Whitlam Administration which was of enormous assistance to local organisations it was the area improvement program. A lot of the ideas as to how the money was to be spent were generated from within the communities themselves. Now the Government says that it is saving $4.5m. Those communities which may have raised money to do part of the work themselves now find that the concept has been completely disbanded.

The Government should not tell us that it intends to start them up again. It says: ‘We are stopping them only for a little while until we get inflation under control’. One would think that honourable members opposite were all new members but almost everybody who sits on the Government front bench was here for part of the time from 1949-1972. Previous Liberal governments did not have those programs. This Government will not bring them back because it did not have any ideas at all about the role which the Australian Government ought to play in the communities of this country. All of those people- especially the person who now leads the Government- always defeated any idea put forward by the Liberal or Country Parties for more involvement in these responsibilities. So do not let us be confused when spokesmen for the Government say: ‘We are stopping them only until we have inflation under control, then they will all be re-established.’ The Government knows, I know and the Australian people are entitled to know that they will never be reestablished.

The Government set out to destroy Medibank and the funeral benefit. It is now setting out to destroy many fine programs such as the area improvement program and the Australian Assistance Plan. No doubt it will be hellbent on destroying the Australian Schools Commission. We will see whether at the time of the Budget the hairy-chested back benchers on the Government side will get up and tell the Prime Minister not to touch the Australian Schools Commission. Honourable members opposite should listen to the Treasurer on Thursday night when he talks about some of these programs and saving $2,000m. They are all being taken for a ride. Obviously at the next Senate election we will see the voting figures of 13 December completely reversed and we will have more Labor senators in the upper House to express the views and disappointments of those people who voted for this Government.

It appears from the Prime Minister’s speech last night that all of a sudden the Prime Minister has discovered that there are 300 000 families in the Australian community who pay little or no tax. He announced that he is going to assist them. Again I remind honourable members opposite and the people of Australia that when Labor came to power on 2 December 1972, according to Professor Henderson the former Liberal Government left behind a legacy of 12 per cent of the people of Australia living in poverty. It should come as no surprise to any conservative politician in this country that there are poor people, because it was their policies from 1949-1972 that impoverished 12 per cent of the people of Australia. The Government now says that it is better to put a levy on Medibank, it is better to destroy Medibank as a social instrument and put a bit more money back into the pay packet out of tax indexation because then each family can find its own level. That was the philosophy of Sir Robert Menzies, of Holt, of Gorton and of McMahon. Mr Fraser was there supporting that philosophy in his years as a Minister. But we will go back to that.

How are any of the policies being announced by this Government going to overcome the problems we found at the commencement of our 3 years in office? Honourable members opposite should have a look at the Treasury Information Paper and see how the Government is destroying the concept of Australian Government involvement in the Australian communities. It is absolutely disgraceful that this Government should present an argument that money can be taken from health expenditure; not just capital expenditure but research and planning expenditure, areas where money is invested to save money. That expenditure has been axed. To vindicate the decisions of the Australian Government the people are told that the Government will make sure that every department is affected. The Government has even saved $238 from the Inter-Parliamentary Union. I do not know how that was done or who made that magnificent decision. I do not know whether or not it went to the full Cabinet. But the axe had to fall on all departments. The planning and research section of the Health Department has also received the axe, as have the Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory, the 2 territories for which the Commonwealth Government is absolutely responsible.

We find cuts in housing, health and child care right across the board, made without thought and with absolutely no relationship to the difficulties of the communities. The Government has decided to follow this act right through and to show the people that it will do what it said in December- that it would cut back the deficit irrespective of its effect on the communities. The figure of $2,000m is supposed to be a magical political solution and it will look impressive, but the Government must put it into effect. Honourable members opposite should go into the communities and talk to people. Those honourable members who come from Melbourne should talk to the Brotherhood of St Laurence and ask about the additional problems that will be thrust upon them. They should talk to people in local government, in the schools which have started new programs under the Australian Schools Commission or the Pre-Schools Commission, and see what will happen to those people if these monies are cut up to and including the time of the Budget.

The Government is intent on destroying all the concepts of the Labor Administration by saying that it has to defeat inflation, but it is opposed to the concept of Australian Government responsibility. The Government wants to give everything back to the States. It may say that the Premier of Queensland has the same priorities as the Premier of South Australia. That is a laugh. We will see unequal distribution of State resources. Whatever the Premier of Queensland sees as a priority he will push, as against the priorities of the other States. What the previous Government started was to be admired. It was involved with the communities, it listened to the communities and acted upon their advice. All those programs are now being slashed. They should have been consolidated, not slashed because of the Prime Minister’s act to endorse the magical deficit figure cutting of $2 ,000m.

The honourable member for Lilley (Mr Kevin Cairns) who is trying to interject should not talk so much in here but should go and talk to some of the people in his electorate and ask them whether they are happy. Like me, he would have 40 or 50 schools in his electorate, child care centres and dental clinics at the schools, all established by the Labor Administration. He should go and listen for a while and not talk to people all the time. He should ask them whether they endorse the actions taken by this Government. He should ask the Catholic schools with which he is so well associated what they think about the slashing of funds for Catholic schools in this country. He should ask them what would have happened if it had not been for the Australian Schools Commission. He should ask about the migrants and the children who are being taught in the schools in their own language. He should ask them about the cut in their programs. Then he may come to understand what a myth this project of cutting the deficit is. What the Government is doing is getting back to the old philosophy of the years between 1949 and 1972. The only things that Government supporters want to concern themselves with in this Parliament are pensions and foreign affairs. Everything else falls to the States. Honourable members opposite say: ‘Do not touch it, do not concern ourselves. We do not want any responsibility for it. In that way something will happen. They say that everything should be taken out of their area and then perhaps we will be better off. The Parliament will not have to concern itself with the real problems of Australian communities.

Mr CORBETT:
Maranoa

-Having just listened to the honourable member for Port Adelaide (Mr Young) one can readily understand why the economy of Australia is in such a desperate position. Apparently the honourable member is opposed to every cut in expenditure anywhere. It does not matter what the expenditure relates to or its extent. He says we must not cut it. We must just let the country drift. We must let the economy of this country develop to such a situation that unemployment and inflation will go from bad to worse. That is what happened during the 3 years of the previous Government. That is the attitude of the honourable member. He made no attempt to look at the Government’s economic policy, which makes a sound approach to economic management. We would all like to do more in almost all the fields mentioned by the honourable member if this were reasonably practical economically.

Mr Young:

– What about superphosphate?

Mr CORBETT:

– As one of the honourable member’s colleagues said, one man’s wage rise is often another man’s job. He talked about asking the children about their schools. I suggest that he should ask children how they feel when their parents are unemployed. These are the sorts of things that he should consider when running a government in a country like Australia. This country should be able to provide assistance across the board for all the many needs which governments should consider. The whole of the speech of the honourable member for Port Adelaide could be summed up as containing nothing but destructive criticism, as did that of many of his colleagues. I listened to him fairly carefully and did not hear him suggest any progressive move or measure. He referred only to the irrational, reckless, irresponsible expenditure of the Government he supported during its 3 years which brought this country to its present -

Mr Antony Whitlam:
GRAYNDLER, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– What is irresponsible?

Mr CORBETT:

– It is irresponsible to spend more money than the Australian community can be reasonably expected to provide while at the same time enabling prosperity in this country to continue. Under the Government in power before the honourable member for Grayndler (Mr Antony Whitlam) came to this place private enterprise was completely disregarded. That is one of the reasons why we are in the situation we are in today. The Labor Government did not realise that fact until very late in the piece when it started to feel the effects. It realised then that it should have done more to keep private enterprise operating and providing jobs that people so sorely need. If there is one Party represented in this House which claims that it endeavours to provide employment and to look after the work force in this country it is the Australian Labor Party. There is no area in which it failed more miserably during its 3 years in government The honourable member for Port Adelaide mentioned, as did some other honourable members, criticisms in the Press. For efficient operation of democratic government in any country there has to be some sort of active and effective Opposition. The Labor Party has failed to provide that Opposition and the media has taken on that responsibility. At times the media has stretched things a bit; I believe it has overdone things in an endeavour to make up for that -

Mr Lucock:

– Failure.

Mr CORBETT:

-Yes, failure; on the part of the Labor Party, as my friend the honourable member for Lyne (Mr Lucock) points out. Another point I want to make following the remarks of the honourable member for Port Adelaide relates to what has been provided for the States by this Government. I certainly agree that there is a need for balance in this area. However the previous Government, the Labor Government, was determined to have centralised government in Australia. Its objective was the wiping out of the States and the Senate and the establishment of one centralised government here in Canberra. We on this side of the House are not prepared to go along with that point of view. Whatever members of the Opposition like to say about that point let me say that if it is a question of giving more authority to the States as against having a centralised government to the disadvantage of many parts of the Australian continent and the island of Tasmania, I think we would prefer the former course. We would prefer that to happen rather than have the centralised government that the Labor Party would like.

Careful and effective economic management of national finance is one of the most important tasks of any national government. That is what this Government aims to do. If in doing so it has to cut expenditure in some areas where it would prefer to see expenditure continue at current levels, that is its national responsibility. It is important that we have our economy on an even keel. That would be to the advantage of the honourable member for Port Adelaide as well as the rest of the Australian community. He might not feel the results as much as others but it is important to realise that everybody benefits from a sound national economy. To achieve that the Government has to take measures that it would not have had to take if it were not for the reckless mismanagement of the Australian economy over the 3 years that the Labor Party was in office. The importance of sound economic management has to be recognised because of its effect on every other department of national operation. If we do not have finance with which to operate we must get along by using extensive and excessive loans, and high taxation. Consequently we have inflation and unemployment. We have seen that pattern unfolding. It is the responsibility of the Government we support to do what it can to see that that situation is rectified and this is not going to be easy. When a national economic structure has been built up along the lines followed by the previous Labor Government is is not easy to rectify the situation without causing some heartaches, without doing some things that nobody would want to do in different circumstances.

The point is that some of these unpopular measures will have to be taken. They will be taken only by a courageous and determined government and that is what this Government has proved itself to be. Nevertheless it is important that no sector of the Australian community should suffer unduly in carrying the burden that will have to be carried. We will have to endure that period while we restructure the economy of this country and bring it to a level where we know it can be and where we know it should be.

I want to move on and refer to some other specific aspects that I think are important and to some changes that have been made. I want to refer firstly to local government. It is one arm of government that has been neglected. Do not let me hear the honourable member for Port Adelaide say that the Government he supported did anything worthwhile for local government during its time in office. That Government did not accept the advice of the Australian Council for Local Government Associations which wanted a growth tax, a share of income tax, to enable local government to fulfil the responsibilities which rest upon its shoulders, responsibilities which it had to carry out under the inflationary trend that was coming. Local government had to accept added responsibilities that were foisted upon it. I know that some of those responsibilities were given to local government by Governments I supported. Let me be honest about that point. I refer to responsibilities such as that relating to the local ownership plan for aerodromes. I submit that that responsibility falls too heavily on the shoulders of local government. Local government also has responsibility for health, road development and the development of recreational facilities for many people. The honourable member for Port Adelaide spends most of his time in our capital cities and sometimes he might see that the Government has done a good deal to provide recreational facilities in those areas. But if he has the time he should come out to areas such as that where I live where he will see some splendid sporting facilities which have been provided by local government and which are a heavy financial burden on those local government bodies. It is time, high time, that local government got a share of personal income tax.

Mr Yates:

– It is long overdue.

Mr CORBETT:

– It is long overdue, as my friend the honourable member for Holt says. The only comment I have to make on that point, and I have made it before, is that the decision taken by the Australian Council for Local Government Association to ask for 2 per cent, I thought, was too modest. However at least the Government did meet that 2 per cent requirement. I would have liked to have seen a higher percentage given to local government. In time to come there may be a need for local government to get a larger share of the tax pool of this country if it is to operate effectively in its sphere as the third arm of government. Local government in its field is just as important as State and Federal governments are. Local governments do have to look after the day to day needs of the people they represent. They have been doing so under very difficult circumstances. They have been running into crippling debts. I should like to comment in regard to local government on some statements made by the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) recently. I think his statement was on 9 May. It is a very recent one.

Mr Young:

– You want to get the most recent. They change every week. Get his statement on indexation; that is a beauty.

Mr CORBETT:

– The one thing we want to change is the attitude displayed by the honourable member’s Party when it was in office. That is of paramount importance. That is one thing we have to change and it is the one thing that we will change. The Prime Minister speaking of the Council of Local Government Associations, said:

The Council accepted the revenue sharing proposals;

That is perfectly trueapplauded the proposal to set up an Advisory Council for Inter-Governmental Relations and agreed with our proposals -

That is, this Government’s proposals- to establish State Grants Commissions in those States that did not have them.

That is absolutely right. It is something that was needed. Further on, he said:

Under our reforms local government will be better oft”. Like the States local government will have access to a guaranteed percentage of income tax. Because income tax is a growth tax local government will be in a position to respond to the new and growing demands made on it.

It certainly will have to do just that. I commend the Prime Minister for the statement he made. I am sorry he did not get even wider publicity for it because it does set out the situation as far as local government is concerned. It does allay the fears that many local governments have expressed because they are concerned about the actual details of how this matter of the 2 per cent of tax will be distributed. It will be distributed through the States Grants Commissions. It is quite possible too that in these sorts of operations they do find that there is need to change and to improve them in the light of experience. But it is a wonderful thing that we can say here today that at last this Government has recognised the importance and the equality of the third arm of governmentlocal government- in the control of the affairs of the people of Australia.

I should like to say a few words now about natural disasters because they occur from time to time. We have heard of tragic circumstances around the world in recent times in the way of earthquakes. In our country recently we suffered disastrous floods in my own State of Queensland and in the State of New South Wales. The point I want to make particularly in this regard is the need to profit from the experiences we had in that time. I know that the warning systems along the Maclntyre River were not as effective as they should have been. They went out of operation sooner than they should have done. I submit that there should be an examination of the best possible warning systems that can be made available to allow people to get the earliest notification of the flood levels and the length of time they might have to make preparations for the floods that are coming down. This examination might be going on at the moment; I do not know. If it is then I commend it; if it is not, then I urge that it be undertaken. I should also like to see inter-state consultation in that area. I know that in Queensland for some reason or other we were some time behind in getting the fodder drop in our area compared with New South Wales. I shall not go into the details of that. What I want to do is to draw attention to the matter so as to ensure that whatever problems were met then will be overcome in the future. Therefore I suggest that there should be consultation between the States to arrive at a system of operation through our natural disaster organisation which will enable all the States to get not only equitable treatment but also treatment which has the same timetable and also to ensure that there is no dissatisfaction between the States, which there should not be. I should like to see the intercrossing of States in times of natural disaster. I spoke to the Premier of Queensland during the Queensland floods and he said that he had no objection to it at all. But of course it cannot be done overnight; these things have to be organised. I strongly urge that there be consultation between emergency services of the States with the object of getting the best possible emergency services in all States. There are lessons to be learned, and I hope that this will be undertaken.

I should like to pay tribute to those people who were involved in the State emergency services at that time. The Prime Minister himself took an active part. The Minister for Health (Mr Hunt), who is sitting at the table, came to Queensland and had a look at the flood areas. On one occasion I met him at Stanthorpe. But problems still remain. I believe we do need a common system of land to air signals. I am not sure whether a common system is operating yet, but if it is not, it should be. I hope that it will be provided. I should also like to see instituted in that field a better system of surveys in areas where it could be supposed that communications might have broken down. I have had complaints and recommendations which I have here, but I probably will not have time to elaborate on them. But some shires have given me their views on this matter and no doubt others will put their views forward. I hope that these views will be collated and that the fullest possible advantage will be taken of methods of dealing with those natural disasters and that the splendid organisation that we have will be even more efficient in the future.

I refer now to something that I have spoken on before and that is the Postal and Telecommunications Commission. The Telecommunications Commission has made a profit and while it might gain some satisfaction out of that- and perhaps we all do; we like to see these commissions making a profit- but while it is making that profit there are many very deserving citizens of this country still waiting to have a telephone connected. If it is only a matter of funds, I hope that those funds will be provided to enable more people who have waited long enough to have telephones provided. I hope in the light of that profit too that some of the conditions attaching to the installation of telephones will be eased to enable more people to take advantage of them. I believe that with regard to the operation of the Postal and Telecommunications Commissions, the criteria which they had to operate under, brought about by the previous Government, reveal that the Commissions are a bit top-heavy. This needs to be examined. I believe that the whole operation needs to be looked at. I believe that the criteria under which they operate should be examined because in my opinion it is not possible to provide what Australia should have- a reasonably economic communications system across the nation. That cannot be provided simply on a user pays basis. If we are going to insist on a user pays basis for the complete operation of the postal and telecommunications systems we shall have a very weak type of communications system in many of the less densely populated areas of this country.

The people who are providing a very substantial proportion of the gross domestic product and of the export income of this country deserve the consideration of the Australian people. For example, in my State there was a recent discovery of more natural gas. A pipeline is to be built at a cost of $2.5m to be connected to the pipeline already there. What is that worth to Queensland, to Australia, to the capital city of Brisbane? Why should people in that area and areas around it be deprived of a reasonable postal service? It is all very well to take the production that comes from those areas and give nothing in return and then say that a communication service must be provided on a user pays basis. What are we going to do with those sparsely settled areas in this country? Are we going to forget them? Are we going to let the population trend which is already there accentuate even further or are we going to do what we should be doing, which is, utilise all the areas capable of the production of wealth in this country which we need. So I say that if there is to be a sound communications policy then that user pays policy must be confined to those areas where it is reasonably economically practical to follow it. In those areas where it is not practical to follow it, because of the contribution of the areas to the national economy there should be some Treasury subvention, some Government funds made available to enable those communications to be provided. Unless we do have that, I say that we are going to fall down on our job as a nation.

Strangely enough, as a member of the National Country Party, I have not yet referred I hope my friends on the Opposition side will take note of this- to the plight of primary industry, but I shall do so in the little time that is left to me. There is a very great need for consideration to be given to it with the finances that are available. Here again we must ensure balanced development in Australia. Members of the Opposition laugh; they do not give a damn what happens to the people in rural areas of this country. They cannot argue about these facts but they do nothing about them. There is a need for greater consideration to be given to those areas of primary industry where the need for assistance at the moment is very great indeed.

I turn to defence. No doubt my friend the honourable member for Riverina (Mr Sullivan) was disappointed that I had not mentioned it. We must provide adequate defence for Australia. If we provide all the funds that the Australian Labor Party and the honourable member for Port Adelaide say we should not cut, what do we do? Do we have no defence at all? From some of the statements I hear it would seem that members of the Opposition do not care whether we have any defence at all.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Giles:
ANGAS, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

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

Mr JAMES:
Hunter

-The 2 Bills before the House are Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 1975-76, which is intended to appropriate through the Treasury $344m, and Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 1975-76 which provides for the expenditure from Consolidated Revenue of $16 1.7m. The Bills provide for a total expenditure of approximately $505m. A week or so ago the Treasurer (Mr Lynch) referred in his second reading speeches on the Bills to a Treasury information paper and said something about the statement of savings expected in the annual appropriation. He suggested that under the 2 Appropriation Bills there would be savings of some $478.2m. I do not know how members of the public understand that. The Treasurer said that savings on both Bills will exceed the original amount of $344m which the Appropriation Bills are to appropriate- an increase, he says, of $28m. Many people would regard this as a lot of political mumbo-jumbo and wonder why the Treasurer cannot spell it out more clearly. We can be assured, though, that neither of these Bills will be held up in this House or in the Senate.

During the recent election campaign the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) frequently referred to the economy as being on its knees. He and other Government members have urged the community to spend more and to invest more in private ventures. When in power the Labor

Government tried to clean up the crook stock exchanges and get a uniform company law. A member of the previous Government moved for the establishment of the Senate Select Committee on Securities and Exchange. This Committee revealed some shocking scandals regarding the nefarious practices of the stock exchanges and companies in Australia. The small investor has very little or no confidence in the stock exchanges in Australia. The Barton affair, the affairs of the Cambridge Credit Corporation Ltd and H. G. Palmer Ltd and the Latec scandals, involving top company directors who usually give patronage to the Liberal Party philosophy, are some of the reasons why the personal savings bank accounts are soaring and people will not invest. I want to say something more about the Rae report, the report of the Senate Select Committee on Securities and Exchange. It made reference to Patrick Partners and Ralph W. King and Yuill

Mr Armitage:

– Who was in that firm?

Mr JAMES:

– The honourable member for Macarthur (Mr Baume) was supposed to be a director. These 2 stock exchange giants were strongly condemned in the report for their practices. Time will not permit me to deal fully with the Rae report. I shall deal with a couple of scandals that surfaced during the Committee’s investigations. Senior members of the 2 firms were members of the Stock Exchange. This is what the Labor Party was endeavouring to legislate upon to have corrected, but the legislation was held up in the Senate when we were in power. We legislated in this House to prevent the directors of any companies registered on the Stock Exchange from becoming members of that Exchange.

At the time of the debate on that legislation I remember that the honourable member for Moreton (Mr Killen), with other Government supporters, condemned this provision of the legislation saying that Sir so-and-so, a man of impeccable character, would have to resign from the Stock Exchange because he is a director of so-and-so. The Labor Party was not concerned about the individual; we thought it was wrong for people to be members of the Stock Exchange and also company directors because when the Stock Exchange Committee is called upon to punish company directors or companies for nefarious practices the members virtually sit in judgment upon themselves. I cannot imagine any honourable member believing sincerely that he should sit on a jury in his own trial. That is virtually what the practice meant. The present

Government rejected this legislation introduced by the Whitlam administration.

In evidence before the Rae Committee the Chairman of the Stock Exchange, Mr J. H. Cooper, as recorded in Volume 2 of the Rae Committee report, admitted that it is possible for members of the Committee of the Stock Exchange to sit in judgment of themselves although the rule requires that they do not exercise a vote on such matters. So, as I see it, the Committee of the Stock Exchange can sit in judgment and handle charges levelled against its members. More publicity should be given to this. I shall try to develop the argument about why more publicity was not given to this by the Australian media. As I said, members of the Stock Exchange Committee can sit in judgment on charges made by the Senate Committee against the 2 firms mentioned. Patrick Partners and King and Yuill were the two in question. Can the Attorney-General (Mr Ellicott) tell me or this Parliament whether this is not a fact? This is why the small investor will not risk his money, because the Liberals cannot afford to clean up the Stock Exchange and pass a uniform company law.

I regret that the honourable member for Maranoa (Mr Corbett) in his speech a little while ago implied that the Whitlam administration was trying to centralise everything and to run the whole of the country from Canberra, denying to the States any power at all. A uniform company law is urgently needed in Australia. Grave charges are made in the Rae Committee report. Senator Rae has shown commendable honesty in this regard. I believe, as one newspaper stated, that Senator Rae’s forthrightness and honesty as Chairman of this investigating committee has militated against him getting into the Cabinet in the Fraser Government because big business has warned the Prime Minister and told him that big business does not want Senator Rae because he was so forthright and honest in his searching out of the nefarious practices of some of the big companies when he was Chairman of the Rae Committee. Let me deal further with Patrick Partners and its association with a man called Major Douglas.

Mr Sullivan:
Mr JAMES:

-I am sorry. The honourable member for Riverina (Mr Sullivan), a former Army officer, would undoubtedly know Major Douglas. He may be a personal friend, hence the name shocked the honourable member for Riverina. But if he was a personal friend of the honourable member for Riverina, I have serious doubts whether the honourable member will claim him as a friend when I finish dealing with him in the next few minutes. He will not want to know him. Major Douglas, or Brian Gerard Douglas, was once employed with the Melbourne Age. He worked, not in the physical sense, under the financial editor, Mr F. N. Course, who later became Patrick Partners’ representative in Melbourne. In 1969 Major Douglas formed Australian Investment Counsellors with a paid-up capital of $2. Shortly after he was given a loan of $5,000 by Patrick Partners and of this amount $4,990 was entered in the name of Travinto Nominees, a Patrick Partners subsidiary firm, formed by the solicitors Dawson Waldron of Martin Place, Sydney. The remaining $10 was credited as snares in Australian Investment Counsellors in the name of Patrick Partners. This made Patrick Partners the largest shareholder in Australian Investment Counsellors.

The firm published a stock market tipping sheet called Investograph. The firm also published another tipping sheet known as Investors Guide. In evidence before the Senate Committee Major Douglas admitted that most of the tips contained in his sheets were obtained by him in a daily telephone call to Patrick Partners. He has been known to say that he was a personal friend of the now honourable member for Macarthur.

Mr Armitage:

– Who is that?

Mr JAMES:

- Mr Baume who we know was a director of Patrick Partners. These tipping sheets, put out by Douglas on information from Patrick Partners, consistently recommended stock being pushed and promoted by Patrick Partners and were advertised by the Australian Financial Review as being based on inside information. In other words, it was straight from the horse’s mouth.

Mr Millar:

– Is it true that you are a shareholder?

Mr JAMES:

– There is no chance in the world of that. Stockbrokers subscribed to these sheets and used the tips to pass information on to their clients, thus achieving Patrick Partners’ objective of bulling- if I may use the vernacular- the market. People have lost confidence in investment in free enterprise which Government supporters so passionately push and advocate. That is why savings bank deposits are soaring and why the economy is stagnant. Small investors have lost confidence. Hawk Liberal financiers control crook companies and the stock exchanges. One of

Major Douglas’s tipping sheets was called Hawklet. These sheets depicted information coming from under the little bird Nellie’s hat. Patricks were the little bird used by Major Douglas. Words are not strong enough to denigrate these spivs, urgers and arch confidence men who prey on innocent members of society, many trying to augment their pensions or poor superannuation benefits which have been so affected by inflation. If the evil actions of these men were connected with horse racing they would be warned off the course for life. With Patrick Partners as underwriters Major Douglas then proceeded to float a $2m mining company called Select Mining Holdings Limited. He knows as much about mining as my posterior knows about snipe shooting. He encouraged people to invest in mining. He has never been down a mine and would not know what a mine was.

Mr Sullivan:

– There must have been something there.

Mr JAMES:

– He must have been a mate of the honourable member for Riverina who seems to be defending him strongly. Major Douglas appointed Patricks to manage the undertaking for him after he formed this mining venture. He admitted before the Senate Committee that he knew nothing about mining. It could have been a Chinese gambling game as far as he was concerned. Select Mining Holdings Limited reciprocated for his assistance by placing $1.5m on deposit with Patrick Partners and purchased another 100 000 shares in Castlereagh Securities of which Mr B. R. Dowling, senior partner of Patrick Partners and a friend of the honourable member for Macarthur, was managing director.

The next venture by Major Douglas was a stock tipping program on television. It was called The Money Show. In conjunction with Bryan Frith, whom he engaged as a part time journalist for Investograph, he conducted a weekly mining tipping column in the Australian newspaper under the title of The Fossicker. The Money Show invited viewers to participate in its tips on recommendations of Investograph and Patricks. The Senate Select Committee found that the Australian Investment Counsellors spread tips and rumours without checking their authenticity. I repeat that I believe that Senator Rae, an honest Liberal, was the victim of his forthrightness and honesty in bringing out the evidence he did during this Committee’s research at the time of the Whitlam Administration.

Mr Armitage:

– That is why he was not appointed to the Ministry.

Mr JAMES:

– That is true and well known. I understand that the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) wanted Senator Rae as a Minister but big business said: ‘No. You will obey or you will leave the Prime Ministership’, and the Prime Minister had to salute. I propose now to deal with the methods employed by another leading stockbroking firm, Ralph W. King and Yuill. King and Yuill were acting on behalf of Vam Limited which had assets estimated at $35m. In 1969 King and Yuill were given a private issue of 100 000 Vam shares to be sold on the open market.

Sitting suspended from 6 to 8 p.m.

Mr JAMES:

– In continuing my submissions to this Parliament on the Appropriation Bills I propose to deal now with the methods employed by another leading stockbroking firm- W. Ralph King and Yuill. King and Yuill was acting on behalf of Vam Ltd, which had assets estimated at being worth $35m. In 1969, King and Yuill was given a private issue of 100 000 Vam shares to be sold on the open market to raise capital for Vam. There was no registration of a prospectus with a stock exchange and no general meeting of the company to approve the increase in the issued capital; so the capital was watered without the consent of the shareholders. King and Yuill did not disclose on the contract notes that it was acting as principal in the sale; so the client was justified in believing that he was dealing with it as agent and that the shares were part of the original issue. King and Yuill paid the proceeds of the sale less brokerage and stamp duty to Vam- an amount of $676,000. Commenting on this and similar operations the Senate Committee reported:

Judging from the evidence we have seen markets have been distorted and investors misled as a result of brokers not disclosing their financial interest in substantial blocks of shares taken up in new issues and systematically sold on the market.

The Rae Committee’s report stated that 6 financial writers were given shares at par for boosting in their newspapers shares floated by Patrick Partners. Those writers sold their shares and made thousands of dollars. One of those financial writers is now a member of this House. He is the honourable member for Macarthur. When the directors of Patrick Partners were proceeded against under the bankruptcy laws of New South Wales the honourable member for Macarthur was excluded from those proceedings. He was able to buy himself out of bankruptcy. If he had been convicted of bankruptcy, under the Electoral Act he would have lost his seat in this Parliament. The same honourable member is a director of Tancred Brothers, a Brisbane meat firm which paid money to Mr Todd, a New York banker, for and on behalf of Mr Bjelke-Petersen to investigate what is known as the loans affair. It is no wonder he is known in his electorate as ‘Hallelujah’. The last issue of the Nation Review states at page 75 1: - For instance, Todd was paid his advance by the Brisbane meat firm Tancred Brothers, of which the Liberal member for Macarthur, Michael £. Baume, is a director. BjelkePetersen ‘s right-hand man, Wiley Fancher (Fancher the rancher), who with Todd and Queensland Agent-General Wally Rae carried out the inquiry, is a buddy of Doug Anthony’s. Other names in the documents- Gould, Bracey, Hamilton- had gone to ground. Phones had been disconnected, companies liquidated, whereabouts unknown. Mr Bracey emerged to appear in court in Sydney on Thursday on. a charge of conspiracy to defraud. The word was that Bracey ‘s connections were indeed interesting, including the former N.S.W. Attorney-General, John Maddison, and a certain Sydney solicitor -

I was criticised for mentioning his name in this Parliament a few weeks ago- named Sankey who is currently pursuing Whitlam, Connor and Murphy through the Queanbeyan courts on a conspiracy charge. The name of a certain sick senator has also been mentioned as an associate of Bracey ‘s.

Those are the real reasons why there is redundancy in the economy today. The small investor will not invest in the Sydney Stock Exchange, knowing that it is run by a bunch of crooks and that has been allowed because the Liberal Party would not agree to the amendments to the Companies Act which the Whitlam Government tried to make but which were obstructed in the Senate. During our administration we tried to prevent company directors from being members of the Stock Exchange. The Attorney-General (Mr Ellicott) is sitting at the table. He is a man who is regarded with a great deal of respect by all honourable members on this side of the House and who has not yet allowed himself to be fully contaminated by the skullduggery of Liberal Party politics. I hope that one day he will be able to influence his party to amend the Companies Act in such a way as to encourage the small investor to invest in the stock market and thereby stimulate the economy in such a way that many decent Australians will be able to find successful and lucrative employment.

Mr SULLIVAN:
Riverina

-Mr Deputy Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock:

-Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr SULLIVAN:

-Yes, I do. On 2 occasions the honourable member for Hunter (Mr James) said or implied in his speech that I knew a Major P. E. Douglas. I do not know the gentleman. I do not know of him.

Mr Kevin Cairns:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

-The honourable member for Hunter (Mr James) has acquired a reputation in this chamber and throughout the country for his sense of justice. I do not want to comment at great length about that, but I do want to make 2 points. When he left the New South Wales Police Force and came into this chamber it was said that the New South Wales Police Force never would be quite the same again. I understand that it also has been said by some wit that when he left the New South Wales Police Force and entered the Parliamentary Labor Party the average standard in both places rose. We saw some examples of that tonight. I do not want to develop that theme further except to say that no doubt in due time the honourable member for Macarthur (Mr Baume) will make his own ready and sensitive response to what has been said.

Mr James:

-The Third Man.

Mr Kevin Cairns:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

– The honourable member for Hunter also has an incredibly sensitive and fine sense of history. When political parties come into government in this place they are expected to keep their promises. When the honourable member for Port Adelaide (Mr Young), who is now leaving this chamber, spoke this afternoon I was surprised beyond belief that he had the wit or the gall to accuse the present Government of breaking the major promises on which it was elected to office. The Marquess of Rockingham was the first Prime Minister of the United Kingdom to undertake in government the promises he had made when in Opposition. It was George the Third who said of him, being surprised at this proposition: ‘You must remember that when an Opposition gets into government it makes a few gestures to old principles but from then on the farce is at an end. It has to get on with government’.

Promises made ought to be promises kept. I want to go over one or 2 promises that were deliberately and tragically broken by the present Opposition when it was in government. I refer firstly to the most important promise. The promise on which any government has to be sustained in this place and the promise that has existed since the last year of World War II is the promise of full employment. We are in a position today where there is significant unemployment, the causes of which were inherited from the Labor

Government and which have come about since the Labor Government came into power. The Labor Government was in power for 3 years. In that time it showed more than any other government in Australia’s history that it was willing to put people out of work, that it was willing to import into Australia the situation of people knocking on back doors with the catch-cry: ‘Lady, have you got a job?’ That is the philosophy that the Labor Government imported into Australia and that is the philosophy, that is the practice, of which we have to rid this country. That promise has been made. We intend to keep the promise in respect of having a stable economy in this country.

Let us consider some other propositions. The Labor Government forgot one overriding, important ingredient; that is, that one cannot in fact provide people with the wherewithal that they desire in terms of living standards, stable prices and jobs unless there is economic growth in Australia. Unless there is development, unless there is growth, none of those things can be provided. That basic and most tragic ingredient in fact sifted itself through the 3 years Labor was in office and the electorate and the Australian people ought never to be allowed to forget that fact and that experience.

We know that the honourable member for Port Adelaide (Mr Young) is vying with some other members of his own Party to get into a position of leadership. I would say that on this afternoon’s performance there are a number of New South Wales members who would leave him for dead. They would finish the race before he got into the straight because this afternoon’s performance was an incredible tragedy. Let me remind him of some of the propositions he has made. He said this Government is not going on with some of the park schemes; it is not going on with some of the local improvement schemes that his Party, when in office, had in mind; it is not doing a whole wealth of other activities that his Party had undertaken. He has forgotten that a cake can have in it very satisfactory ingredients such as sultanas and other fruit but when there is an ounce of strychnine in it, it is useless. Such was the position with the Labor Party and those propositions he put came to nought. What he would have would be an excellent park scheme and an excellent area improvement scheme in which the hundreds of thousands of unemployed Australians could rest. That is the Labor Party’s sense. That is the sense of economy which Labor had and which it imported into this country. That is one belief of which this country has to be rid. He made a number of other propositions which I find intriguing but which time would prevent me dwelling on, but the overall philosophy of them deserve to be rejected.

There is one other point of the experience of the Labor Government which is now possible to be calculated. Not only was it in a couple of years able to generate high unemployment, not only was it in a couple of years able to generate a very great and an increasing rate of inflation- and by the way, it is a rate which is decreasing very rapidly at the present time- but at the same time it was also able to rob Australians and Australian households of the dollars which were earned and which were going into those households. The national account figures for December last year which are now available indicate the kind of experience we had at the end of the term of the previous Labor Government. An important question for anybody to ask is: How much of every dollar that is being earned and that is going into an Australian household is being surrendered to government and to public authorities? It is now quite clear that as at December last year when the Labor Government was rejected of every earned dollar that was going into an Australian household under a socialist government- and it gave the lead to the other governments in Australia and to the other public authoritiesover 40c was surrendered to a public authority. So at the same time the Labor Government was able to reintroduce the word ‘dole’, was able to reintroduce the word ‘hyper-inflation’ and was able to show how governments could rip it off. That is the kind of situation which this Government has to remedy. It is the kind of situation this Government has to alter and today it is in the process of altering it. I hope that that will be appreciated by the Opposition.

The Labor Party’s performance in office needs to be borne in mind. AH of that of course only has meaning and the process can be given meaning only if we come back to the proposition made by Chifley and by Dedman when they made their solemn promises on full employment in 1945 and if we can have economic growth developing in Australia. The national account figures illustrate one further point which indicates the dying performance of the previous Labor Government. It is simply this: In terms of the national product of Australia, over the last quarter of 1 975- that is the December quarter- the Labor Government’s performance was not only worse than for the December quarter of the year earlier, but it was worse than the performance of 2 years earlier and one has to go to some years previously with a smaller Australia with a smaller work force in order to see just how bad the performance of the previous Labor Government was. So we were in a continuous period of decline, of declining living standards and those other facets of those declining living standards to which I have given quick passing reference this evening. But the philosophy of that also deserves to be borne in mind. There are people who think that they can be engaged in personal campaigns of vilification to vindicate their position. In politics they adopt the court room position all the time but unless people are able to live decently all of those protestations of court room rights which are so actively pursued by the Sydney silk that leads the Labor Party come to nothing.

Mr Brown:

-Sort of Sydney silk.

Mr Kevin Cairns:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

– Yes, sort of Sydney silk. I would like to quote from a very excellent book by Wilfred Beckerman, an economist appointed by the British Labor Government to many comittees during the years it was in power. They are powerful words because they in fact indicate the abysm into which this Labor Party has plunged the Australian people. As he pointed out:

A mistake in a criminal trial might mean imprisonment for one innocent man. A failure to maintain economic growth means continued poverty, deprivation, disease, squalor, degradation and slavery to soul-destroying toil for countless millions of the world ‘s population.

Mr Innes:

– Who taught you that- Bob Santamaria, when you were in the DLP?

Mr Kevin Cairns:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

-You not only wear loud shirts, you portray the essential narrowness and the bigotry of your own Victorian Labor Party. The Victorian Labor Party has been a millstone around the neck of the Australian Labor Party for 25 years and it is personified in the honourable member for Melbourne. One has only to listen to him: Bark and the old mongoose looks backwards. One can see a departure from that sense and from that philosophy by the alternative government in Australia and it was for those reasons above all other reasons that alternative government was rejected.

If I may I will look at things in another sense and look at the propositions that the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) made last night because he made a number of propositions which are very important to be borne in mind. We know that we are unable to get to a state of economic equilibrium in Australia unless cost pressures are significantly reduced. Those cost pressures have to be reduced with an abiding sense of social justice and an abiding sense of the desire to distribute the burden in Australia. There are 3 propositions that the Prime Minister made last night which in fact have a very great and very overwhelming industrial significance.

One proposition was the one on which the Government supports wage indexation, and that is plateau indexation. In other words, what the Government is saying in that proposition is simply this: We would desire to bring cost pressures down in Australia while guaranteeing for Australian workers below the average wage a living standard able to keep pace with inflation. At the same time the Prime Minister also proposed tax indexation which means that living standards in terms of household dollarsdisposable dollars- will be able to be retained by those citizens earning above the average wage. The third proposition the Prime Minister madeand it is the first time it has been put together in this way in the history of this nation- is simply that the Government will attempt to maintain living standards for those on low incomes and those on high incomes with dependants. So there is a proposition which is designed to retain the levels of disposable income and disposable dollars during the period when cost pressures have to be reduced for Australians on low incomes, Australians on high incomes and Australians on those incomes with dependants. That is a very important social package and it must have meaning in this country.

Mr Cotter:

– Never been tried before.

Mr Kevin Cairns:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

– Never been tried before, as the honourable member has emphasised. The British Labour Government, for example, which is in a similar bind but rather worse, in trying to reduce cost pressures in that nation is not going to the same length to provide social justice by guaranteeing disposable incomes to its own citizens with varying numbers of dependants and at various levels of income. I believe therefore that that proposition, that that deal, that that offer- because it is an offer- ought to be heeded by the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. Above all, the Arbitration Commission must be concerned with the take-home pay in people’s pay packets or the income available to households. Those 3 propositions have a great deal to do with what is available to people and to households.

I hope that in that sense the Government becomes very active in seeking to sell what it has proposed and what it put forward last night. It is quite clear that the President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions will not seek to sell it. He has a political career in mind. He intends to challenge the honourable member for Port Adelaide; we know that. He is not concerned with economic equilibrium. He is not concerned with protecting the rights of those people whose rights have to be protected during times such as these. We know the Government not only has to sell this from Parliament but also has to sell it on shop floors, in offices and on the wharves throughout Australia, because there are other union leaders in the nation whose job it is to wreck and muck up the economy. We remember only last year the case of the Amalgamated Metal Workers Union and Carmichael and Halfpenny who, because the workers of this country supported wage indexation and because they agreed with the proposition of tax indexation, could get nothing but a day-long strike. It was in that sense that we saw that workers in Australia had the sense to know that the alternatives to what we were proposing- the Labor Party was proposing some of the same measures- should not be abandoned for the sake of union leaders whose desire was to cause social wreckage and economic disaffection.

I hope that the 3 strands of the Prime Minister’s offer last night are heeded by those who ought to heed them. I hope they are heeded by those who have to sell them. It is quite clear that the path of recent years deserves to be reversed. There is room within which it can be reversed. It is clear that the announced Budget deficit in terms of Reserve Bank borrowings is not quite as large as the published figures indicate. The published figures indicate it is of the order of $4,800m. Honourable members will notice that I still use the English numbers. In terms of effective Reserve Bank new finance it is a little over $3,000m. That difference gives the Government more room to manouvre in respect of the current economic position in Australia than is generally realised.

When one appreciates that in those circumstances there is also great evidence that the rate of market-caused inflation is decreasing very rapidly- for example, the last consumer price index in all items excepting food showed the greatest drop over a quarter for very many years- I believe we are at a significant turning point. I believe that significant turning point can only be gained and can only be secured if 4 areas of the population with responsibility realise the social justice and the sense of fairness of what is being done. Three of those sections are simply the Arbitration Commission, employers, and business, which still retains a great obligation to expand employment opportunities as quickly as it possibly can. After all, business must realise that if it does not expand employment opportunities to provide jobs the voter will opt for another kind of system which will not be so good for business. All the Government can do is provide the ingredients with which those with goodwill are able to generate something that is worth while for Australia. The fourth group amongst whom there should be an appreciation of what is being offered are the workers. I believe that they will and that they will show great sense about what the Prime Minister offered last night, j lust as they showed significant sense during the last months of the Labor Government. They know when something that is being offered is fair. They know when a government is trying to protect their rights as well as to uplift the totality of the Australian community and the Australian economy. The sense of justice that underlay last night’s proposition ought to be appreciated.

Mr CHARLES JONES:
Newcastle

– I was astounded by the humbug and hypocrisy of the honourable member for Lilley (Mr Kevin Cairns). The Government Parties are still talking about what the Australian Labor Party did when it was in government. Let us look at the real question of unemployment. Unemployment today is no better than it was 6 months ago when the Liberal and National Country parties became the government. Basically they have done nothing about it. The honourable member for Lilley was greatly concerned about what the President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions said about wage indexation last night following the address to the nation by the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser). He said that the Government would not get the co-operation of the ACTU unless the ACTU got the co-operation of the Government. This Government was elected on a promise of retaining wage indexation. What was the first thing it did? The first thing it did when the matter came up for consideration in the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission was to ask for a 3.2 per cent increase in wages rather than the 6.4 per cent as required under indexation. If the Government wants to doublecross people- that is what its action amounts to- I think it will get the type of co-operation to which a double-crosser is entitled.

Like a lot of other people, I am trying to find out just what the Prime Minister did say last night. The medicine is to be doled out on Thursday night by the Treasurer. That is what the Prime Minister kept saying last night. He dealt with matters in an air-fairy manner. Many people were disappointed with what they heard last night. I know I stayed home to listen to what the Prime Minister had to say because one always has to know what the enemy is doing. I expected to hear something, but nothing was forthcoming. One thing that is obvious is that Medibank is under challenge from the Liberal and National Country parties. They are going to whittle it away. Once again they have been guilty of humbug. When the Labor Party endeavoured to impose a levy for Medibank the then Opposition used its numbers in the Senate to stop it. Now the same people in government are going to do the thing which they rejected only last year in the Senate. Because of the increased cost of Medibank and because there is no levy the Government is now accusing the former Government of being responsible for a huge deficit brought about by the obstruction of the Liberal and National Country parties in the Senate. Honourable members opposite have to face up to their share of responsibility for things that have gone on. Look at what the Whitlam Government did in the field of social security. Look at the improved benefits that were given to people who needed aid. Compare what we spent on education with the paltry, piffling amount spent by the previous Liberal-Country Party government. It spent $440m in its last full year as the Government as against $ 1902m allocated by the Labour Party in the 1975-76 Budget. Compare those achievements with the whittling away of the rights of people in which the Government is now indulging. No doubt a few more backhanders will be meted out on Thursday night by the Treasurer.

This Government has nothing to be proud of. Its record came up for close scrutiny not in the opinion polls but in the cold hard reality of the ballot-box on 1 May in New South Wales. Its State colleagues got their ears belted off. It was only the gerrymander of electorates in typical Liberal-Country Party fashion that made the result appear so close after being dragged out day after day. The Labor Party polled the majority of votes in New South Wales. There is the real indication of what the people of this country think of the things the Government is doing. It is obvious why Sir Eric Willis called on the election some 6 months earlier than he need have. The Prime Minister had tipped him off- You had better get it in pretty soon, boy, or you will really get a lacing because after our mini-Budget comes down at the end of May and our Budget comes down in August you just will not win one seat’. That is the situation. I will be interested to hear how the honourable member for Lilley will justify the unpopular things which the Treasurer will dole out on Thursday night and again in August in the Budget.

Some of the things that I want to deal with tonight in the limited time available to me relate once again to the tardiness of this Government in doing something for an industry in this country that employs directly and indirectly something like 5000 men and women. I am referring to the shipbuilding industry which is slowly but surely falling to pieces because of the need for this Government to decide what it is to do with ship building. Will it retain ship building or will it not? When this Government came into office the shipyards had orders. There was a need to place orders. Orders were in the offing, as I will outline in a moment. I want to deal with the policy expressed by the Government when it was in Opposition. I have a publication that was circulated by the now Minister for Transport (Mr Nixon) which set out the whole transport policy of the then Opposition. If the ideas pinched from us were taken out of the document and only the ideas of the Opposition left in, the document would contain less than one page. I wish to deal with page 6. Under the heading Shipbuilding it states:

An Australian shipbuilding and repair industry is essential to the national interest. The Liberal and Country Parties believe Australia must maintain an independent capacity to provide and service the relevant requirements of our commercial shipping and our defence forces. A Federal Liberal and Country Party Government will pursue policies which ensure the shipbuilding and repair industry operates as competitively and efficiently as possible. In this we will provide a building subsidy to protect our relatively small but vital industry.

It is now over 6 months since the Minister for Transport and the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Senator Cotton) became Ministers in the Liberal-Country Party, first of all in the caretaker Government and then in the Government after 13 December. Even at this date, 18 May, it appears that they are no closer to presenting a policy and making a decision on what they intend doing in the shipbuilding industry. I sat in on 2 delegations from the State Dockyard, one from the shop committee executive and the other from workers from the plant who came to Canberra to approach the various Ministers in an endeavour to get a decision out of the Government. All that I heard from the Minister was unnecessary abuse of the men who had come here. He charged them with threatening to hold stoppages unless he saw them. That was not true. No such threat had at any time been levelled against the Minister. The Minister gave them aline of baloney that any Irishman would have been proud of, but at no point did he come up with one fact or one figure to indicate what his Government would do in regard to shipbuilding. I believe the delegation will be here again on Thursday of this week in an endeavour to get an answer out of the Government as to what it is doing.

Already people from the Whyalla shipyard have been here trying to get out of Senator Cotton the Government’s policy. It is obvious to me that the Government does not have a policy. It cannot make up its mind what it is going to do. On 29 April 1976 I directed a question to the Prime Minister. I set out some facts, asked the Government’s policy on shipbuilding and when the industry could expect to hear the Government’s policy on shipbuilding. I then outlined the situation in certain shipyards. This is the answer I got:

I again thank the honourable gentleman for the information he gave the House. I will refer it to the Minister for Transport when he returns.

The Minister for Transport was in New Zealand at the time attending a conference. I make no comment about that. The facts of the matter are that the question did not belong to the Minister for Transport; it belonged to the Minister for Industry and Commerce in another place. That question was asked on 29 April. At this date, 18 May, still no decision on the industry has come from the Government. At this date Broken Hill Pty Co. Ltd has two 40 000 ton bulk ships under construction. The first will be completed in May 1977 and the second in November 1977. Two trans-Tasman ro-ro ships are being built for the Union Steamship Company. They are to be completed in June 1976 and February 1977. Honourable members can see that there is a need for the Government to make an early decision on policy so that orders can be placed, otherwise that yard will be forced to start laying off labour at an early date. The State Dockyard in Newcastle is building a vehicle deck container ship which is to be completed in June this year. Two 25 000 ton dead weight bulk ships are being built for the Australian National Line, the first to be completed in November 1976 and the second in May 1977. Once again this yard is in a perilous position regarding employment and unless orders are placed it will have to lay off labour. By rights they should be laying off labour now. I know that the drawing office has completed all the plans necessary to fulfill these orders. They have done all the work in anticipation of getting the three or four 15 000 ton bulk carriers that ANL put out to tender some months ago.

It is not a question of there being no ships to build and of there being no need for ships in Australia. There is a need for coastal shipping to be built in Australian shipyards. ANL has made a decision that it needs to replace its Lake class ships. If it does not replace them now the cost of the 20 years survey will be monstrous. The building of the ships will not be an economic proposition if another 20 years survey has to be carried out. ANL has made its decision. It will replace that class of ship with three or four 15 000 ton bulk ships. Tenders have been called and have closed for these three or four ships. It is up to the Government to make a decision on policy. BHP has called tenders for two 13 500 ton general purpose ships. Tenders closed on 28 November and as yet an order has not been placed because that company is waiting for the Government to make a decision as to when and where those ships should be built. I know where those ships should be built.

Mr Sullivan:

– Korea.

Mr CHARLES JONES:

-It is obvious where the interests of the honourable member for Riverina lie. He would sooner have the ships built in Korea, Japan, Taiwan or anywhere with cheap labour than here in Australia. He wants subsidies, phosphate bounties and the like for his rural producers but he is not prepared to give anything to the secondary industries of this country. There is nothing wrong in giving the superphosphate bounty to people who need it, but I am damned if I can see any sense in doling out $5,000 a year to the Prime Minister. Millionaire Mai does not need it. The people in the shipbuilding industry do need assistance.

There is a need for shipping. The Bureau of Transport Economics did a study on the needs of the oil industry on the coastways. There is a need, within the next 5 years, to build a 20 000 to 30 000 ton product carrier to service the coast of Australia with oil products. ANL has a 16-year contract with John Lysaght (Aust.) Ltd to build and to operate a 20 000 ton slab carrier. Eight ships should be and need to be built in an Australian yard. If only this Government would make up its mind. There is a need to replace the Tambo River, which was originally the Takasako, and the Tolga. There is a need to replace the Iron Endeavour which the Broken Hill Pty Co. Ltd has had on the coast for some years now, sometimes operating full time and sometimes on a one-off one-overseas trip. There is a need for this work. All that honourable members opposite have to do is make up their minds and stop the Minister from foxing and clowning as he does when people who are concerned about their jobs and about the future of their industry come to see him.

The Government has a responsibility to ensure the continued employment of some 2200 men at Whyalla, 1900 of them employed by BHP, 200 to 300 employed in the back-up industries which do the sub-contracting work, 2000 men employed at the State Dockyard and 300 to 400 men who provide the back-up to that particular industry. It is up to the Government to ensure that the countries which have cheap labour, about which the honourable member for Riverina is so concerned- Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong and Japan- are not building ships for Australian work at the expense of Australian workmen. The Government must stop the dumping on the Australian market of overseas built ships. There is a simple way out of it. It is better to employ Australians on building these ships than to employ people overseas.

All the major overseas countries, including the United Kingdom and Sweden, are concerned with the dumping that is taking place. Japan has a serious problem because of the fall-off in the number of tankers and bulk ships being built throughout the world today, so Japan is prepared to build these ships for less than cost in order to use its shipyards to provide employment for its own people. Rather than find work for them this Government would sooner put Australian workers on the unemployment benefit and then call them dole bludgers.

Mr Baillieu:

– That is what you did.

Mr CHARLES JONES:

– The previous Government found work for them and had shipyards in full time employment. Those are the facts. We accept that the Australian shipbuilding industry is labour intensive, which is unfortunate in a country which has probably the highest labour cost of any shipbuilding countries in the world. Other countries have highly capital intensive industries. It is time that the Government of this country did something about assisting to modernise and to bring Australian shipyards up to a standard where they can compete. I will not say for one second and I am not stupid enough to believe that the Australian shipbuilding industry can compete with Japan on prices. Japan has the most highly sophisticated shipbuilding industry in the world. It has taken away a lot of work from the United Kingdom and Sweden, which is another highly sophisticated shipbuilding country and which is highly capital intensive rather than labour intensive.

I believe that the Australian industry is learning. The previous Government appointed a shipbuilding forum which went overseas last year. It contained representatives of management, trade unions and the men off the floor of the workshop. Together they looked at various shipyards throughout the world. The result of that forum has been a better understanding and realisation of just what is going on in shipyards throughout the world. As a younger man I was able to go overseas as a trade unionist and see what was going on. These people now have had an opportunity of knowing the position. There is a much different approach at the trade union level today.

There is a need for the shipbuilding industry to get away from the multiplicity of trade unions. I see no reason why there cannot be a craft union and a non craft union in every shipyard. Jack Egerton and I were successful in Queensland in getting one industrial agreement which covered all the trade unions. The Liberal and Country parties have had 23 years to do something about it and they have done nothing. There is no reason why unions such as the Federated Ironworkers’ Association of Australia, the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union of Australia, the Federated Storemen and Packers Union of Australia. the Transport Workers’ Union of Australia, the Federated Engine Drivers’ and Firemen’s Association of Australasia and the Federated Miscellaneous Workers Union of Australia in a shipyard could not be members of one union. The Liberal and Country parties have done aU they can to hinder and stop the amalgamation of trade unions, which is to the advantage of the industry in question. So we come to the point. There is a need for greater capital investment in the shipbuilding industry. There is a need for the Government to make up its mind. The Government has been in office for 6 months and a week now and has done nothing about it.

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

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

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

BUI (on motion by Mr Ellicott) read a third time.

APPROPRIATION BILL (No. 4) 1975-76 Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 28 April, on motion by Mr Lynch:

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.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

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

page 2139

CUSTOMS AMENDMENT BILL 1976

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 29 April, on motion by Mr Howard:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr YOUNG:
Port Adelaide

-In this Bill, as with other measures associated with customs matters, the Government is proceeding on its path of saying as little as possible to the Parliament and leaving all the details to the officials. It is very difficult to associate the fine words of the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs (Mr Howard), who is now at the table, of 29 April last when at page 1810 of Hansard he promised to encourage debate on such matters, with the brief second reading speech with which he introduced this Bill. This Bill deals with the value for duty provisions of the custom tariff. It replaces a system that has been in operation since 1922. The value on which the percentage duties are levied is of fundamental importance to any system of protection, and the Customs Act defines the mis-stating of that value as smuggling. So when a change is proposed to that fundamental base it behoves us to proceed with some care.

The proposals put forward by the Minister effectively change the current base from that of the price paid or the local domestic price in the country of origin to what is effectively the fanmarket price of a transaction at arm’s length. The convention, which appears as a schedule to the Bill, is one drawn up by the Customs Cooperation Council in Brussels. It details the basis which is used by parties to the convention. One of the requirements is that in broad terms the value for duty base shall be that of cost, insurance and freight- the ci.f. value. That is a reasonable base, and countries which have adopted it have no trouble in setting their levels of protection accordingly. But all along our system has been based on what is virtually the free on board price of goods; that is, the amount less insurance and freight. For Australia to adopt the convention would mean a change to the situation where importers would be paying duty on the insurance and freight. The further away from the source of trade, the greater would be the differential payment with its consequent effects on international trade.

So we find that in this Bill a different basis is adopted. It is notionally, and I particularly stress that word, the f.o.b. price again, and that is done by clause 4 of the Bill inserting section 154 (3) (d). According to the Minister, the modification is based on a protocol which is awaiting ratification. We have heard of this protocol before. It is set out as appendix 4 of the Green Paper on customs valuation, where it appears without a date. Where a system of valuation has been adopted by over 90 countries, and international trade is flowing on that basis, there would be great reluctance to introduce a change, or even the opportunity to change. One can imagine the confusion which would reign if one of the countries were to adopt this protocol, for it would change the whole level of duties. My understanding is that the proposal has been before the Customs Co-operation Council for some years and it is curious that the Minister should dismiss it so lightly. I would Uke to hear from him just when he expects this protocol to be ratified.

There are broader social issues at stake. One would have expected the Minister, in introducing such important legislation, to have made at least a passing reference to the issues raised at paragraph 6.1 5 of the Green Paper, with its point that to the extent that an f.o.b. system does not result in a minimisation of social costs there will be a welfare loss to the community. Instead, he tells us that the Green Paper, which canvassed various issues but made no recommendations, was ‘generally well received by industry and commerce’.

I now want to turn, Mr Deputy Speaker, to some other peculiar aspects of the Minister’s second reading speech. With exceptions, which I shall come to, the Minister informed the House that an interdepartmental committee was able to conclude that any difference in total customs duty payable following the implementation of the new system was ‘likely to be negligible’. Yet one of the changes which will occur is that henceforth duties will be charged on the outside packages which until now have been dissected in the entry and entered free of duty. The Green Paper reports that there is an average duty rate of 27% per cent so that the amount Will henceforth be charged on the outside packages. It may be a small amount for each shipment, but according to Australian Bureau of Statistics figures, outside packages imported in 1974-1975 were valued at $60,899,002, meaning a duty collection of the order of $ 16.7m. There will be marked changes in the sales tax which is collected and these are set out in chapter 7 of the Green Paper. Yet sales tax is a revenue item. The duties of customs are said to be protective and not for revenue raising. When everyone has put their mark-up on this extra revenue collected on importation, the consumer in the end is likely to be paying some $30m extra.

For an unknown change in the rate of sales tax collection, for the additional collection of $ 16.7m in customs duty, for some absurd impost on consumers, the Minister managed to devote a couple of lines of his speech. He said it would simplify entry procedures and be more in keeping with commercial procedures. We can find that note 2 to annex II will be added to by the exclusion of containers. We do not find any reference there to the fact that some packaging materials, for example, pallets, are required to be dealt with separately by the tariff, and according to the publication, Australian Customs Valuation Booklet, issued in April of this year, these will not be included in the value for duty. As I have said, to all these topics, the Minister devoted a couple of lines in his speech.

There are other aspects of the change. With caution, the interdepartmental committee, in its Green Paper, said that there were arguments that the abandonment of the present system might lead to a lowering of protection but this could be corrected by tariff revision. And what does the Minister say in his second reading speech? He says that the committee recognised that there could be significant variations in the amount of duty payable, leading to adverse effects on local industries or importers. But never fear, says the Minister, provision will be made for the Industries Assistance Commission to consider possible tariff adjustments for a period of 6 months after adoption of the new system. I ask the Minister whether he is seriously putting forward the proposition that, if the value on which the duties are charged is reduced, and that information will only be available to the importer and the Customs officials handling the invoices, the local industry will be immediately aware of the erosion of their protection. They will only suspect it as they lose markets to imported goods.

There are probably other changes which will affect importers. Let the Minister explain to us whether all the charges now to be included by note 2 in annex II are already included in the value for duty under the present system. If they are not, what new items are included and what effect will they have on the duties. Let him tell us the reaction he has had from the mercantile community when it realises that henceforth the amount on which it would pay duty would be increased by the allocation of advertising expenses over a period, although unrelated to the particular goods- as set out in the Valuation

Booklet, made available to us in April, at paragraphs 3.13 and 3.14; that discounts will be adjusted on a predetermined scale, paragraph 2.30; that the date on which the rate of exchange is to be calculated may be varied, paragraph 2.44-2.45; that distributor costs may be taken into account, paragraph 3.38; or that future payments will be discounted at the rate for long term government bonds, paragraph 5.6. I quote all these from the Australian Customs Valuation Booklet. As a layman, I find this legislation most confusing. Nowhere in existence can I find a copy of the convention as it will exist when this legislation comes into force and it is quite apparent that we will all be faced with difficulties in reading it.

When the Bland Committee, the Committee on Administrative Discretions, published its final report in October 1973- Parliamentary Paper No. 316 of 1973- it devoted a great deal of the report to the operations of the then Customs Department. It looked at a wide range of administrative discretions and recommended that a review process should be instituted for them. Commencing at page 1 13 of the report, we find a recommendation that appeals should be provided in the case of the value for duty of goods, in sections 154 and 160 of the Customs Act, and in section 7 of the Customs Tariff, in the f.o.b. price in the Customs Tariff section 8 on the inland freight charges for goods from Canada in section 155 of the Customs Act and on the determination of the rate of exchange in section 157.

The result of those recommendations appears in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975. What is missing from the Schedule at page 29 of that Act is the review of the value for duty and Canadian inland freight provisions and that could be understandable in the light of the changes which were even then proposed. Of course the Administrative Tribunals Act, in section 25 (2), made provision for new legislation to be added to the matters subject to review by the Tribunal but that does not appear in this Bill, before us. One thing the Bland Committee did favour was the provision in section 158 for the appointment of experts to arbitrate whenever there was doubt about the declared value of goods- it appears at page 62 of that report- but in this Bill section 158 has been removed. In the newly issued booklet, Australian Customs Valuation Booklet, paragraph 3.20 says:

It may sometimes be appropriate to have recourse to valuation by experts acceptable to the importer and the Department.

Now the Minister cannot have it both ways. He cannot come into this House and propose the abolition of the legislation which provides for experts, saying that it is now redundant, while his Department tells the world that experts will be used.

There are other provisions. Reading the booklet it seems to have little relationship to what is in this Bill but rather is an extension determined by officials. That may be necessary in the changing commercial world but it is equally necessary that there should be clear and concise means of appealing from arbitary official decisions. And how much certainty will there be in business? Bureau of Customs notice no. 76/41 tells the importing community that advice will be available from Customs Houses but that the prime responsibility for establishing the value rests with the importer. Decisions will not be given on the acceptability of valuation assessments before the entry is lodged, that is before the goods are here. What confidence can industry have in this arrangement, save to rely on the good graces of Customs officials?

It is no use the Minister pointing out that an action at law lies under section 167. That section as it stands says that, if one protests about the amount of duty, the duty charged is the correct duty unless the importer begins a court action. If and when the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act comes into force, an appeal may lie to that body, with a further appeal to the courts on questions of law alone. But all along section 216 of the Customs Act will sit there. The Collector of Customs can detain the goods for as long as he likes if he is not satisfied as to the stated value. With the abolition of section 158, the importer has no recourse but to wait until the officials have determined just what the value will be.

We recognise that with the adoption of this convention there is going to be a very marked change in the valuation system. The valuation booklet is full of descriptions of what will be notionally calculated and amounts which until now have not been affected by the tariff. I am sure that once the system comes into operation many honourable members will hear from importers who have incurred the extra costs. We also recognise that in abandoning the base of current domestic value there may be an erosion of the protection now afforded to local industry. It is a massive change, one that should not have been brought into this House without the most specific information on its effects. But in principle we do not oppose the change in the base of valuation.

Mr SULLIVAN:
Riverina

-I congratulate the Minister for Business and Consumer

Affairs (Mr Howard) for taking the action that has led to the introduction of the Customs Amendment Bill into the chamber. I also take pleasure in associating my Party with this legislation. It is timely, because the procedures for the valuation for duty purposes contained in the present provisions of the Customs Act are unsatisfactory. The system is based upon a valuation at the free on board level on the higher amount as between the actual price paid by the importer and the current domestic value of the goods in the country of export. As the Minister indicated in his second reading speech, this system is currently faced with increasing administrative and legal problems as evidenced by the decisions handed down by the High Court in 1974 and 1975. The major amendment contained in this Bill is concerned with the introduction of what is known as the Brussells Definition of Value. The main feature of this definition is the notional concept that the value for duty of any imported goods is the amount which those goods would fetch on the open market between a buyer and a seller independent of each other. It is a concept for general use irrespective of the terms under which the goods are imported.

The Bill is not a surprise move on the part of the Minister to cause problems in the Department of Customs or to confuse those involved in the business of importing. One has only to be aware of the discussions, the investigations and the evaluation of the proposal which forms the basis of this Bill to know that it is a timely and much needed piece of legislation. In July 1973 it was publicly suggested that Australia should adopt the Brussels Definition of Value. A Green Paper has been available on this subject since February 1975. Customs officers have been conducting seminars and lectures on the details of the Brussels Definition of Value for importers and importing agents for some months. Consequently I do not believe that there can be any criticism which suggests that this legislation has been introduced in haste. Unquestionably it does entail some major changes in the overall system, but I believe that these will prove to be beneficial in the long run. No change in any system can be achieved without some problems. All honourable gentlemen would, or should, readily accept this. However, I believe that the problems ensuing from the adoption of the Brussels Definition of Value would not be lessened if the introduction of this Bill were to be postponed. Problems will occur because they will stem from the detailed implementation of the proposal; they will not stem from the timing of the introduction of the proposal. The honourable member for

Port Adelaide (Mr Young) criticised the timing of the introduction of this Bill; but he certainly did not offer any constructive alternative and 1 do not really believe he has one to offer.

In its execution the Bill is a very complex piece of legislation. It will require some effort on the part of importers to adapt to the changes as quickly as possible and to understand the details of it. The Brussels Definition of Value forms the basis for the valuation systems of over 90 countries including most of Australia’s major trading partners. I urge the Minister to look more closely at the tariff implications of the proposed changes to the Brussels Definition of Value. The committee which prepared the Green Paper on this subject recognised that in particular cases there could be significant variations in the amount of duty payable, leading to adverse effects on local industries and importers. This is extremely serious because in my opinion we must not allow the situation to develop whereby we actually cause hardship in any Australian industry, particularly through our own actions, and then call in the Industries Assistance Commission to consider the problem. The damage will have been done.

Surely we have sufficient evidence of how Australian industry can suffer from the actions of governments. For example, the 25 per cent tariff reduction by the previous Government brought disaster- yes, disaster- to some sections of Australian industry. We must remember that this type of disaster is measured in the loss of jobs by Australian men and women. I ask the Minister to give an assurance that he will act before any damage is done to any Australian industry as a result of this legislation. If an industry is considered to be non-essential, inefficient or necessary to be closed in the light of the Brussels Definition of Value, I believe that a warning should be given to that industry and alternative arrangements for employment made for the men and women whose jobs would be affected. I cannot emphasise this point too much. I repeat my plea for the Minister to give his assurance that this situation will be avoided. I support the Bill.

Mr Antony Whitlam:
GRAYNDLER, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– As my colleague, the honourable member for Port Adelaide (Mr Young) has said, the Opposition is not opposed to the principles of the Customs Amendment Bill, that is, to a change in the basis of the valuing of goods for customs purposes. We recognise that there are difficulties with the present system and that there may be loopholes which will be plugged by this Bill. But that does not mean we are content to let legislation pass without comment.

It seems to me that in this Bill we are missing the precise and elegant wording, the meticulous attention to detail that we have come to expect from the First Parliamentary Counsel. I remind the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs (Mr Howard) that in the very first customs case that came before the High Court- Murray and Company v Collector of Customs (1903), 1 Commonwealth Law Reports, page 25- Chief Justice Griffiths set out at page 36 the criteria for a customs measure. He said:

In construing them,- that is, customs measuresit is not unimportant to remember that this is a provision relating to the tariff, and it is common knowledge that tariffs have serious effects on trade. It is important that persons engaged in the trade should know the existing law, and it is said to be important that they should also know what the law is likely to be in the near future. At any rate it is important that they should be able to know by reading the statute what the law is upon any particular point.

But in this important legislation, which will form the basis of our international trade for many years to come, those canons of construction seem to have been ignored. We find that there will be a schedule to the Act- a schedule containing the convention. That convention will be modified in ways set out in paragraphs (a) to (g) of the proposed new sub-section 154 (3), whilst over it all, like pepper and salt, is the wording of paragraph (h) of that sub-section putting a proviso on the word ‘freight’ whenever it appears. Nowhere is there a way of looking at the convention as amended. Nowhere is there a sign of the protocol which leads to paragraph (d) of sub-section 1 54 (3). Of course, the Minister may have had in mind the consequences of departing from a draft convention as exemplified in the Ellerman Lines case. How much simpler it would have been to remove from the Customs Act the existing provisions of section 154 and replace them with the words which put the convention into effect. How much simpler it would have been to leave section 155 in its present form instead of trying to insert wording about inland freight in Canada in any place where it might conceivably fit. If I can take the Minister at the table back to his law school days, he will remember the words in the case of Dean v Green, 1882, volume 8, Probate Division, page 79. The words of Lord Penzance, reported at page 89, state that it would be contrary to the recognised principles upon which courts of law construe Acts of Parliament to enlarge the conditions of the enactment and thereby restrain its operation by any reference to the words of a mere form given for convenience’s sake in a schedule. The Minister will also recall the further rule, admittedly applying only to private Acts of

Parliament, that the words in a schedule cannot be construed to enlarge the words in the Act. All of the notes in Pan II of the schedule in this Bill could have been inserted as interpretive clauses if necessary, but there is a larger issue. The Minister will recall the case of Salomons v Commissioners for Customs and Excise, 1967, Volume 2, Queen’s Bench Reports, page 116, in which a gentleman who had imported a polaroid camera into Britain had its value assessed under the convention we are now adopting and took the issue right through to the Court of Appeal. The Minister will remember that the case turned on the question of which market was to be considered in setting the market price. It is true that to make for certainty our courts follow the Court of Appeal in commercial matters. But when the law has been expounded as it was in Salomons’ case and the meaning of the words determined, why can it not be included in the definition clauses of a Bill such as this? In fact, if I read paragraphs 2.41 and 3.16 of the Australian Customs Valuations booklet correctly, I am doubtful whether the decisions of the court are being followed. The Minister will soon have to explain how section 152 of the Customs Act fits in with the proposition in paragraph 2.41 of that booklet.

Salomons’ case raises another issue. It was said that for the valuation of non-commercial goods the British customs had an entirely different system, one carried out by administrative action. Reading paragraph 2.43 of the valuation booklet it appears that there is also a similar system operating in Australia. It may be that simpler methods are needed to value noncommercial shipments, but if that is so it should be included in the legislation. Last year more than 800 000 Australians went abroad as tourists. Most tourists bring something back to Australia. Are all their souvenirs and mementos, their tape recorders and radios, to be valued by a method which differs from this legislation which is solemnly put before us as the method of valuing goods imported into Australia?

Mr Deputy Speaker, I have been putting to the House the proposition that when we undertake to adopt an international convention and then pass domestic legislation to do so it is all very well to place the convention in the legislation as a schedule, but it is just as important that the enacting legislation which puts the convention into effect should be clear to all those who have to deal with it. This Bill does not do that. It gives us an enormous piece of legislation by reference. I doubt whether the Minister himself can tell us just what part of the convention is affected by the proviso about inland Canadian freight.

The next point I want to take up with the Minister is the question of the placing of this legislation in the Customs Act at all. I am well aware of the provisions of section 55 of the Constitution. Before the Customs Tariff 1965 was introduced the tariff was no more than a schedule with some prefatory notes. But since that date it has been expanded. Section 7 provides the method by which the value of parts shall be defined. Section 8 defines how the f.o.b. price is determined- something closely akin to what we are now enacting. Section 3 1 defines the landed price. Why is it that if the value of a part is defined in one Act the value of the whole must be defined in another? Why, if the Minister is correct in his second reading speech when he says that paragraph (d) modifies the definition in the schedule to provide that imported goods be valued on an f.o.b. basis, is this being put in one Act when the power to define the f.o.b. price is in another?

What does this Bill mean when sub-section (2) of proposed section 154 states that this legislation will provide the basis for duty unless the tariff provides otherwise? I noticed that in the Customs Tariff Amendment Bill which this House passed a couple of weeks ago the title of the tariff had been changed. After 75 years of being one of the only 2 Acts of the Parliamentthe Excise Tariff is the other one- which did not have the word ‘ Act ‘ in its title, the Customs Tariff became the Customs Tariff Act. Presumably there was good reason for this. There must have been some discussions and the Minister will no doubt let us know those reasons as he will let us know just what the rules are that divide valuation provisions between the Customs Act and the Customs Tariff Act.

I now turn to the articles themselves. Article II sets out in broad terms the proposition that relationships between companies should be taken into account. It refers to a commercial, financial or other relationship, whether by contract or otherwise, between the seller or any person associated in business with him and the buyer or any person associated in business with him. How fortunate for the drafters of this convention that paragraph (2) of article II is able to define when persons are associated in business. Of course it is all right in a convention but when it comes to domestic legislation we need to be clear what we are talking about.

Mr McLeay:

– Hear, hear.

Mr Kelly:

– Hear, hear.

Mr Antony Whitlam:
GRAYNDLER, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I am glad that honourable members are interjecting. I know of their concern that this legislation should be able to be used by people concerned with the importation of goods to Australia. It has a very real effect on the cost of business and business recovery about which they talk so much. I am delighted to see that they are so interested. Reverting to this question of business association, the Attorneys-General of every State and the Commonwealth have discussed this matter. The companies legislation in each State and Territory goes to great lengths to define whether persons are directly or indirectly associated. Our own federal foreign investment legislation contains the same provisions. But in this case the corporate veil has been lifted in the widest words. It seems to me that we are merely asking for a court to cut down the words to an extent where they will make sense. I read in paragraph 3.41 of the valuation booklet, which seems to me to be the only source of information about what the legislation is intended to do but reads more like what the customs branch will do regardless, that the onus will be on the importer to show that his purchase was not influenced by such an association. And let him look to his list of shareholders, for an importer may find that he has associations, direct or indirect, which he has never even suspected. If he manages to make a good deal in his trading he will be suspect.

Next, I should like to turn to Article III. It looks all right on its face but note 2 gives me some concern. Harking back to the same valuation booklet, I found that paragraphs 3.44 to 3.50 inclusive all take into account actions which will occur in Australia after the goods have left the control of the customs branch. I anticipate that those provisions will involve a great deal of litigation and I can do no more than warn the Minister of what 6 Justices of the High Court of Australia said in the petrol rationing case, Wagner v. Gall, 79 Commonwealth Law Reports, at page 92.

Mr Howard:

-Is that where it is?

Mr Antony Whitlam:
GRAYNDLER, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– They state:

The power to control imports into Australia which is conferred by the power to make laws with respect to trade and commerce with other countries and the power with respect to taxation do not enable the Commonwealth Parliament to make laws with respect to the use or consumption of goods simply because they are imported goods or because they have been subject to customs taxation.

The 6 Justices of the High Court wrote those words. They are aware of the importance of this legislation. If the Minister who interjected cannot understand what I am saying he should read it in

Hansard The 20 minutes I have to speak will not permit me to go any more slowly or to go over the point again for him. Finally, I turn to what the valuation booklet calls ‘the recommendation of 1 1 June 1969’, always quoted in inverted commas, always referred to with great reverence. The recommendations sets out rules which appear at appendix 15 of the booklet which seem to have taken on the authority of law. If they are so important, if they are so basic, they should be in the legislation before this House. At the very least the Minister should be able to explain them to the House.

My colleague from Port Adelaide (Mr Young) has raised the problems of administrative discretions which run wild without appeal. I think those discretions are added to by the way this legislation has been drafted. It seems to me that we are now in the position of letting ourselves breach the canons of taxation which Adam Smith, an authority not often quoted by socialists like myself on this side of the House, put forward so long ago in his work The Wealth of Nations. He wrote:

The tax which each individual is bound to pay ought to be certain and not arbitrary. The time of payment, the manner of payment, the quantity to be paid ought all to be clear and plain to the contributor, and to every other person. Where it is otherwise, every person subject to the tax is put more or less in the power of the tax gatherer.

Like my colleague, the honourable member for Port Adelaide, I am looking to the Minister to give far more information to this House on the issues we have raised and to make suitable amendments which will take the power away from the tax gatherer and restore it to this House.

Mr HOWARD:
Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs · Bennelong · LP

– in reply- I thank those honourable members who have contributed to this debate and the Opposition for the support it has indicated it will give to this Bill. It is an extremely important measure with respect to customs valuation in Australia. I was particularly interested in the honourable member for Grayndler (Mr Antony Whitlam) calling to memory some very celebrated cases in the 19th century relating to customs valuation. I commend the honourable member on the research and thought he has devoted to this subject, but with this legislation the Government is a little more interested in the cases of Caterpillar Pty Ltd v. Carmody and Sarah Coventry Pty Ltd v. Carmody which were heard not in the 19th century but in 1974 and 1975. Both of those cases have, as the honourable member for Grayndler will freely acknowledge, led to this particular amendment Bill. It was the decision of the High Court of Australia in both of those cases, which cast serious doubt on the existing valuation system in our customs legislation, which led not only this Government but also the previous Government to believe that a change in the valuation system was necessary and that an adoption of the Brussels definition of value was a desirable course of action.

I remind the House, in case there should be any doubt that this legislation has been introduced without warning or suddenly flung upon an unsuspecting commercial community, that it was first publicly mooted in July 1 973 by, I believe, Senator Murphy when he was Minister for Customs and Excise. It was then suggested that there would be a change in the system of valuation and that consideration would be given to the introduction of the Brussels definition of value. A Green Paper has been available since February 1975- some 15 months ago. Customs officers have been conducting lectures and seminars for importers and agents for several months. Any suggestion, therefore, that this legislation has been suddenly dropped out of the sky and comes as a surprise to those in the commercial community who will have to cope with it is to mislead the House. I am not suggesting that either the honourable member for Port Adelaide (Mr Young) or the honourable member for Grayndler were deliberately suggesting that, but there was just the faintest hint in both their speeches that somehow or other the Government had not treated this matter seriously. The Government recognises that it is a fundamental change. This is an extremely technical matter as the context of the 2 speeches made on behalf of the Opposition indicates, but in many respects the system of valuation that is going to be adopted will, by its very nature, remove a lot of the doubts and difficulties of construction which formed the basis of the speech of the honourable member for Grayndler.

Essentially the Brussels definition of value as a system of valuation is a notional concept of valuation based on the price that goods would fetch at a sale in the open market between a buyer and a seller independent of each other. The honourable member for Grayndler took me back to law school days. Might I take him back to the provisions of the sixth schedule of the Stamp Duties Act of New South Wales. In many respects the concept that the real value of something is what it would fetch on an open market between a buyer and a seller is not only an equitable system of valuation but is also a system of valuation which most people in a commercial environment will understand. We all know that commercial transactions can, by various routes and various associations, perhaps wittingly or unwittingly conceal an arrangement or an association between a buyer and a seller, and that the provisions of revenue legislation both at a State and Federal level are directed to revealing the true nature of the relationship between the parties to a particular transaction. In fact, in the 2 cases that I have cited which were so critical to the Government’s decision to introduce this legislation the High Court, by reason of its decision, indicated that the existing provisions dealing with that situation were inadequate. What we have with this new system of valuation is a concept of real value on the basis of the transaction being between parties who were at arm’s length and who were independent of each other. That is going to be the basis of the valuation.

The honourable member for Port Adelaide quite rightly raised the question of the Government’s preference for the fob system as opposed to the cif system. This was a fair question to raise. It is not giving away any great State secrets to say that this matter exercised the mind of the Government when it was making a decision on this. Arguments can be advanced on both sides. There are arguments of certainty and perhaps, as the honourable member for Port Adelaide said, there are some social arguments in favour of the cif basis of valuation. Certainly the majority of countries with which Australia trades- there are 2 important exceptions- has a cif basis of valuation but Australia, being remote from many of its trading partners, has a situation where freight costs, particularly air freight costs, are an important element. It is not difficult to reach the conclusion that in sheer money terms and in sheer duty terms an fob system would produce quite different results and quite different levels of duty from a cif system. On balance the Government felt that an fob system of valuation was preferable to a cif system of valuation.

Without in any way suggesting that there are not arguments the cannot be advanced in favour of the cif system the Government felt on balance, particularly having regard to the remoteness of Australia from many of her trading partners, that an fob system of valuation was preferable. One has also to take into account the desire to minimise disruption when a change of this nature is made. Australian importers have been used to a system of fob when applying our valuation systems. That was another factor the Government took into account in deciding to opt for an fob system. However this is a matter which will nat.urally be kept under review by the Government. The experience of the operation of the new system will naturally be looked at carefully.

The honourable members for Port Adelaide and Grayndler were a little concerned about the brevity of my second reading speech. I am touched that they should think that I should spend more time speaking in this House but, of course, it is the content of a second reading speech that really matters. This particular legislation, as I indicated earlier, has been mooted for a long period. The concept of the change in the valuation system can be reduced to a fairly limited number of words. It is a concept that I explained a few moments ago. It is a concept that has been explained in the second reading speech. It is a concept that I believe draws a majority support- a very strong majority support- from those in the commercial community who will have to contend with this legislation.

Concern was also expressed regarding the availability of appeals against valuation determinations. It is understandable concern. Reference has been made to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act. Honourable members on both sides of the House will forgive me for reminding the House that when the Administrative Appeals Tribunal legislation was introduced by the previous Government last year it contained no schedules at all. But for the action of the then Opposition in the Senate there would not be any schedules in that legislation. If the Government of the day had had its way we would have had a skeleton piece of legislation which established a procedure, a machinery and a path for administrative appeals but which did not specify any pieces of legislation or any categories of decisions in respect of which appeals could be brought. My understanding of the matter insofar as customs valuations are concerned is that provision is made for appeals to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal where there is a dispute as to value and that that provision is to be found in Part XII of the Schedule at page 29 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act. So the claim made by members of the Opposition that there is no provision for appeals in these matters is, according to my understanding, an incorrect claim. I would respectfully refer those honourable members on the other side of the House who raised this matter to an examination of page 29 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act.

The honourable member for Riverina (Mr Sullivan) sought from me an assurance that where there was any danger to local industry, where levels of protection to local industry might be threatened by the introduction of this new system of valuation, we would act very quickly to see that references were made to the Industries

Assistance Commission. I am happy to repeat for the benefit not only of the honourable member for Riverina but also the House generally that where significant variations do occur with adverse effects to local industries provision will be made for the Industries Assistance Commission to consider possible tariff adjustments for a period of 6 months after the implementation of this change, which will come into operation on 1 July of this year. I am happy to repeat that assurance. It is a genuine assurance. There is nothing token about it. We do recognise that in some cases it might be necessary for the Industries Assistance Commission to examine whether tariff adjustments should be made. We were particularly concerned that this particular provision should be made and I am more than happy to give the honourable member for Riverina an assurance in those terms.

The only other comment that I would like to make is that when a new system comes into operation in an area like this no matter how much warning has been given of it, no matter how much opportunity has been provided for comments and for submissions from interested parties, there is always a natural disposition to put off until fairly near to the operative date an application of the mind to the provisions of the new legislation. Understandably there will be a period after 1 July, which is when the new system comes into operation, when the importers will be making a genuine attempt to comply with the terms of the legislation and when, through no fault of their own, through no desire on their part to mislead the Customs Bureau, mistakes are made and incorrect statements are made regarding value. I am pleased to tell the House that the Customs Bureau has had detailed consultation with the Customs Agents Federation and that a detailed indication has been given to the federation of a procedure which will be adopted to accommodate examples where a genuine attempt has been made to comply with the terms of the new system of valuation but where, through no fault of those importers who are endeavouring to comply with it, some incorrect statement of value has been made. Those procedures have been explained in detail to the federation in a letter from the Comptroller of Customs.

There is a recognition that for a period of 3 months transitional and administrative arrangements of this nature should operate. The view has been taken that, after that period of time having regard to the long lead-in to this change, sufficient time will have elapsed to enable importers to comply with the terms of the new provisions. But the Customs Bureau and my department certainly recognise that there will be some genuine problems. There would be some genuine problems even if the implementation of this legislation were put off for a further period of 12 months because it is in the nature of commercial transactions when one changes a system of this nature which has operated for so many years that, no matter how much warning one gives and no matter how much time one spends explaining the provisions of the new requirements to those who will be required to comply with them, there are nonetheless during the transitional period understandable teething problems. Mistakes will be made but, providing genuine attempts are made to comply, agents and importers will not be penalised.

Again I thank those who have contributed to the debate. I believe that the change in the valuation system that the House is about to approve will remove the doubts that have arisen in recent years regarding the efficacy of the existing system. It will therefore protect the integrity of the revenue. I believe that the concept of valuation contained in this legislation will be more readily understood after it has been in operation and will provide a more equitable basis for the valuation of goods than has prevailed in the past.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

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

page 2147

FOREIGN TAKEOVERS AMENDMENT BILL 1976

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 29 April, on motion by Mr Lynch:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr HURFORD:
Adelaide

-The Opposition supports this Bill. Frankly this Bill, like the Customs Amendment Bill, which has just passed through this House, is not one of those Bills which will rivet the attention of the gallery or those listening to this debate at home and have them lifting the roof with their cheers. In fact, it is quite a complicated machinery Bill. Two of the amendments it contains will tend to improve the effectiveness of control over foreign investment. For example, the repeal of section 29 of the Foreign Takeovers Act will ensure that foreign and domestic companies are treated in the same way under the Trade Practices Act. Under section 29 of the Foreign Takeovers Act the Treasurer has the power to issue a certificate allowing a transaction involving foreign interests to go ahead if he is satisfied that the transaction is not contrary to the national interest. However, this certificate can be regarded as being binding on the Trade Practices Tribunal, so preventing that tribunal from scrutinising transactions involving foreign persons or companies. Repeal of section 29 does not remove the Government’s responsibility for scrutinising transactions with overseas interests. Rather it ensures that, where required, two assessments will be made- one by the Foreign Investment Review Board and the other by the Trade Practices Tribunal. This double assessment will ensure after this Bill goes through that, if anything, greater care is taken with foreign investment proposals. Certificates which have already been issued will not be invalidated by this amendment.

A second amendment strengthening the Act involves expanding the types of foreign control which the Act regulates. By adding the word ‘practices’ to clause 8, additional means by which foreign control might be obtained in a company are covered by the Act. This concept of regulating ‘practices’, which are not described in detail in the Act, was used in the original Companies (Foreign Take-overs) Act.

Other amendments clarify the way in which the Act is expected to work. Section 26 of the Act requires that any foreign interests intending to acquire a substantial shareholding in an Australian company must notify the Treasurer. It was not the intention of the Labor Government in introducing this clause to prevent preliminary discussion about transactions. The important point was that no legally binding agreement should be made until there has been adequate time for scrutiny by the Treasury. It is therefore appropriate that this amendment allows conditional agreements to be discussed and made as long as they do not become binding until approval is given.

The other significant amendment in this Bill is to section 38 of the Act. The amendment protects the interests of Australians who might be penalised by actions which are inconsistent with the Act. The Labor Government had this machinery Bill in mind itself when it was removed from office. It certainly could not in any way oppose its passage through this House. For the reasons I have given the Opposition supports these generally technical amendments.

Mr BAILLIEU:
La Trobe

-On behalf of the Government I thank the honourable member for Adelaide (Mr Hurford) for his remarks. I think he has made it clear to the House that there is nothing particularly contentious in the Bill we have before us. The legislation puts into effect amendments which were foreshadowed by the Treasurer (Mr Lynch) in his speech to the Parliament on 1 April 1976. The Bill does not materially alter the existing Foreign Takeovers Act which has been in operation since 1 January 1976. It does, however, remove certain shortcomings that exist in the Act and at the same time firms up aspects that have been part of Liberal-National Country Party policy for a very considerable time.

The first matter to be dealt with refers to what the Treasurer called interlocking provisions between the foreign takeovers legislation and the Trade Practices Act. Honourable members should not be too disturbed by that terminology. I have heard it said that this is highly technical legislation, but I can assure the House that it cannot be all that complicated because alas I can understand it. However, the fact is that under the existing Foreign Takeovers Act an overseas investor as defined could be presented with a quite unreasonable advantage relative to a local investor when seeking to take over or to merge with an existing Australian enterprise. At present an overseas investor must satisfy the Treasurer that his request to take over an enterprise in Australia complies with the Foreign Takeovers Act. This, of course, is treated by the Treasurer in a thoroughly confidential manner. However, as the Act exists at the moment, if the Treasurer is satisfied with the application from the foreign company the approval is recognised by the Trade Practices Commission and consequentially the foreign company is at liberty to negotiate.

Let us compare this with the position of a local investor, whether he be an individual or a company seeking to take over or to merge with an existing Australian enterprise. Such an applicant may be required to go before a public hearing of the Trade Practices Commission and satisfy that body the proposal meets with the criteria under which the Commission operates. The applicant’s affairs and the proposal are exposed to the public view and equally the proposal is exposed to competitors whether they be local or foreign. Clearly this is an inequitable situation between local and foreign investors and it should not be tolerated any longer. I think it is correct to say that the previous Government had given notice that it was going to take the step that is encompassed in this Bill.

It is also important that one or two other apparent anomalies are to be removed and guidelines are to be tightened up as a result of this Bill. For instance, previously it was unlawful for prospective parties to a takeover under the foreign takeovers legislation to conduct negotiations in respect of the proposal. This was never intended in the spirit of the original Bill which is now the Act. It was never intended that that should be the situation and quite clearly it is impractical to expect such a provision to remain. This is a matter which is causing the Government very considerable concern because it is quite possible that there would be in the country people who have unwittingly broken the Act in this respect and for that reason, particularly in view of the fact that there are very considerable penalties which would apply to people who contravene the Act in this way, clearly this has to be tidied up and removed. This is being made retrospective to 1 January 1976 which is the date on which the existing Act was given assent. That actually leads into quite a deep subject which there is no need to pursue at the moment but if in fact there was a situation uncovered where people or a company had been in contravention of the Act reinstatement could have been required and that obviously would lead to a very untidy situation and one which the participants could not reasonably have been expected to foresee. Particularly where share trading or other operations had been going on or may have been going on, it could have led to a very delicate position which I do not think anybody on either side of the House would want to see remain.

We are grateful that the Opposition has given its indication that it is supporting the amendments that are before the House. This is one of those occasions when both sides of the Parliament can be seen to be working in the common interest, the common good and to meet the national need and I think as such it is something for which both sides of the House are grateful. On behalf of the Government I thank the honourable member for Adelaide for making his remarks so succinct. There was no need for him to be so modest about the entertainment that he was about to give us. We enjoyed his speech immensely as we always enjoy Opposition speeches when they are supporting what the Government is doing.

Mr LUSHER:
Hume

-It is a pleasure indeed, as the honourable member for La Trobe (Mr Baillieu) indicated, to take pan in the debate which has been led by the eminent member for Adelaide (Mr Hurford) particularly as he has indicated that the Opposition is supporting a Government measure. The Bill before the House is a very technical one. It is a machinery Bill. It is designed to close loopholes which exist in the Foreign Takeovers Act which came into effect on 1 January of this year. The points have all been made quite adequately by speakers who have preceded me, but I think it is probably worth indicating that some of the provisions of this Bill were foreshadowed by the Treasurer (Mr Lynch) in his capacity as the shadow Treasurer in October of last year when foreign investment legislation was being debated. At that stage the Treasurer expressed doubts about the relationship between the Trade Practices Act and the Foreign Takeovers Act and indicated that there was a possible area of advantage for foreign owned companies over Australian owned companies in applications before the Trade Practices Commission. Amongst other things, this legislation will remove the interrelationship between the Foreign Takeovers Act and the Trade Practices Act so that foreign interests no longer will be able to obtain automatic approval from the Trade Practices Commission consequent upon approval for their proposal under the Foreign Takeovers Act.

There are 3 or 4 other machinery matters which are of some substance and which it is appropriate to amend at this time. The substance of the Act does not really change. As has been indicated by other speakers, it is basically a machinery matter. The range of control situations which the Act is designed to cover has run into some problems. Clause 5 extends the area of control by including the words ‘or practices’ after the word ‘arrangements’ in section 8 of the principal Act. That is designed to expand the role of the Act in covering all the possible situations. The existing Act also does not exempt share or asset acquisitions which had been approved prior to the commencement of this Act and which had not been effected by that date. It was never intended that the people involved should have to re-apply. Clause 6 alters that situation.

There has been a problem with the 40-day period laid down under section 26 of the existing Act. It was never intended, as far as we can see, that the 40-day restriction should operate in such a way as to inhibit normal commercial activity. Clause 7 will make the necessary changes so that if the Government agrees with something the 40-day requirement need not be fulfilled. The same thing will apply in regard to increasing shareholdings in an Australian corporation.

Some doubts have been raised whether transactions in contravention of section 26 would be valid. There is no reason to raise doubts about these transactions. Clause 10 will see that there is no question of invalidity resulting from decisions that might have been made unwittingly in contravention of section 26. That amendment will be retrospective to 1 January, the date on which the Act commenced, so that anybody who may have been technically in breach of the Act will not in fact suffer any consequence as a result of that action.

It is very much a machinery Bill. As the honourable member for Adelaide pointed out, it is not a compelling piece of legislation. I think the House has agreed unanimously with the initiative of the Treasurer in bringing forward these matters for amendment. I believe that my Party, the National Country Party, is completely behind the Government and the Treasurer, as the Opposition is fully behind the Treasurer on this question. I think there is no point in extending the debate other than to say that the whole area of foreign investment in Australia is one about which everybody in this Parliament shares a significant concern. The measures we are debating will seek to improve the control that the Government has and also to see that the intention of the Act which was introduced last year and which is now being amended will in fact be implemented. I commend the Bill.

Mr Eric Robinson:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

– The question of foreign investment in Australia is of course a tremendously significant one. It is a matter of interest to the nation that this Government welcomes such investment in Australia. When we consider the enormous damage that was done nationally to the economy by the attitude of the previous Labor Administration it is significantly obvious -

Mr Hurford:

- Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Minister Assisting the Treasurer has just come into the House. He has not heard the debate. He does not realise that it has been on the subject of the technical aspects of this Bill. There has been a bi-partisan debate in which we deliberately did not go into the subject of foreign investment. The Minister is disrupting the debate by his extraordinary performance. Mr Deputy Speaker, I ask you to keep him to the point of the debate.

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

-I ask the Minister to refer to the subject of the Bill.

Mr Eric Robinson:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

-Regrettably, the Treasurer (Mr Lynch) is unable to be in the chamber tonight. A very pleasant opportunity was pressed upon me and gladly accepted by me to state the Government’s attitude and the fact that we welcome enormously foreign investment in Australia. I thought it quite proper that I should draw some comparison between the attitude of the present Government and the attitude of the previous Administration. If the honourable member for Adelaide (Mr Hurford), the shadow Treasurer, gets sensitive about these sorts of things he will just have to live with it. A Foreign Takeovers Bill is obviously concerned with the question of foreign investment in Australia. I cannot imagine that even the honourable member for Adelaide cannot recognise that simple fact. All foreign investment widens and deepens our economy. Therefore we are very conscious of the overall responsibilities we have in the conduct of all aspects of foreign investment, including those of a technical nature which are the subject of the Bill before the House.

It is important that foreign investment strikes a balance between what we need for capital structure and what are the aspirations and desires of the Australian people at large. So any Bill of significance with regard to foreign investment is one in which this Government takes pride for the encouragement it is giving to foreign investment in various areas. I refer again to the tremendous damage that was done by the Labor Administration. It discouraged foreign investment throughout Australia. The Government has now set out, as outlined by the Treasurer in a statement to the Parliament flexible guidelines that will be followed as the Government does all that is possible to encourage the greatest possible investment consistent with national aspirations.

I regret my inability to be in the chamber and listen to the entire debate. The Bill is a technical one. It provides for the screening of foreign takeovers of Australian businesses and the prohibition of such takeovers where they are determined to be against the national interest. That is what the Government’s policy is all about- the national interest. That is what makes it different from the policies which are encouraged by the previous Administration. The Bill provides for amendments to the Act which were foreshadowed in the Treasurer’s statement to the Parliament on 1 April when he set out quite clearly for the benefit of honourable members and the electorate the policy on foreign investment in Australia. This Bill retrospectively corrects certain technical deficiencies which have become apparant since the Act’s commencement on 1 January 1976. The main amendments concern the compulsory notification requirements of section 26 of the Act. The amendments will ensure that proposals which were approved but not effected prior to 1 January 1976 need not be renotified, that a proposal notified under section 26 may be proceeded with as soon as the Government approval is given and that conditional agreement to acquire shares may be entered into without attracting a penalty.

In addition the Bill also removes the link between the foreign takeovers legislation and the trade practices legislation. This was the link which enabled foreign takeover proposals to be granted automatic authorisation under the trade practices legislation. Its removal will ensure the same treatment for both Australian and foreign interests under that legislation. The Government welcomes the opportunity for this Bill to be discussed. It thanks all those who contributed to the debate, for the interest taken in it and generally for the interest, sensitive though it may be, of the Opposition. We believe that the passage of this legislation is desirable. It will form an integral part of the Government’s overall attitude to foreign investment and its overall concern to see that there is a fairminded approach. Particularly important is that the Bill now breaks the link with the trade practices legislation. On behalf of the Government I thank all honourable members who took part in the debate.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

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

page 2150

PSYCHOTROPIC SUBSTANCES BILL 1976

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 29 April, on motion by Mr Howard:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
Smith · Kingsford

-The Opposition supports the Bill. The Bill is directly related to the Convention on Psychotropic Substances adopted at Vienna on 21 February 1971. The text of the Convention is set out in the schedule to the Bill. The Bill is of small content and virtually adopts only one segment of the Convention which I notice is in Article 12 3(d) which states:

Consignments entering or leaving the territory of a Party not accompanied by an export authorisation shall be detained by the competent authorities.

The fact is that where a consignment enters the country from a consignor who obviously is outside the country addressed to a consignee who is also outside the country- the consignment is merely passing through- we have decided that we can interfere to the extent of examining the goods, and unless there is an export authorisation those goods can be confiscated. That is the only penalty. The Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs (Mr Howard) quite properly referred to the fact that there are other conventions, in particular the Convention on Narcotic Drugs of 1961 to which we are also a party and about which legislation has been passed.

This Bill gives an opportunity to talk about what we as a national government can do in respect of international conventions and whether we can enter the whole field to try to perhaps control and regulate the abuse of narcotics and, of course, the use of other drugs. I am advised by many medical advisers, including those in this House, that there is quite a difference between the States as to what is deemed to be appropriate prescriptions for the use of certain substances. For example, I understand that some of the substances in Schedule 2 could not really be prescribed in New South Wales but could well be prescribed in Victoria. Cases can be found in New South Wales of addiction to one of those substances because of a prescription originally prescribed in another State. We now get the situation of the addiction being treated in New South Wales where perhaps the drug would never have been prescribed in the first instances.

I mention this on the basis that Australia as a nation has a constitutional power to enter into international conventions and by so doing obtain a legal power by which it might be able- I say this with respect- to use the power more intelligently than perhaps to have this disparity of use between various States. One of the matters now mentioned is that the illicit international trade in psychotropics requires a co-ordinated, international response if it is to be controlled. The trade in narcotics is persistent and extensive because the substances are grown in relatively few regions of the world. I know that at this stage I am talking about narcotics which are, of course, a little different from psychotropic substances; nevertheless the addiction is there.

One of the problems in Australia at present in regard to narcotics is that the legislation ought to be more embracing than it is now. For example, I understand that there has been a major increase in the use of heroin in Australia. The addiction is there. The substance is imported; it is not manufactured here. There is no doubt in the minds of members of the medical profession that there is a very high-powered international organisation making very substantial profits from the use of heroin by getting pushers to promote it amongst our young. This is quite a tragedy because I understand that anybody addicted to heroin has to have a financial resource of about $60 a day. Honourable members can understand the sort of crime potential there is if a financial resource of that sort is necessary. The matter that we have been discussing not only in this legislation but also in other legislation is important.

I feel it is worthy of comment when looking at this Convention- I make no criticism of the Government but I understand there is some sensitivity in the States- to address our minds to the fact that the Bill does not give effect to the requirement that countries shall require certain substances to be supplied only on a medical prescription, as outlined in Article 9. Article 10 requires each country to insist on certain warnings on packages and to prohibit advertising. The BUI does not mention this. The BUI does not deal with the matter of records referred to in Article 11. That Article contains detailed requirements on countries to insist on the keeping of records by virtually all persons handling psychotropic substances. As I said before, the only provision of the Convention given effect to by the Bill is that contained in Ankle 12. Ankle 15 requires the establishment of a system of inspection of manufacturers, distributors, exporters and importers. The Bill does not give effect to this.

Article 20 requires action to be taken in relation to treatment, education and rehabilitation of persons who abuse psychotropic substances. The BUI does not deal with this, but this and other matters obviously may not require legislative action. Article 21 specifically refers to action against illicit traffic at the national level. This, it would seem, would justify action under the external affairs power. Article 22 makes elaborate provision about penalties and allows treatment as an alternative to punishment. This is to apply to acts contrary to a law adopted in pursuance of the Convention. By not adopting such a law, the requirements about penalties are avoided. Article 32 of the convention limits the reservations that a country may make when ratifying the convention. Clause 3 of this Ankle, however, permits reservations beyond these limits in certain circumstances.

In summary, the Bill implements only one of the numerous obligations imposed on countries which are parties to the convention. The Bill authorises Australia to ratify the convention and thereby become a party to it. Some of the obligations of the convention may be implemented by other Commonwealth legislation or may be implemented by State or territorial legislation. In some areas the convention requires action of a non legislative character. Under the external affairs power most if not all the stipulations of the convention could be given effect to. Apparently at this stage the Government does not wish to take that approach. The alternative is to ensure that the total law of Australia- Commonwealth, State and territorial- accords with the convention before the convention is ratified, unless it is proposed to ratify with reservations, an approach which the convention itself discourages.

It is doubtful whether the law in Australia fully accords with the convention. To say whether it does or not would require examination of laws dealing with licensing of persons who handle psychotropic substances, laws about packaging and advertising, laws dealing with records to be kept in relation to psychotropic instances and laws controlling the availability of these substances among others. I think that this legislation is a step in the right direction. Let me take this opportunity to refer generally to the world scene. The Convention on Narcotic Drugs and the Convention on Psychotropic Substances are significant examples of the kinds of successes for which the United Nations Organisation is rarely praised. Often criticised for its inability to eliminate the military excesses of its members, the United Nations does have some good- in some cases, spectacular- success stories to its credit, especially in the field of health and social care. They are examples of the kind of concerted international co-operation which, if produced in other fields of international relations, could yield significant easing in international tensions.

As the convention says in its preamble, it is a convention concerned with the health and welfare of mankind. It notes with concern the public health and social problems resulting from the abuse of certain psychotropic substances. The idea of the convention is to prevent and combat abuse of such substances and the illicit traffic to which it gives rise. The Bill goes a substantial way towards that idea. Accordingly, the Opposition supports the measure.

Dr RICHARDSON:
Tangney

Australia has long been an active supporter of an international approach to the suppression of drug trafficking and abuse. This Bill, although it is short and has an esoteric title, is an important Bill in the sense that it will contribute to blocking the trafficking in these substances. I think it is worth while to define them, as the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs (Mr Howard) did in his second reading speech. ‘Psychotropic substance’ is a term used to refer to substances that have the capacity to produce a state of dependence and central nervous system stimulation or depression resulting in hallucinations or disturbances in motor function, thinking, behaviour, perception or mood and in respect of which there is evidence of a likelihood of abuse so as to constitute a public health and social problem. The hallucinogens or psychotropic substances are drugs which interfere with a person’s mind.

This Bill seeks to block the transport of these substances through Australia to other countries. Our existing legislation does not allow for the control of drugs falling under the Convention on Psychotropic Substances which enter Australia in transit to another country. This Bill is designed to fill that gap. There is a compelling need to answer the increasing challenge of drug traffickers operating into Australia both as a market and as a transit point for trafficking to New Zealand. Drug intelligence to date indicates that Australia has emerged as a market worthy of inclusion in regular smuggling routes and as a transit point, especially to New Zealand; that there has been an alarming rise in the traffic of extremely dangerous drugs such as heroin, morphine and lysergic acid; that there has been a resurgence in the popularity of the hallucinogens, particularly lysergic acid, because the makers have corrected dosage /purity deficiencies thus eliminating unfavourable side effects; that there is evidence that organised crime is involved in trafficking; and that increased resources are being used by organised crime further to refine methods of the actual process of smuggling. For example, there are more sophisticated methods of concealment especially of large shipments in cargo and vehicles, and the presence of professional couriers carrying expertly forged documents.

In recent years films have been made about drug trafficking into the United States of America from France, where the laboratories are situated in Marseilles. Opium from Turkey and the Golden Triangle is shipped to clandestine laboratories in France and from there the heroin passes to the prime market, the United States of America. As I indicated, there are sophisticated methods of concealment in cargo and even in vehicles. Couriers are passing drugs in increasing numbers and are using Australia as a transit point for carrying drugs to New Zealand.

Two things emerge form the current legislation: There is increasing sophistication in the methods of concealment of the drugs, and it becomes increasingly difficult to isolate and identify the couriers even with the help of computer technology. It is germane to look at some of the figures of drug seizures in Australia from 1972 to 1975. In 1972 2746 grams of opium were seized. This increased in 1975 to 4816 grams, a 200 per cent increase. In 1972, 2019 grams of heroin were seized. This almost trebled to just under 6000 grams. There was also a significant change in the amount of lysergic acid seized. As indicated, with increasing purity of the lysergic acid and the fact that the people in the local drug scene and in New Zealand are becoming more sophisticated about the types of drugs they need on which to get high, more peopole are turning to hallucinogens for trips. It is no accident that people like Dr Timothy Leary, the guru of the hallucinogen users in the United States, have become popular in the underworld and the peripheral fringe of this country.

I think it is important to understand that this Bill helps to cut down and isolate the people who are using Australia as a transit point. It is also important to note that Australia will be acting quickly to fulfil completely its obligations under the Convention on Psychotropic Substances. As one of the originating nations of the convention, Australia must soon ratify its terms so as to maintain credibility as a nation vitally concerned with the eradication of drug abuse. At this stage about 30 countries have ratified the convention. It requires the ratification of 40 countries to become operative. Therefore it is desirable that Australia should ratify the convention before it becomes operative as we have long been an active supporter of an international approach to the suppression of drug trafficking and abuse which the previous speaker, the honourable member for Kingsford-Smith (Mr Lionel Bowen), described. It is important to note philosophically that drugs of this type interfere with and cause problems in the community amongst the people who are most susceptible to them. I refer to people who are perhaps inadequate; people who may need medical care; and young people in the capital cities of Australia who are so susceptible and vulnerable to these drugs which usually are introduced to them in gradations. The drugs they start on may not be the hard drugs they mainline on.

As drug traffickers and users become more sophisticated they tend to use increasingly dangerous drugs which shorten alarmingly the time from initial use to degradation and destruction. I refer, of course, to lysergic acid and cocaine. It is important for the community at large to note that in the United States of America more people are now turning to cocaine, or ‘mush’ as it is known, for their kicks and that this is causing alarming problems in that country. It is important that this BUI be passed speedily. All members of this House, all members of the Parliament, should understand that it just closes one basket in the hope that we can prevent trafficking and the transit of these substances to New Zealand and other countries, and thus cut down on the mental degradation and anguish that use of these drugs causes.

Mr HODGES:
Petrie

-The Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs ( Mr Howard ) is to be congratulated for bringing the Psychotropic Substances BUI before the Parliament. It is one thing to recognise national conventions; it is another to ratify them officially. As was mentioned by the Opposition spokesman on this subject, the honourable member for KingsfordSmith (Mr Lionel Bowen), this BUI covers only one aspect of the United Nations Convention on Psychotropic Substances but nevertheless it is a step in the right direction. The BUI seeks the approval of Parliament to the ratifying of that Convention. I trust that the remainder of the Convention Will be looked at at some time in the near future.

Tonight I want to draw the attention of the House to two or three matters relating to drug trafficking and drug abuse in this country. In speaking about the importance of this Bill I particularly want to mention a report produced by a Senate Committee. Probably little is known in this Parliament or indeed in this country about this report on drug trafficking and drug abuse. I believe that the Senate Select Committee on Drug Trafficking and Drug Abuse produced it after some two or three years of deliberations. It points up the problems that exist in this country. In passing this BUI relating to a particular section of the international convention I believe we are tightening up just one other loophole that exists or could exist. LSD, or lysergic acid diethylamide as it is correctly known, is a drug which, as stated by the previous speaker, the honourable member for Tangney (Dr Richardson), can be brought into this country in small containers. It is a very powerful drug, as was mentioned by the previous speaker who is a medico. Its ease of concealment means that it is very easy for it to be introduced into this country.

The report produced by the Senate Select Committee on Drug Trafficking and Drug Abuse is worthy of the attention of every honourable member. It deals not only with the abuse of drugs that are readily available in this country but also touches on the important aspect of the over-supply of drugs by the medical profession, and this is a real problem. The hard drugs that are mentioned are coming mainly from SouthEast Asia, India, the United States of America and parts of Europe.

I understand that the Minister wants to get this Bill passed through the House before it adjourns. I have much pleasure in supporting its passage but I want to refer briefly to the excellent work of the men of his Department. In my capacity as Chairman of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation I have had some contact with these men. I know of their dedication and of the excellent work they are doing in the drug detection area. I trust that the Minister will give them every encouragement in the future to rid Australia of the scourge of drug trafficking that is so detrimental to the health of an affluent nation such as we have in Australia.

Mr HOWARD:
Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs · Bennelong · LP

– in reply- I would like to thank the House for the bipartisan approach adopted to this legislation. As the honourable member for Kingsford-Smith (Mr Lionel Bowen) rightly points out, it only ratifies a section of the Convention on Psychotropic Substances. I will take into account the comments he made about other sections of the Convention. I do not think he would mind my saying that this Government takes a slightly different approach to the external affairs power under the Commonwealth Constitution from that adopted by our predecessors. Indeed, the Government takes the view that of the matters covered by the Convention it is only in the area relating to trafficking that the Commonwealth is directly and indisputably involved and that other matters are more appropriately matters for the States.

I should mention that recently there was a meeting of a standing body on the control of drugs. That body is chaired by the Permanent Head of my Department and it includes State officials. Arising out of that discussion the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolmn Fraser) is entering into correspondence with the State Premiers on questions relating to drug penalties and drug abuse. I would like to mention to the House that the decision taken by this Government to ratify this Convention follows such a decision taken by the previous Government in 1973. To that extent there is a completely bipartisan approach by the Government and the Opposition. I appreciate the remarks made by the honourable member for Petrie (Mr Hodges). As this is the first piece of legislation relating to drugs that I have dealt with since becoming responsible for the Narcotics Bureau which is within my Department, I would like to take this opportunity to pay a tribute to the work of the Bureau. It is extremely difficult work, as the honourable member for Tangney (Dr Richardson) mentioned. Criminal methods in this area are becoming increasingly sophisticated. I think all honourable members would be aware that in recent days the Narcotics Bureau has achieved success in tracking down the smuggling of a large quantity of drugs. I would like personally to take this opportunity of recording my appreciation, and I am sure that of all honourable members, for the extremely difficult work undertaken in connection with an extremely difficult problem. Drug abuse is nowhere near the problem in Australia that it is in other countries but nonetheless it is a very serious one, particularly in the larger cities of Australia, and it is not going to be overcome overnight.

There is no single piece of legislation that a government can pass that is going to cure the drug problem but this Bill that the House is about to pass will add yet another weapon to the armoury that we have with which to fight this problem. I take up the remarks made by the honourable member for Tangney. The Bill will indeed strengthen the capacity of the Commonwealth authorities to prevent trafficking in drugs. To that extent I appreciate the support given to it by the Opposition thus facilitating a speedy passage of the legislation through the House.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

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

page 2154

ADJOURNMENT

Court Proceedings: Privilege -Courier Services- Primary Producers: Unemployment Benefit- Allegations against Member

Mr SPEAKER:

– It being 10.30 p.m., in accordance with the order of the House of 18 February 1976 1 propose the question:

That the House do now adjourn.

Mr NEIL:
St George

– I rise to deal with one of the most serious abuses of the privilege of this House in recent times and to ask you, Mr Speaker, to consider this matter and to consider a reference to the Committee of Privileges. On 29 April of this year the honourable member for Hunter (Mr James) raised certain matters and dealt with a previous court proceeding in New South Wales in 1974. In respect of Mr David Rofe, who is a Queen’s Counsel to whom the honourable member for Hunter has referred in this House before, he said that apparently Mr Rofe’s knowledge of libel laws was pitiful because in 1974 he acted for a John Giles Bourke in a defamation action against the then New South Wales Leader of the Opposition, Mr Wran. He said that the basis was flimsy and that the evidence that was tendered in the action against Mr Wran was nothing more than a Hansard reference from the New South Wales Legislative Assembly covering comments made by Mr Wran about the plaintiff. Then there was a statement that in effect schoolboy lawyers would know better than to do this and naturally the case was swiftly dismissed. The facts are not as was stated by the honourable member for Hunter. It is extremely important that even in this day and age when we see scurrilous allegations being made without foundation by members of Parliament at least there be some accuracy or no total inaccuracy; at least there should not be the manifest deceit that we have seen in this particular instance.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The honourable gentleman will withdraw that remark.

Mr NEIL:

- Mr Speaker, I withdraw. There is a matter however that I shall be putting to you, Mr Speaker, in relation to a conspiracy to deceive the House, but I shall come to that in a moment. I have had communication from Mr Rofe about this matter. To substantiate the matter I have obtained certain of the court documents. The facts that appear to be clearly established are that Mr Bourke brought an action against Mr Wran without at that time having the advice of counsel. Subsequently he sought the advice of Mr Rofe, who provided a written opinion. I have a copy of that written opinion. The written opinion was to the effect that the action could not succeed and should therefore be withdrawn. Subsequently, on 2 December 1974, the court ordered that by consent the proceedings be dismissed and that the plaintiff should pay the defendant’s costs. No evidence was tendered; there was no hearing; the action was not dismissed and the enure version, let alone the specific words used, given by the honourable member for Hunter is totally inaccurate and totally wrong. I have the documents here. The question that arises is how this came about. It is of considerable interest to note that obviously one could not have assessed these matters by perusing documents, because a statement that there was a hearing, a statement that evidence was tendered, is not supported by the documents, as there was no hearing and as no evidence was tendered. One would have to get that version from some other source. When the documents are examined, when one sees the notice of motion by the defendant to have the claim struck out, one sees that the solicitor for the applicant, Mr Wran, was none other than David Paul Landa, the New South Wales Minister for Industrial Relations, who has been described by Mr Wran as a brilliant lawyer. Surely Mr Landa would know what he was talking about. Where did the information come from that the honourable member for Hunter was talking about? It could have come only from Mr Landa. It is totally wrong and it is deceitful information. I refer you, Mr Speaker, to the 18th edition of May ‘s Parliamentary Practice page 137, dealing with a conspiracy to deceive either House by giving evidence or in some other manner. It states:

Conspiracy to deceive either House or any committees of either House will also be treated as a breach of privilege.

I ask you, Mr Speaker, to look at this matter and decide whether or not there is prima facie a case of conspiracy to deceive the House or whether an agreement had been undertaken. We cannot look into the minds of men; we can only have the overt facts or the clear inferences to decide whether or not the honourable member for Hunter and Mr Landa have conspired to deceive this House. In view of the serious nature of the matter I ask that it be examined by you, Mr Speaker, as soon as possible to determine just what the situation is and, if the case is as I suspect, to bring to light this gross and disgraceful deceit of this House and a conspiracy, if there be one.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable gentleman has raised an issue of privilege. It is the practice of this House for the Speaker to consider whether or not there is a prima facie case. If there is a prima facie case under the Standing Orders, it would then have precedence over all other business. It is customary for the Speaker to make his decision as to whether there is a prima facie case after a break to consider the matter raised. I have listened to the honourable gentleman. I can make a decision as to whether there is a prima facie case only on the material presented by the honourable gentleman. I am not satisfied on the material so far presented.

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

-On a recent evening in this chamber, namely the evening of 5 May, I attempted to make a speech in relation to the activities of Australia Post. Regretfully that night the Opposition was involved in a frivolous exercise and I was subjected to frequent interruptions. That night I made 2 attempts, the record of which ranges from page 1978 to page 1983 of Hansard, to complete that speech. I know that we have only 5 minutes in which to speak on the adjournment, and it is very rare for a 5-minute speech to be spread over 5 pages of Hansard, but that was in accord with the tone of that evening. So tonight I should like to start stage 3 of my episode. I do not have very much more to say, but I wish to refresh the minds of honourable members on the last words I said that night before I was interrupted by the clock- and I shall say that this must all be considered in conjunction with what I said as recorded on those pages I mentioned. I said:

I am also reliably informed that Australian Post drivers have been instructed to watch and report the activities of private couriers.

Here starts stage 3. The Commission is making its drivers become travelling spies and pimps on private enterprise. Big Jim Kennedy, the refrigerator and tourist island king, who heads the Commission, I am sure never used these methods to build his big empire. He commands respect because he did it the legitimate way. I appeal to him to intervene. Section 85 of the Act presently gives the Commission wide powers to stamp upon any emerging competitor. That section should be repealed or changed. At present there are approximately 3500 owner-drivers and 570 employees engaged in the courier industry. It is estimated their turnover for the financial year ending 1975 was $73m. The rate they are going, this year that figure will reach $100m. If these couriers survive the onslaught in 1976 they will carry 50 million articles. With 35 000 clients using the service it is obvious that Australia was in dire need of an alternative carrying service. In Brisbane alone approximately 70 vehicles are in operation servicing banks, private companies, law firms and a host of other companies and industries. I am told that Australia Post is saying that all a business house needs to do is to say what it is prepared to pay for a courier service. I notice the intense interest of the shadow Minister at the table, the honourable member for KingsfordSmith (Mr Lionel Bowen), who was at one time a Postmaster-General and who was responsible for setting up this Commission. Australia Post is prepared to ask the firms what they will pay for the service and will provide it at that rate.

I suppose if an operation is getting away with charging 18c to deliver a lousy letter that provides the kind of money to allow it to indulge in unfair business tactics.

In the minute I have left I repeat the policy of the Liberal-National Country Parties, as enunciated prior to the last election, in relation to the private courier service, and to draw to the attention of the House the fact that we are contravening our own promise in allowing this to continue. We said:

The Liberal and National Country Party accepts the development of private courier services and will not seek to curtail them. Such services meet a growing community demand, albeit at great cost, and also provide competition for the Post Office.

I do hope that people read my speeches on this subject, which almost constitutes a Blue Hills serial and continue over 2 editions of Hansard, and that the Minister for Post and Telecommunications (Mr Eric Robinson) will step in as a Liberal and invoke the views which members on this side of the House possess, that is, that the private courier should be given a go. The only reason he has emerged in recent years was that the Post Office, as it then was, could not come up with a reliable service. I repeat what I said when I last raised this matter although Australia Post is going through a comparatively better period its past performance is such that nobody can rely on improved performances being continued in the future.

Mr JAMES:
Hunter

– I refer to the allegations against me tonight by the honourable member for St George (Mr Neil). I hardly thought that his accusations were worthy of reply. He suggested that I had received information from a solicitor named Landa. Mr Speaker, I tell this House, I tell the Australian people, I do not know Mr Landa, I have never spoken to Mr Landa in my life personally or on the telephone and I would not know him if he walked into this Parliament now.

Mr Falconer:

– He knows you.

Mr JAMES:

– He probably knows you too. The honourable member for St George also said that I made a wrong accusation, that I said that the case was dismissed. He said that the case was withdrawn. I suggest that he is trying to escape a suggestion of mine that the case was thrown out. If he wants me to alter my words as to whether the case was dismissed or withdrawn I will say that the case was thrown out. It was a weak attempt by a weak member, a weak barrister who is showing his allegiance to his legal fraternity in a way that some legal men usually do. He is doing this in anticipation because he is a oncer in this Parliament. He will probably have to depend on other members of the legal profession to throw him a brief occasionally to get a livelihood.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The honourable gentleman is reflecting on the honourable member for St George, and I ask him to withdraw that reflection.

Mr JAMES:

-He reflected on me. I withdraw, Mr Speaker, out of courtesy to you and the House.

Mr SPEAKER:

– No, the honourable gentleman will withdraw unreservedly.

Mr JAMES:

-I withdraw, Mr Speaker. But the honourable member made allegations against me of entering into a conspiracy which you did not ask him to withdraw. I ask him to withdraw his remarks, in connection with the statements I made in your presence, Mr Speaker, some weeks ago, that I was informed apparently by a solicitor named Landa. I ask turn to withdraw the remarks. I do not know Mr Landa and have never spoken to him in my life. I ask that he withdraw those remarks that he used in his speech earlier tonight before you, Mr Speaker. I believe that your impartiality will see, as you insisted that I withdraw my remarks, that he withdraw those remarks against me. Otherwise, I did not consider his remarks tonight worthy of any reply.

Mr Neil:

- Mr Speaker, I claim to have been misrepresented.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order ! The honourable gentleman will resume his seat. I call upon honourable members to withdraw statements which are unparliamentary. I do not call upon them to make statements which they cannot justify. The honourable gentleman has denied the allegation made by the honourable member for St George and his own denial speaks for itself. I call the honourable member for St George.

Mr NEIL (St George)-Mr Speaker, the honourable member for Hunter stated that I had said that the case was dismissed. I cannot remember the exact words. If I did say that, what I should have said was that the proceedings were dismissed by consent. The fact is that the proceedings were dismissed by consent, which is entirely different from being thrown out. As far as the other matter is concerned, reflections relating to something to do with briefs, all I would refer -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable gentleman need not pursue that. I have asked the honourable member for Hunter to withdraw his remark. He did that.

Mr NEIL:

-Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Mr SAINSBURY:
Monaro · Eden

– Last week, as honourable members will know, there was an announcement by the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair) of the extension of unemployment benefits to certain primary producers. That announcement was made in the light of great and pressing problems in the primary sector of this country, problems that involve people who were existing and still are existing at a financial level less than that of the dole. It has been a recognised factor in the Australian society over many years that people who cannot look after themselves and who are in the short term in terrible and destitute circumstances should rightly be looked after in those circumstances- again I say in the short term- to a certain extent by the Government. Most of the media applauded the statement by the Minister for Primary Industry last week and there were editorials in the national newspapers which supported aid. However, unfortunately there was a snide and cheap comment in an Australian Broadcasting Commission commentary made shortly after the statement which has caused great dismay in the primary sector of Australia. I shall quote from the comment which was made by a Mr George Negus. He stated:

This week’s Press is filled with 2 kinds of stories, one giving graphic, in fact gruesome detail of the lengths to which some men on the land are having to go to protect themselves and their industries, the other an almost daily retinue of announcements of some form or other of Government aid.

He went on:

But the decision most likely to precipitate comment is that to grant unemployment benefits to farmers facing financial hardship. As the proposal stands farmers, beef, wool or dairy, who have a net annual income of less than a year on the dole, that is, some $3,562, will be eligible for unemployment benefits themselves. On available figures from the Bureau of Agricultural Economics, this would mean that somewhere in the vicinity of 50 000 farmers could front up for $68.50 a week, or $3 and a half m a week, or if you like, $ 1 50m a year.

Mr Speaker, I put it to you that this is just another case of one section of the Australian work force being put on by cheap commentary. It seems to me that if worthy members of the Australian work force such as shipbuilders- there has been commentary in this House tonight about the benefit- at times deserved benefitgiven by the Government to support the shipbuilding work force- can get due consideration from the Government in time of hardship any other section in similar circumstances also deserves consideration.

Over several weeks in this House there has been a continued stream of abuse from the Australian Labor Party about any suggestion that this Government give lc to the primary producer. In fact the level of support for primary production given by this Government or by the previous Government is miniscule compared to the level of support given in obvious or in hidden ways to manufacturing industry, including the shipbuilding industry. I deplore the attitude of the ABC and I deplore the fashionable attitude of trendy, cosmetic journalists who single out the man on the land for special consideration and for special jibes when they know that the man on the land has to act, in large degree, independently and cannot act in large and organised groups as can other groups in other industries. I feel that I am echoing the sentiments of many honourable members when I appeal to members on both sides and to the Press to give the man on the land- the worker on the land- as fair a go as we want to give people in other industries in this country.

Mr ARMITAGE:
Chifley

– I want to draw attention to the proverbial paper tiger of this Parliament, the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Wentworth). There are honourable members in this House, including the honourable member for Hunter (Mr James), who will recall an incident that occurred on 10 October 1963. At that time only one vote divided the coalition parties and the Australian Labor Party. If I remember rightly, the numbers were 61 to 60. At that time the honourable member for Mackellar had circulated an amendment to the Disabled Persons Bill. Day after day in the pages of the newspapers he was being reported as saying how, if the Menzies Government did not give in, he would vote against it. Of course, as there was only one vote between the Government and the Opposition he would have defeated the Government had he voted against it. The former honourable member for Grayndler, Mr Daly, in the committee stage of that Bill moved the amendment which appears at page 1732 of Hansard of 10 October 1963. The honourable member for Mackellar had been extolling the virtues of this amendment in the Parliament. Then in came the great white father himself- the Prime Minister, Sir Robert Menzies. He sat on the front bench. The honourable member for Mackellar was sitting in the same seat as he now occupies. The Prime Minister looked back at him and grinned. All he had to do was to grin at the honourable member for Mackellar and the honourable member caved in. On page 1 735 of Hansard he made the point -

Mr Bourchier:

– What year was this?

Mr ARMITAGE:

-Look it up, brother. That is not hard to do after one has been here for a little while. When the honourable member has been here for a little longer he will be able to handle those matters. The honourable member for Mackellar finally caved in and agreed to vote with the Government. This was the man who time and time again had stated that he would oppose the Government, if necessary, would vote against it and, if necessary, would see his Government defeated. He went to the brink of the precipice. He was speaking to the Bill when in came Sir Robert Menzies. All he had to do was to smile sweetly at the honourable member for Mackellar who caved in and withdrew from the precipice. According to the Hansard record he said that he would not put the matter to the vote. He appealed to the Prime Minister, as he put it, ‘at this late hour’ to accept his wisdom but the Prime Minister did not see any wisdom. It is said that he actually threatened the honourable member privately that unless he voted with the Government and stopped the defeat of the Government his endorsement would be withdrawn.

I thought it appropriate tonight in view of some of the statements that the honourable member for Mackellar makes in this House about communists under the bed and that type of thing, and in view of the way he waxes so strongly on these issues, the attention of the Parliament should be drawn to this paper tiger- this man who has such a desire to hit the Labor Party at all times. He tries to present an image of being a great rebel but he is a paper tiger who at the appropriate time caves in. If the honourable member for Mackellar does not agree with what I am saying- I remind him that on the night in question he sat in the very same seat he now occupies and the Prime Minister sat on the front bench- or if he wants his memory refreshed he can cross the chamber to me, or I will cross the chamber to him, and show him the Hansard record which is a witness to his infamy.

Mr WENTWORTH:
Mackellar

– 1 take it as a compliment that members of the Australian Labor Party hate me so much because I have done them so much damage in the past that a poor insignificant squeaker like the honourable member for Chifley (Mr Armitage) should dig up the past to make on me a kind of attack which would be irrelevant if it did not show that honourable members opposite hate and fear me as much as they do. I am a member of a Party which, it is true, allows some freedom of vote to its members in this House. I am not like the automata of the Labor Party who have to vote as they are told and whose Caucus, under its written constitution, has to do what an outside body tells it to do. You poor little puppets.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The honourable member will address the Chair.

Mr WENTWORTH:

– They are not words I would ever want to apply to the Chair or to you, Sir. It is important to look to first things first. I regard the Labor Party as a disaster. I regard its members as enemies of Australia and I would not want to put them in power. Surely this is something which honourable members on both sides of the House would realise. Sure, members of the Labor Party have some responsibility on minor matters and on particular provisions within Bills but when it comes to putting this disastrous pro-communist party in power that is a different matter. I say that because I know that it still maintains these communist links and one of the reasons that its members hate me and fear me is that for 25 years in this House I have tried to show the links in the Labor Party with the Communist Party. I have tried to show, and I believe I have shown, that although there are many members in the Labor Party who are opposed to communism, although there are many people in the Labor Party who are neutral on that matter, nevertheless inside there is a small controlling communist core which works through the trade unions and conducts a reign of terror over the members of the Labor Party because it controls their pre-selection. Many of them who come from industrial areas know that in those areas the organisation and branches of the Labor Party are controlled by undercover communists. They know that they have to toe the communist Une. I know it is very difficult for a member of the Labor Party. He has to make up his mind whether he will stay in the Party and try to cure it of communism- many honest people could take that decision- or go outside the Labor Party because of its communist infection. The fact that there is a communist infection stands clearly on the record. In the old days there were unity tickets.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! It being 1 1 p.m. the debate is interrupted. The House stands adjourned until 2.15 p.m. tomorrow.

House adjourned at 11 p.m.

page 2160

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS UPON NOTICE

The following answers to questions upon notice

Wine Labels (Question No. 278)

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

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

Will he consider the merits of requiring wine makers to indicate on wine labels (a) sugar content, (b) alcohol content, (c) pH and (d) acidity (expressed in grams/litre as tartaric acid) of the contents of each bottle of wine sold in Australia.

Mr Howard:
LP

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

I have instructed my Department to examine the merits of the honourable member’s propositions.

I am informed that proposals of this nature have been or are being, considered in other countries and I have asked my Department to have regard to these considerations as part of their examination of the subject.

Payments to Airlines (Question No. 353)

Mr Bungey:
CANNING, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice:

What sum has been paid by his Department to each airline for air travel within Australia during the last 2 years.

Mr Nixon:
LP

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

The sums paid by the Department of Transport to each airline in the last 2 financial years are:

Wine on VIP Aircraft (Question No. 425)

Mr Morris:
SHORTLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Further to question No. 303, what was the quantity of each variety of wine purchased and transported in the VIP aircraft from Mt Gambier on 1 1 March 1976.
  2. What was the name and address of the supplier.
  3. When and by whom was it ordered.
  4. What was the total value of wines supplied on 1 1 March 1976.
  5. How and by whom was the wine transported to Mt Gambier from the supplier’s warehouse.
  6. Who has paid, or will pay, the supplier for the wines supplied. were circulated:
  7. Was payment made in cash.
  8. For what period will the wines purchased suffice.
Mr Killen:
LP

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

  1. 24 Cabernet Sauvignon 1971, 48 Sauvignon Blanc 1973, 24 Auslese Riesling 1975, 24 Cabernet Rose 1974, 24 Shiraz and Cabernet 1972, 60 Reserve Bin Tawny Port Miniature.
  2. Mildara Wines Ltd, Coonawarra, S.A.
  3. On U March 1976 by the Catering Officer, Base Squadron, Fairbairn.
  4. $341.98.
  5. By road, at no cost to the RAAF by J. Hazelgrove of Mildara Wines Ltd.
  6. The Finance Branch of the Regional Secretary, Department of Defence, Sydney, is the paying authority.
  7. No.
  8. Approximately 9-12 months, according to usage.

Shortage of Fertiliser (Question No. 438)

Mr McVeigh:
DARLING DOWNS, QUEENSLAND

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

Has his attention been drawn to reports which indicate there could be a shortage of fertilisers for the coming planting of the cane and cereal crops; if so, will he have consultations with the manufacturers of fertilisers and the Queensland Railway Department in an endeavour to overcome the problems which would follow from any shortage of fertiliser either in production or distribution.

Mr Howard:
LP

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

Inquiries have revealed that there is no shortage of fertilisers in Queensland despite press reports to the contrary.

I am informed that because of the wet conditions prevailing throughout the cane growing areas of the State demand for fertiliser has been slow. When fine weather returns it is anticipated that the demand for fertilisers could be heavy.

Growers have been requested by the fertiliser manufacturers directly, and through their organisations, to order as soon as possible to lighten expected load on the transport system. If this is done it is not anticipated that there will be any serious problem in supplying growers needs.

Import Licence Restrictions (Question No. 450)

Mr Young:

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

  1. 1) Do import licence restrictions apply to motor vehicles which are imported as the personal property of passengers.
  2. If so, under what circumstances is such a licence conditioned to require that the vehicle will not be sold or otherwise disposed of.
Mr Howard:
LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. An import licence may be issued subject to a condition that the vehicle will not be sold or otherwise disposed of by the passenger for a specific period where there are doubts as to whether the vehicle is imported for early re-sale rather than retention for personal use.

Press Releases (Question No. 452)

Mr Young:

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

  1. Did he release the Industry Assistance Commission’s report on spectacles, sunglasses, etc., by press release on a day when the House was sitting; if so, why.
  2. Does his press release of the same day, relating to duty free admission of cars over 30 years old, call for a change in the Customs Tariff.
  3. Will he give an assurance that matters such as this will be brought before the House, instead of being first publicised through the media, so that members may debate the issues before industry adjusts to new rules.
Mr Howard:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Yes. This report was one of nine to which I referred in a statement of 12 March 1976 announcing that the Government would release the reports for public comment as soon as printed copies were available. These reports had not been released earlier by the Commission in a draft form for comment by the respective industry and other interested parties. It was the Government’s intention that the reports be released as soon as possible to permit comment prior to an early decision on the Commission’s recommendations.
  2. Yes.
  3. In matters of industry assistance, such as changes to the Customs Tariff, it has been the practice of all Governments to announce and implement decisions without prior debate in the Parliament. To do otherwise could lead to speculative activities by interested parties dealing with the goods concerned. Members have the opportunity to debate the issues when the Customs Tariff Bills are subsequently introduced into the Parliament.

Skim Milk Powder (Question No. 459)

Mr Lloyd:

asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) What action is being taken by his Department to encourage the provision of skim milk powder in foreign aid programs.
  2. What quantity of powder was given as food aid (a) in 1974-75 and (b) to 1 March in 1975-76.
  3. Was there any skim milk powder in the foreign aid cuts or deferments announced earlier in 1 976.
Mr Peacock:
Minister for Foreign Affairs · KOOYONG, VICTORIA · LP

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

  1. The Australian Development Assistance Agency, together with Australian missions overseas, is currently investigating the aid requirements of developing countries for nutritional non-grain foods such as skim milk powder, particularly for special feeding programs.

  2. –

    1. In 1974-75 Australia shipped 2341 tonnes of skim milk powder as food aid. An additional 123 tonnes of full cream milk powder were also provided.
    2. Up to 1 March 1975-76 1350 tonnes of skim milk powder were shipped as food aid.
  3. No.

Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs: Functions (Question No. 97)

Mr FitzPatrick:
DARLING, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) What arrangements have been made, or planned, to have his Department represented in rural areas which have been served in the past by offices of the Department of Labor and Immigration.
  2. Will the new Department of Employment and Industrial Relations continue to act in matters of citizenship interviews and passport applications.
Mr MacKellar:
Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs · WARRINGAH, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

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

  1. 1 ) The services relating to functions of the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs which were provided in the past in rural areas by offices of the Department of Labor and immigration are being continued by area offices of the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations. It is not planned to alter these arrangements in any way.
  2. The new Department of Employment and Industrial Relations is continuing to act in matters of citizenship interviews wherever this was the arrangement previously. The question of passport applications is one for my colleague the Minister for Foreign Affairs; he has informed me that the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations does not act on behalf of his Department in passport matters.

Supreme Court of New South Wales: Divorce Proceedings (Question No. 131)

Mr Innes:

asked the Attorney-General, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) On what day in 1975 and at what time of the day did the Supreme Court of New South Wales grant a divorce to a New South Wales District court judge and his wife.
  2. Was notice of the case given in the Supreme Court’s published lists for that day; if not, why not.
  3. ) What period of time elapsed between the filing of the petition and the granting of the decree nisi.
  4. Was the time for making the decree absolute shortened if so, to what period and on what grounds.
Mr Ellicott:
LP

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

See my statement in the House of Representatives on 24 March 1976. (Hansard, page 941.)

Supreme Court of New South Wales: Divorce Proceedings (Question No. 248)

Mr Charles Jones:

asked the AttorneyGeneral, upon notice:

  1. How many cases were heard by New South Wales Supreme Court judges under the Matrimonial Causes Act 1959- 1973 in 1975.
  2. In how many cases did a judge agree that a case would not be listed.
  3. In how many cases was the decree nisi made absolute forthwith.
  4. In how many cases was a decree absolute made no more than 32 days after the petition was filed.
Mr Ellicott:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) I am informed by the Chief Executive Officer of the Supreme Court of New South Wales that the number was 9896.
  2. I am informed that no statistics are kept in cases in which this occurs, nor would it be possible to ascertain this information from the court files. I am also informed that it was a frequent occurrence under the Matrimonial Causes Act, in cases in which the parties reached agreement on all matters during a hearing before the Registrar, for the divorce itself to be heard and disposed of forthwith without having been listed for hearing. In sittings of the Supreme Court on circuit outside Sydney, divorces were frequently heard without having been listed, when, for example, they had reached the stage of readiness after the publication of the list and the Judge concerned was able and willing to hear them.
  3. I am informed that the number was approximately 250.
  4. I am informed that the number was approximately 42.

Supreme Court of New South Wales: Divorce Proceedings (Question No. 269)

Mr Charles Jones:

asked the AttorneyGeneral, upon notice:

Was Mr Justice Larkins the judge who arranged and conducted the expedited divorce hearing on 18 April 1975 concerning which the Attorney-General gave an answer on 23 March 1976 (Hansard, page 869) and a personal explanation on 24 March 1 976 (Hansard, page 94 1 ).

Mr Ellicott:
LP

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

I am informed that Mr Justice Larkins was the Judge who granted the application made to him for an expedited hearing in the case referred to, and who presided at the hearing of the case.

Supreme Court of New South Wales: Divorce Proceedings (Question No. 270)

Mr Charles Jones:

asked the AttorneyGeneral, upon notice:

What addresses were given for the petitioner and the respondent in the proceedings to which he referred in his personal explanation on 24 March 1976 (Hansard, page 941).

Mr Ellicott:
LP

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

I am not in possession of this information. I do not think that the Attorney-General should use his power to inspect divorce files to obtain this son of personal information unless it is demonstrably in the public interest to do so. I do not regard this as such a case.

Temporary Assistance Authority (Question No. 296)

Mr Young:

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

  1. 1 ) Is the Temporary Assistance Authority precluded from recommending temporary protection for Australian industry unless it can be shown that the industry is being damaged by imports.
  2. Does that Authority take the view that if an Australian manufacturer is also importing goods, no additional protection should be recommended, on the grounds that the Australian manufacturer may solve the problem by ceasing his imports.
  3. If so, what machinery exists to prevent other parties taking up the imports which would be relinquished by Australian manufacturers.
  4. Will he give guidelines to the Authority to prevent an

Australian manufacturer being forced completely out of business, leaving the field open to new importers, simply because he has had the temerity to manufacture in Australia.

Mr Howard:
LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. I have no reason to believe that the Authority has adopted such a view. Its findings are determined in the light of the circumstances of each inquiry it conducts. It is important to note that the Authority is concerned with the question of temporary assistance for the local industry as distinct from temporary assistance for an individual manufacturer.
  3. See answer to (2).
  4. As indicated in my Statement of 11 April 1976 the

Government will maintain efficient emergency procedures and machinery to provide prompt temporary assistance to safeguard industries from damage by undue import competition.

Insurance Legislation (Question No. 326)

Mr Jacobi:
HAWKER, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

asked the Treasurer, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) As the Australian Government insurance legislation is very similar in structure to that of the Insurance Companies Act 1974 of the United Kingdom, will he give urgent consideration to having incorporated into the Australian legislation provisions dealing with (a) control of insurance company investments and (b) oversight of the suitability of directors and other executive officers of such companies.
  2. In relation to the Insurance Acts 1973, will he take steps to have it amended by including a new section 21 A similar to section 7 of the United Kingdom Act, with consequential amendments to section 22 and 27.
  3. Will he also take steps (a) to amend section 29 by inserting a new provision that a person is not a fit and proper person to manage the affairs of a body corporate, (b) to amend section 52 by inserting the provision in section 39 of the United Kingdom Act, (c) to insert new sections 62A, 62 B and 62C similar to sections 52, 53 and 54 of the United Kingdom Act and (d) to amend section 30 to incorporate the investment provisions contained in section 30 of the United Kingdom Act.
  4. Will he also give urgent consideration to having simi lar amendments made to the Life Insurance Act 1945-1973.
Mr Lynch:
Treasurer · FLINDERS, VICTORIA · LP

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

  1. to (4) The proposals referred to in this question are similar to those raised by the honourable member in a recent Question on Notice (No 214). I refer the honourable member to my reply to part (4) of that question (Hansard of 27 April 1976, page 1642) and add that the Insurance Acts 1973 and the Life Insurance Act 1945-1973 are currently under review, in which connection the views of the honourable member have been noted.

Imported Goats’ Milk (Question No. 336)

Mr Lloyd:

asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice:

  1. What amount of tinned or powdered goats’ milk is being imported into Australia, and from what countries does it come.
  2. What percentage of the total goats’ milk production or consumption do these imports represent.
  3. What percentage of the total consumption of canned or powdered goats’ milk was absorbed by the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme.
  4. Have any requests been made for the protection of the Australian industry from these imports.
Mr Sinclair:
NCP/NP

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

  1. The Commonwealth Statistician does not maintain a record of imports of goats milk separate from imports of other milk. However, the Department of Business and Consumer Affairs has been able to provide some information derived from an examination of customs documents relating to imports of milk and cream (preserved, concentrated or sweetened). For the period 1 July 1975 to 5 April 1976 imports of goats’ milk in dried or powdered form were around 19 600 kg of which some 14 800 kg were imported from the U.S.A. and the balance from New Zealand.
  2. and (3) As no details of Australian production or consumption are available I am not able to provide the Honourable Member with this information.
  3. No. The Commercial Goat Milk Producers Cooperative Ltd, has, however, claimed in a recent letter to me, that imports were of some concern to local producers.

Australian Wool Harvesting Program (Question No. 371)

Mr Bungey:

asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice

  1. 1 ) What sum has been spent from all sources on the Australian Wool Harvesting Program to date.
  2. Will he supply figures showing (a) the amounts spent each year, (b) the sources of these funds, (c) the areas in which these funds were spent.
Mr Sinclair:
NCP/NP

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

Owing to the complementarities between research projects in wool harvesting it is often difficult to make an accurate assessment of expenditure incurred for a particular project. This is especially so in the case of research into chemical methods of wool harvesting, as carried out by scientists in CSIRO who cover areas of Animal Physiology and Applied Organic Chemistry in this research and other areas.

At the same time, it often happens that before a specific project is officially started certain associated research has already been carried out by interested scientists and, consequently, it is difficult to provide accurate estimates of the full expenditure incurred for that project.

The answers provided to the honourable member’s question should be read in the light of these remarks and the amounts of expenditure for this research provided in this answer should be regarded as only approximate. They are, however, the best estimates available.

To date, a total of approximately $l.7m has been spent from all sources on wool harvesting research. That expenditure has been incurred since the financial year 1960-61. Since the Australian Wool Corporation’s Wool Harvesting Program was inaugurated in 1973-74 approximately $ 1 .5m has been allocated to it.

(a) The approximate amounts allocated to Wool Harvesting Research at the federal level in recent years are as follows:

Significant related research and development work has also been funded by State Governments and by private industry in recent years. The cost of that work is not amenable to even approximate estimation but some useful developments have emerged from it.

  1. (b) The sources of the funds specified in (2) (a) above were:

    1. The Wool Research Trust Fund to which both Government and woolgrowers contribute
    2. Funds from Consolidated Revenue for research, carried out by CSIRO, in work related to wool harvesting and not financed by the Wool Research Trust Fund.

  2. (c) The general areas in which these funds were spent may be grouped as:

    1. General Activities

This covers areas related to publicity, extension work, and meetings, of various advisory and working groups.

  1. Specific Activities

    1. Wool Severance

This work has generally been directed towards wool severance by means such as mechanical devices, laser beams and hot wires.

  1. ) Sheep Handling, Shearing and Crutching

Research has been carried out in areas related to the invention or improvement of shearing aids, chain shearing and automated shearing.

  1. Chemical Shearing and Related Work

This work covers areas such as biological and chemical research and field trials, specialised rugging devices, dewooling development, temporary chemical depilation and permanent inhibition of unwanted wool growth.

  1. Breeding for Easy Shearing

This research is directed towards breeding easy care sheep requiring less attention for blowfly control, etc.

  1. Shearing Work Study, Sheep and Wool Handling

This covers areas such as shearing shed work, planning and design of equipment and sheep yards, sheep psychology and behaviour, mechanised wool handling.

  1. Shearer and Shedman Shortage, Recruitment and Training
  2. vii) Reduction of Shearing Seasonality
  3. Miscellaneous

Research into the above subject matter is carried out by institutions such as CSIRO, Universities, State Governments and the Australian Wool Corporation, and to a lesser extent by individual innovators and manufacturers.

Australian Objective Measurement Program (Question No. 372)

Mr Bungey:

asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice:

  1. What sum has been spent from all sources on the objective measurement project to date.
  2. Will he supply figures showing (a) the sum spent each year, (b) the sources of these funds, and (c) the areas in which the funds were spent.
Mr Sinclair:
NCP/NP

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

  1. Research into objective measurement probably started as early as in the late 1930s with Dr Lang’s work on the measurement of wool in the Gordon Institute of Technology at Geelong. Commercial interest in objective measurement started in the early 1950s with topmakers measuring fibre diameter. Some research into objective measurement was commenced by the Australian Wool Testing Authority in 1961-62, and by the University of New South Wales in the early 1 960s.

Work on the project was greatly intensified in 1970. Almost $1.5m was allocated by the Government during 1970-71 and 1971-72 to a project called the Australian Objective Measurement Project.

Considering all these activities, the total amount of money allocated to objective measurement research over the period 1961-62 to 1975-76 has been about $4.5m.

  1. (a) The approximate sums allocated to research on objective measurement each year were as follows:

It is virtually impossible to indicate precisely how these sums were allocated between various phases of total wool measurement research activity because of the complementarity which exists between projects in the large program of research into the wool industry in Australia. Such complementarity would exist for example between some projects classed as sheep breeding research and aspects of wool measurement research.

  1. (b) The sources of these funds were:

    1. The Wool Research Trust Fund to which both Government and Woolgrowers contribute. This was the major source of the above funds apart from the sum of $ 1.5m allocated from Consolidated Revenue in 1970-71 and 1971-72.
    2. Funds from Consolidated Revenue for OM research carried out by CSIRO and not financed by the Wool Research Trust Fund.
    3. State Governments.

  2. (c) The areas in which the funds are being spent are:

    1. Work to Specify Other Wool Parameters Measurement of characteristics such as length, strength, colour and style to enable complete specification of the raw material.
    1. Supporting Statistical Work

Measurement surveys to identify the sources of variance and distribution of particular characteristics.

  1. Industry Adoption of Objective Measurement

Past experience suggests that various industry sections require to be shown by example before adoption of new procedures is achieved. As a consequence, direct communication to both producers and processors appears to be essential for current understanding of industry developments.

  1. Industry Adoption of New Wool Preparation Procedures based on Research

Overseas processors are only likely to be convinced about the validity of new clip prepartion procedures if they have the opportunity to observe the processing results with split lots of wool prepared from the same raw material by the traditional and new procedures and to satisfy themselves that appreciable savings in preparation and better utilisation of greasy wool arc likely to result.

  1. Improved Procedures and Equipment for Yield/ Vegetable Matter and Fibre Diameter

This program is aimed at reducing or containing testing charges for yield, vegetable matter and mean fibre diameter, all of which are now well established routine test operations.

The progress of Programs (iii), (iv) and (v) has been such that it was anticipated that some 60 per cent of the Australian clip would be sold on the basis of pre-sale test certificates in the current season. The recent disputes in the industry may affect that expectation.

Significant quantities of wool have now been sold by ‘separation’. In this procedure grab samples of wool and the test results are made available to buyers at a centre removed from the actual storage site of the wool. This offers prospects of greater convenience and cost economies to all sectors of the industry. However, much can still be achieved by further research, demonstrational and educational activities in all five programs.

The successful conclusion of the five programs above, as a totality, is expected ultimately to result in the situation being achieved where greasy wool can be completely specified. This should lead to further reductions in selling costs and a streamlining of packaging, handling and transport procedures. Estimates of the potential savings range upwards from some $S0m per annum for the Australian clip.

Research in the above fields is carried out by CSIRO, Universities, State Governments, the Australian Wool Corporation and the Bureau of Agricultural Economics.

Cattle: Shipment to Japan (Question No. 374)

Mr Bungey:

asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice:

  1. What shipments of live cattle have been made to Japan from Australia in each of the last five years.
  2. How many were (a) dairy cattle (b) beef cattle for immediate slaughter and (c) store cattle for growing and/or fattening in Japan.
  3. Has this Department followed up any shipments of store cattle to Japan; if so, can any information be given on the success or otherwise of the ventures.
Mr Sinclair:
NCP/NP

– The following answers to the honourable member’s questions have been extracted from Departmental records:

  1. 1971- Nil

1972- 140

1973- 6260

1974- 2600

1975- 186

  1. (a) Nil (2)(b) Nil

1972- 31

1973- Nil 1974- Ni/

1975- 186

  1. (c) 1971- Nil 1972- Nil

1973- 6212

1974- 2600

1975- Nil

The difference between the totals shown in (I) and (2) represents exports of beef cattle for breeding purposes.

  1. In January 1973 my Department received a report from the Senior Trade Commissioner in Tokyo concerning a consignment of 1350 feeder calves shipped from Geelong, Victoria.

The report stated that all parties concerned were delighted with the standard and condition of the animals. They were also pleased with their consistency and their healthy appearance.

No reports to the contrary have been received since then.

Rates: Taxation Allowance (Question No. 426)

Mr O’Keefe:
PATERSON, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Treasurer, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Have many representations been made for an increase in the allowance deductible for taxation purposes in respect of council and water rates.
  2. Is the present allowable tax deduction limit of $300 unreal under present rating and valuation systems.
  3. Can he say whether this is causing concern and problems to ratepayers.
  4. Will he investigate the situation with a view to making the limit for taxation purposes more in line with realistic figures.
Mr Lynch:
LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. and (3) The local government authorities and ratepayers that made these representations are clearly of the view that the degree of subsidy inherent in the present $300 ceiling is insufficient.
  3. The matter will be considered, along with other requests for new or extended tax concessions, during the preparation of the forthcoming Budget.

Primary Producers: Mortgages (Question No. 429)

Mr Kelly:

asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice:

Has there been a significant increase in the number of stock mortgages and bills of sale made by the Pastoral Houses to primary producers which can be attributed to the prolonged strike by the Storemen and Packers’ Union in the wool stores.

Mr Sinclair:
NCP/NP

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

Stock mortgages and bills of sale are registered with the appropriate Government Departments in the various States. In New South Wales, for example, the Business Charges Section of the Corporate Affairs Commission in Sydney is responsible for the registration of stock mortgages and bills of sale. I am informed that this Commission does not publish data on the number of mortgages and bills registered.

The Australian Bureau of Statistics does not compile data related to stock mortgages and bills of sale. The Reserve Bank of Australia publishes information at intervals on the volume of rural advances made by Pastoral Finance Companies.

These statistics are not yet available for the period in question, and in the normal course of events, would not be collated and published until about July.

It could be difficult to determine whether there had been any increases in advances directly attributable to the recent industrial dispute in the wool stores. The amounts advanced by the Pastoral Houses, which depend on market circumstances, are variable. The advances fell from an estimated 2 1 .6 per cent of total rural indebtedness ;s of 30 June 1 96 1 to 1 1.4 percent of estimated rural debt at 30 June 1 975.

The results of enquiries which I directed to my Department indicated that there was no significant increase in the number of stock mortgages and bills of sale negotiated by the Pastoral Houses to primary producers which could be attributed to the effect of the recent industrial dispute.

Cereal Grains: Transport (Question No. 435)

Mr McVeigh:

asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Arc there any problems associated with the export movement of cereal grains from country stations to port; if so, how serious are these problems, and what negotiations have taken place with the various State Railway Departments to speed up the movements of grain.
  2. What decisions have been made by the responsible authorities to (a) upgrade the movement of grain from country to port on a long-term basis and (b) improve the storage capacity at port terminals in view of the fact that grain has now moved into bigger production figures.
Mr Sinclair:
NCP/NP

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

In accordance with established arrangements the Australian Wheat Board keeps me regularly informed of any difficulties that may occur in relation to the presentation of the wheat crop for export and in doing so the Board has regard to the overall picture of cereal grains generally. I am advised that:

1 ) Transport problems are being experienced in two States, namely, New South Wales and Victoria. The situation in New South Wales is cause for great concern because it is apparent that the railways are not able to cope with the desired movement of all cereal grains to ensure an effective clearance before the intake of the 1976-77 harvest. Some transfers from northern New South Wales to Queensland are in progress to assist in the general movement whilst similar transfers were planned from southern New South Wales to Victoria. However, this latter program is in abeyance as the Victorian railways are having difficulty in coping with the required haulage of Victorian grain.

Negotiations have taken place, on a top-level basis, with the Public Transport Commission in New South Wales and with the Victorian Minister of Transport, and Victorian Railways with a view to securing an improvement in the current situation.

(a) The Grain Elevators Board in the two States and the Australian Wheat Board have been advised that the major problems arise from a shortage of rolling stock in New South Wales and engine power in Victoria. The Public Transport Commission in New South Wales has some 500 bulk rail wagons on order and as these become progressively available an increase in the grains service may be expected. The Victorian railways also anticipate an improvement with the delivery of locomotives and once the demands for superphosphate are met.

The storage capacity of the Newcastle grain terminal is an inhibiting factor. Additional silos at that port are now under construction and when completed should markedly improve the situation.

Henderson Report on Poverty (Question No. 442)

Mr Les McMahon:
SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

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

  1. 1 ) Has the Minister’s attention been drawn to criticism of the Government by the Anglican Diocese of Sydney for its lack of action on the Henderson report on poverty.
  2. When will action be taken on the report.
  3. Has the Minister’s attention also been drawn to the statement of the Prime Minister, that the needy should not rely on welfare; if so, will he elaborate on this statement.
  4. Will he give an undertaking that underprivileged Australians will be cared for.
Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

  1. and (2) 1 am aware of the reported comments of the Anglican Diocese of Sydney. The Archbishop’s office sent to me a copy of the recent publication entitled ‘Poverty- Is Money the Answer’, which I have read with great interest. It is a commentary by the Anglican Diocese of Sydney on the First Main Report of the Commission of Inquiry into Poverty. I am hoping to meet with the Archbishop of Sydney in the near future to discuss aspects of this commentary and of reports previously published by the Archdiocese relating to poverty.

The reports of the Commission of Inquiry into Poverty cover a wide area and involve many Departments at both Commonwealth and State level as well as local authorities and voluntary agencies. Recommendations of the Poverty Commission relating to income security have received detailed consideration in my own Department and are currently being examined by the Income Security Review Committee in accordance with its terms of reference. Action is also being taken to ensure that work in all Departments on Poverty Commission recommendations is undertaken in a comprehensive and properly co-ordinated manner and as quickly as possible.

  1. and (4) Yes. The Government’s policy is to direct assistance to those in most need and at the same time to encourage self-help and self-reliance.

VIP Aircraft (Question No. 431)

Mr Morris:

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Did any VIP aircraft travel between Australia and Papua New Guinea in April 1975.
  2. 2 ) If so, what passengers did the aircraft carry, and where did the aircraft pick up and deliver those passengers.
Mr Killen:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Yes, four.
  2. ) Details are as follows-

Visits to Manila (Question No. 130)

Mr Innes:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

On what occasions and in what capacities has he visited Manila since his election to the Australian Parliament.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
LP

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

The records show that as Minister for the Army 1 visited Manila from 19 to 21 June 1966 on my way to South Vietnam.

Tourism (Question No. ISO)

Mr Stewart:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Industry and Commerce, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) What is the estimated amount per annum generated by the Australian travel/tourist industry.
  2. What percentage of the Gross National Product does this represent.
  3. What percentage of the workforce is employed in the travel/tourist industry and how much of this is female labour.
  4. How much in foreign exchange is earned by the travel /tourist industry.
  5. What is the estimated amount per annum spent by Australians travelling outside Australia.
  6. Does the Government intend to offer any incentives to the Australian tourist industry; if so, what form will these take.
Mr Howard:
LP

– My colleague, the Minister for Industry and Commerce, has supplied me with the following information:

  1. 1 ) The Australian Statistician advises that expenditure on travel or tourism in Australia is expenditure on the products of several industries, but only on part of their products. These industries include restaurants, hotels and accommodation, transport, and travel agencies. Official estimates of the products of these industries going into expenditure on travel and tourism are therefore not made. However, a survey of domestic travel conducted by the Australian Travel Research Conference estimated that, in 1 973-74, Australians spent $736m on travel within Australia. In addition, overseas visitors spent $ 1 62m making a total of $898m spent on travel within Australia. There is evidence to believe that the domestic component of this estimate considerably underestimates the value of domestic travel expenditure, as the survey on which it was based relied on the respondents’ abilities to recall travel undertaken over a considerable period.
  2. The estimated $898m spent on travel within Australia in 1973-74 represents 1.77 per cent of Gross Domestic Product for that year. This figure under-estimates the contribution of the tourist industry to Gross Domestic Product, because of the under-estimation in domestic tourism expenditure and because no estimate is available of gross fixed capital expenditure in the industry.
  3. Because of the reasons outlined in my answer to the first part of the question no official estimates are made of the workforce employed in the travel/tourist industry. However, the official estimate at 3 1 December 197S of wage and salary earners in the entertainment, recreation, restaurants, hotels and personal services industry was S.8 per cent of total civilian employees- 60 per cent of this category were females.
  4. Estimates of expenditure by foreign visitors, or travel credits, are shown in Table 1.
  1. Estimates of expenditure by Australian residents travelling overseas (travel debits), from 1970-7 1 to 1974-75 are shown in Table 2.

  1. Since the election in December 1975 the Government has introduced a number of measures which will assist the tourist industry. These include:

    1. A 40 per cent investment allowance available for eligible tourist plant and equipment on site or ready for installation from 1 January 1976 and up to 30 June 1978.
    2. Restrictions on the tax deductibility of interest received from convertible secured debentures have been eased as from 1 January 1 976.
    3. The suspension of quarterly payments of company tax.

Poverty (Question No. 162)

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

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

  1. 1 ) What is the number of research reports on poverty which remain unpublished and for which no budgetary provision for publishing has been made.
  2. Is it intended to facilitate distribution of these reports; if so, what will be the extent of their availability.
Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) and (2) There are 22 research reports from the Commission of Inquiry into Poverty remaining unpublished.

Since the original announcement that my Department would not be able to fund the publication of further research reports at the original cost, I have been giving consideration to the whole question of how to ensure that the material in the reports can be made available.

The Minister for Administrative Services and I have asked officers of my Department, the Australian Government Publishing Service and the Secretary of the Commission of Inquiry into Poverty to discuss possible economies in the publishing program for research reports. Since that meeting, figures have been prepared which show that the remaining research reports can be published at a total cost of $70,000, a saving of $62,000 on the previous estimate. This saving can be achieved by reducing the number of copies available for free distribution, by increasing the sales price on each volume and by public tendering for printers instead of using standard forms of contract. The production standards of these reports will not be affected.

On 30 April 1976 I wrote to the Treasurer requesting an allocation of $70,000 to publish the remaining reports. On 4 May 1976 Mr Lynch approved the allocation and officers of my Department are now preparing several manuscripts for publication.

Television: Eyre Peninsula (Question No. 213)

Mr Wallis:
GREY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Have any further investigations been carried out by the Australian Broadcasting Control Board into the provision of television services to the Eyre Peninsula area of South Australia; if so, what findings have resulted from those investigations.
  2. When can it be anticipated that this service will be provided for the people in this area, one of the last closely settled areas in Australia without television services.
Mr Eric Robinson:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

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

  1. 1 ) and (2) I am advised that office studies have been carried out by the Australian Broadcasting Control Board to determine whether it would be possible to provide a television service to the unserved areas of the Eyre Peninsula at a per capita cost which comes within the economic guidelines to which the Board must adhere. The result of this investigation has indicated that the only town which might be able to be served within the economic guidelines is Streaky Bay, but even in this case, the conclusion is by no means firm and a field survey would have to be carried out by the Australian Broadcasting Control Board to accurately establish the situation. Consequently, the Board has included Streaky Bay on the list of areas approved for survey. However, due to the large program of field work to which the Board is already committed throughout Australia, the Board’s limited staff resources and the current expenditure constraints, it is not possible to advise a firm date by which these studies will be completed. It must be reiterated that the conduct of this investigation does not guarantee that a National Service will be provided to Streaky Bay as the per capita cost may be found to exceed the economic guidelines.

Visits to Singapore (Question No. 292)

Mr Morris:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

On what occasions, and in what capacities has he made official visits to Singapore since his election to the Australian Parliament.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
LP

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

The records show that I made official visits to Singapore on the following occasions:

As Minister for the Army: 29 June to 1 July 1966, 4 to 6 July 1966, 24 to 25 July 1967, 31 July to I August 1967.

Representing the Australian Government at the Singapore 150th Anniversary Celebrations: 4 to 10 August 1969.

As Minister for Defence: 30 to 3 1 March 1970, 1 7 to 19 June 1970.

As Prime Minister 1 7 to 1 8 January 1 976.

Visits to Singapore (Question No. 293)

Mr Innes:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) On what dates has he visited Singapore as a Minister.
  2. On which of these dates have appointments been made for him to meet the Prime Minister of Singapore.
Mr Malcolm Fraser:
LP

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

  1. See my answer to Question No. 292.
  2. The records show 5 July 1966, 6 August 1969, 1 9 June 1970 and 17 January 1976.

Customs By-laws (Question No. 451)

Mr Young:

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

  1. What rules exist to determine whether a by-law is made under section 272 of the Customs Act or a determination is made under section 273 of that Act.
  2. Do the determinations which appear in Gazette No. G 16 of 20 April 1976 apply to individual shipments of goods or to all goods imported by any person.
  3. If those determinations applied to a class of goods, why were they not made as by-laws and published in the Gazette as required.
  4. What is the legal basis on which determinations, covering classes of goods, are made.
  5. What is the legal basis for the making of Excise bylaws.
  6. What provisions exist for a review of by-laws and determinations.
  7. Have any steps been taken to adopt the recommendations of paragraph 84 of the Final Report of the Committee on Administrative Discretions (Parliamentary Paper No.316ofl973).
Mr Howard:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) It has been the general practice in recent years where it has been decided to allow importation of goods at concessional rates to rely upon the power conferred by section 273 of the Customs Act. Nevertheless, the power conferred by section 272 of that Act is sometimes used.
  2. Each of the determinations of which notice appears in Gazette No. G 16 of 20 April 1976 has the effect of applying the specified item of the Customs Tariff to the goods specified in the determination when imported by any person.
  3. See the answer to question ( I ). Notice of determinations is of course published in the Gazette.
  4. The only power to make a determination specifying the goods to which an item or proposed item of a Customs Tariff is to apply is that contained in section 273 of the Customs Act.
  5. TheExciseTariffl921-1975.
  6. In the course of its tariff review inquiries, the Industries Assistance Commission can and in most cases does, consider the appropriateness or otherwise of tariff concessions accorded by way of by-laws or determinations. The Commission from time to time also inquires into and reports on particular by-law matters referred to it by me. Additionally, the continued appropriateness of by-law concessions is reviewed by the Bureau of Customs in the light of the changing circumstances of local manufacture.
  7. No. The Green Paper titled ‘Review of Customs By-law Policy’, which was tabled on 2 June 1975, comments on the recommendation of the Committee on Administrative Discretions (Parliamentary Paper No. 316 of 1973). The Green Paper goes on to suggest that consistency and harmony in by-law administration might be better served if appeals for all cases were dealt with by the Industries Assistance Commission rather than the Tribunal. Departments have been considering the public’s response to the Green Paper and I hope that a report will be available for consideration by the Government in the not too distant future.

Agricultural Machinery (Question No. 497)

Mr McVeigh:

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

  1. Have there been substantial increases recently in the cost of some items of agricultural machinery in Australia.
  2. Has his attention been drawn to any cases where these increases have been added to the price of machinery which was on the selling floor for some months prior to the increases being granted by the Prices Justification Tribunal.
  3. If so, what safeguards are available to ensure that (a) increases granted by the Tribunal apply only to machinery still on the assembly line and (b) machinery on the selling floor and in dealers’ or distributors’ hands is excluded from these price increases.
Mr Howard:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Within the past six months the Prices Justification Tribunal has approved a number of notifications from companies seeking wholesale price increases for farm machinery. Such increases were based on unavoidable cost increases incurred by the manufacturing companies concerned and also reflected the Tribunal’s approval for these companies to maintain their standard mark-ups.
  2. I have been advised that several matters dealing with farm machinery prices are under investigation by the Tribunal at the present time. In particular the Tribunal is examining recent price movements in farm machinery held by dealers on consignment or bailment. I am informed that these inquiries are being undertaken at the manufacturer and dealer level.

Although it is the usual practice for the Tribunal to allow a manufacturing company to apply a price increase to some part or all of its inventory of finished products, depending on whether the inventory has attracted some or all of the increased costs which nave led to the price increase, such approval would not normally extend, as in the case of farm machinery manufacturers, to equipment delivered at earlier dates to dealers and held by them on bailment or consignment.

  1. Whatever the outcome of its current inquiries, it is likely that the Tribunal will make a special point of informing farm machinery manufacturers and dealers who come within the notification provisions of the Prices Justification Act that unsold equipment held by dealers on bailment or consignment must not be regarded as part of the manufacturing company’s inventory of finished products and is therefore ineligible for any later price increases approved by the Tribunal for the same or related equipment.

The Prices Justification Tribunal cannot directly prevent dealer companies which by virtue of their annual turnover levels are not subject to the notification provisions of the Act from increasing the prices of machinery on hand. The Tribunal would need to be aware of any such practice before it could take appropriate action under Section 16 of the Act. Non-corporate dealerships are, of course, completely outside the jurisidction of the Tribunal.

Disease Carriers: Confiscation of Goods (Question No. 67)

Mr Lloyd:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

  1. How much meat and meat products, hides, seeds, etc., which are considered to be potential carriers of disease, were confiscated from how many people, during 1974-75 .
  2. How many of these people have been fined or prosecuted.
Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

  1. During the year 1974-75 the following approximate quantities of goods considered to be potential carriers of disease were seized:

    1. Dairy products- 4.7 tonnes
    2. Meat and Meat Products- 6.7 tonnes
    3. Rawhide (including drums, trophies and souvenirs)- 1 250 items
    4. d) Fruit- recorded by number- 1 9865 articles
    5. Other Fruit- recorded by weight- 1 .5 tonnes (0 Dried Fruit- 134 kg
    6. Nuts- 1.1 tonnes
    7. Seeds- recorded by number of packets- 3741 packets
    8. Seeds- recorded by weight- 1 .4 tonnes
    9. Plants- recorded by numbers, bundles or packages- 13 050 items
    10. Other plants- recorded by weight- 10 1 kg

The goods specified in items (a), (b) and (c) were seized from approximately 8950 persons. No records are held as to the number of people from whom the goods listed in items ( d ) to ( k ) inclusive were taken.

  1. Prosecutions were launched against 97 persons during 1974-75.

Alcoholic Beverages (Question No. 118)

Mr Lloyd:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) What progress has been made with the introduction of a voluntary code on the advertising of alcoholic beverages, to correct the present undue emphasis on youth, sex and success in these advertisements.
  2. Can he say whether the United Kingdom code includes a section voluntarily excluding advertisements of spirits from television.
Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) Following the Australian Health Minister’s Conference in May 1975, a joint Commonwealth/State Working Party was established to investigate, among other things, the advertising of alcohol.

The Working Party has met on two occasions and has had discussions with liquor industry representatives. As a result, a draft code has been prepared which takes into account the dangers of undue emphasis on youth, sex and success in alcohol advertisements. This draft code has been referred for consideration at this year’s Health Ministers ‘ Conference, on 30 June-2 July 1976.

  1. In the United Kingdom the voluntary body governing television and radio advertising is the Independent Television Companies Association. Its notes of guidance do not rule against the advertising of hard spirits, but there is an understanding that advertisements for hard spirits by brand will not be accepted.

Food Aid and Other Aid Matters (Question No. 121)

Mr Fry:

asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice:

  1. In view of the Government’s reduction in aid to developing nations, will he assure the House that Australia has not now rescinded commitments made at the Rome World Food Conference.
  2. Is he able to (a) guarantee that the Government has the capacity to respond speedily and generously to natural disasters such as the Guatemalan earthquake, (b) assure the House that the development assistance administered by the Bureau of Overseas Aid will be free from political considerations of foreign policy and (c) give an assurance that there will be a substantial increase in the proportion of Gross National Product devoted to overseas development aid in the 1976-77 Budget.
Mr Peacock:
LP

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

  1. The commitments made by Australia at the World Food Conference were to support the target of 10 million tonnes of food aid per annum, and to provide additional aid, in proportion to the Canadian pledge of 50 million dollars, to make an effective impact on the critical food supply situation existing at the time. With regard to the first commitment, no attempt was made at the Conference to allocate this target between countries. With regard to the second commitment, the allocation of additional aid should have taken place in the first budget period following the Conference if it was to have the intended impact on the immediate situation. The Government of the time did not make any special provision to cover this undertaking in the 1975-76 Budget.

  2. –

    1. The Government has the administrative capacity to respond speedily and generously to natural disasters.
    2. Aid is inevitably part of the overall relationship between Australia and foreign countries. It is therefore closely bound up with our foreign policy and has to be administered accordingly. This is not a new situation, nor one which requires any assurances to be given to the House as suggested by the Honourable Member.
    3. The Government is committed to strive towards the internationally accepted target of 0.7 per cent of GNP for development assistance. The Government will make progress towards that target as rapidly as possible. Given the economic circumstances which the Government has inherited, however, I am unable to give any assurances about the 1976-77 aid allocation in advance of the Budget for that year.

Diet Weight Reducing (Question No. 125)

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

  1. Have the wonder diet weight reducing methods of the Obesity and Genontology Research Clinic, 175 Pitt Street, Sydney, been subjected to any study to determine if they, in fact, produce worthwhile benefits to clients; if so, what are the details of the studies and the results obtained.
  2. Can he say whether the proprietor of this Clinic has any qualifications recognised by any Australian Medical Registration Board.
  3. Can he also say whether the Clinic extensively uses the drug HCG, Human Chorionic Gonadotropin, a hormone taken from pregnant women which specialists in obstetrics and gynaecology describe as useless.
  4. Can he also say what charges are made by the Clinic, and what benefits are available to its patients under Medibank.
Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) to (3) The honourable member will appreciate that, in respect of a State, my Department has no jurisdiction to investigate the professional activities of private health clinics, nor to provide information on the qualification for registration as a medical practitioner of a particular person. Both these matters are the responsibility of the State health authorities. Accordingly I am unable to provide the detailed information sought.

As a general comment on the effectiveness of the hormone HCG, I would mention that the Australian Drug Evaluation Committee, which considered HCG at its meeting in March 1976, expressed the opinion that it has not been demonstrated to be an effective adjunctive therapy in the treatment of obesity, nor it there any substantial evidence that it increases weight loss beyond that resulting from caloric restriction.

  1. I understand that there are registered medical practitioners employed at the Clinic. Patients of these registered medical practitioners are entitled to claim Medibank benefits for services provided on the basis of the items of medical service in the 1st Schedule of the Health Insurance Act. Benefits, however, are not payable in respect of non schedule services provided by the Clinic. Enquiries have been initiated by the Health Insurance Commission to ensure that payments are being correctly made.

Superannuation (Question No. 148)

Mr Stewart:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice:

Will long term contributors to the Commonwealth Superannuation Fund who elected to retire at 60 years of age and do so, be entitled to receive 50 per cent pension, plus the 0.25 per cent for over 30 years service and indexation of pension, under the proposed new scheme; if not, why not.

Mr Lynch:
LP

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

If the age 60 units held by a present pension scheme contributor would have provided a higher Governmentfinanced pension than will be available under the standard pension provisions of the new scheme, a pension supplement in respect of those units will be added to the Governmentfinanced pension, payable at retirement.

Under the new scheme the standard Governmentfinanced pension, exclusive of the age 60 unit supplement, payable on retirement at age 60, will be 45 per cent of final salary, this level being increased where contributory service at retirement exceeds 30 years, to a maximum of 47.25 per cent after 40 years contributory service.

It is the Government’s view that the general retiring age for the full Government-financed pension under the new scheme should be age 65. In the case of present contributors who hold age 60 units however, the abovementioned supplement will operate so as to provide fair and reasonable recognition of the fact of their present age 60 unit holdings.

The Government-financed part of all pensions payable under the new scheme will be updated in July each year by the percentage increase in the Consumer Price Index, March quarter to March quarter.

Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies (Question No. 168)

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice:

What progress is being made towards resolving the serious accommodation problem currently experienced by the Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies.

Mr Viner:
Minister for Aboriginal Affairs · STIRLING, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

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

The present intention is that the Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies should move into new premises at Phillip in Canberra as soon as the building is completed and ready for occupation. On present estimate, the move should be made shortly after June this year. The new premises will have adequate space for all sections of the Institute and will be air-conditioned.

Beef Cattle (Question No. 181)

Mr Giles:
ANGAS, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Have the American National Cattlemen’s Association and the United States Department of Agriculture written to the Australian Government seeking permission to export semen from American beef cattle breeds to Australia; if so, has the Government answered this request.
  2. Is it a fact that similar semen from Canada is allowed into Australia.
  3. 3 ) If so, is the reason for the present discrimination due to the existence of the disease of bluetongue in the United States which is highly dangerous to the cattle and sheep population of Australia.
  4. As the movement of stock can easily occur, officially or unofficially, between the United States and Canada, is the differentiation valid.
  5. Do the stringent health requirements needed for the collection and storage of Canadian deep frozen semen exceed regulations governing the collection and storage of the American semen.
  6. Is the American request to export semen to Australia reasonable, in view of the large intake of Australian beer by that country.
  7. Will he obtain statistics from the Minister for Overseas Trade to show the position of trade balances between Australia and (a) Canada and (b) the United States of America.
Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) The United States Department of Agriculture and my Department have been in correspondence over a long period concerning veterinary health conditions which would be required to ensure safe importation of cattle semen from the United States. Examination of correspondence on this matter has not revealed a direct approach from the American National Cattlemen’s Association.
  2. Cattle semen was permitted importation from Canada until March of this year, when the Canada Department of Agriculture reported the presence of bluetongue in that country. Australian importation conditions require certification by the Canada Department of Agriculture that bluetongue has not occurred in Canada for a period of 12 months immediately prior to the date of despatch of the semen. As this certificate cannot now be provided the importation of cattle semen from Canada has effectively been suspended.
  3. Since bluetongue is now reported to be present in Canada discrimination no longer exists.
  4. The differentiation which applied between the two countries prior to March 1976 was valid. Clinical bluetongue had not been reported in Canada before that time but the disease exists in a number of areas in the United States. The Canadian authorities maintained a program of continuous monitoring for cattle entering the country from the United States to alert them to the possible introduction of the disease from that source.
  5. Cattle semen is not imported from the United States because of technical difficulties in that country in providing conditions for the collection of the semen which ensure complete protection against subsequent transmission of bluetongue. These technical problems are being resolved. Less stringent conditions applied to Canada than could apply to the U.S.A. whilst the former country was free of bluetongue.
  6. The intake of Australian beef by the U.S.A. has no bearing on quarantine precautions necessarily taken by this country.
  7. The Department of Overseas Trade has advised the following:
  1. Preliminary

Source: Australian Bureau of Statistics.

Probate (Question No. 195)

Dr Klugman:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice:

What is the present position regarding probate duty in respect of (a) the Commonwealth and (b) each State when property passes to (i) the surviving spouse, (ii) children and (iii) others.

Mr Lynch:
LP

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

  1. If the deceased was domiciled in Australia at the date of death and the estate includes an interest in the sole or principal matrimonial home which passes to the surviving spouse, a deduction of up to $35,000 from the value of the estate may be allowable. If the unencumbered value of the interest in the matrimonial home does not exceed $35,000 a deduction equal to the value of that interest is allowable. The deduction decreases by $7 for every $10 by which the unencumbered value of the interest exceeds $35,000 so that it ceases to apply when that value is $85,000 or more. If only part of the deceased’s interest in the property passes to the surviving spouse a proportionate deduction is allowable. If the whole of the estate passes to the widow, widower, children or grandchildren of the deceased, no Commonwealth estate duty is payable if the net value of the estate does not exceed $40,000 after talcing into account allowable deductions such as those for the matrimonial home, State death duties and debts. If the net value of the estate exceeds $40,000 but is less than $200,000 a deduction is allowable on a sliding scale. The deduction commences at $40,000 for estates valued at $40,001 and reduces by $2 for every $8 by which the net value of the estate exceeds $40,000. If no part of the estate passes to the widow, widower, children or grandchildren of the deceased, the estate is exempt from estate duty if the net value of the estate does not exceed $20,000. If the net value exceeds $20,000 but is less than $100,000 a deduction is allowable on a sliding scale commencing at $20,000 and reducing by $2 for every $8 by which the net value of the estate exceeds $20,000. If the estate passes partly to the widow, widower, children or grandchildren of the deceased and partly to others, the exemption level or deduction is calculated on a proportional basis.
  2. b) lam advised that there are substantial differences between the death duty laws of the States. I cannot speak with authority on State laws and inquiries about these would need to be directed to the relevant authorities in each State.

Election Campaigns: Government Subsidy (Question No. 238)

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

am-Asked the Minister representing the Minister for Administrative Services upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Can he say in what countries election campaigns are financed in whole or part from government funds.
  2. ) If so, what are the formulae for such funding.
Mr Street:
LP

– The Minister for Administrative Services has provided me with the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

  1. 1 ) As far as can be ascertained- U.S.A., Canada, West Germany, Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Finland, Italy, Austria, France and the United Kingdom.
  2. The formulae for such funding in respect of the countries listed in ( 1 ) above are as follows:

United States of America

The Federal Election Campaign Act Amendments of 1974 provided for optional public financing of presidential general election campaigns and nominating conventions and established federal matching grants to cover up to 45 per cent of the cost of presidential primary campaigns, as follows:

Presidential general elections-Optional public financing. Major party candidates automatically qualify for full funding before the campaign. Minor party and independent candidates are eligible to receive a proportion of full funding based on past or current votes received. If a candidate opts for full public funding, no private contributions to that candidate are permitted.

Presidential nominating conventions- Optional publicfunding. Major parties automatically qualify. Minor parties are eligible for lesser amounts based on their proportion of votes received in a past or current election.

Presidential primaries- Candidates become eligible for matching public funds of up to US$5.0m per candidate, after they meet fund-raising requirements of US$100,000. This amount must be raised in amounts of at least US$5,000 in each of 20 or more States. Only first US$250 of individual private contributions would be matched. The candidates of any one party are eligible to receive in aggregate no more than 45 per cent of the total amount available in federal money. No single candidate may receive more than 25 per cent of the total matching grant available. Only private gifts raised after 1 January 1975 may qualify for matching funds in respect of the 1976 election. No matching funds payments were to be made before January 1976. (All federal money for public funding of campaigns comes from the Presidential Election Campaign Fund. Funds received from the federal income tax ‘dollar check-off” are automatically appropriated to the fund). (US$1. 00 = $A0.82 as at 30 March 1976).

Canada

Under the Election Expenses Act of 1974 candidates who are elected or who have received 1 5 per cent or more of the popular vote, and who have provided all information required by the Act are entitled to reimbursement as follows-

  1. cost of postage of a first-class mailing to every voter on the preliminary voters list;
  2. Can$0.08 for each of the first 25 000 voters on the preliminary list and Can$0.06 for each additional voter;
  3. up to Can$250 to assist in payment of auditor required by the Act;
  4. in certain large ridings, the actual value of a candidate’s travelling expenses, obtained by multiplying It by the number of square miles in that electoral district or Can$3,000, which ever is the lesser. (Can$1.00 = $A0.803 as at 30 March 1976).

West Germany

Financial support from public funds was regularised and given its present form by the Parties Law of 1966. Subsidies from public funds now constitute, on average, one-third of the budget of the political parties in the Federal Republic of Germany. Originally, subsidy was fixed at 2.50 DM per voter for all parties who polled at least 2.5 per cent of total vote in the previous Federal election. In a later decision, the Federal Constitutional Court reduced to 0.5 per cent the percentage of votes needed to qualify for subsidy, and in early 1974 the subsidy itself was raised to 3.50 DM for each vote polled. The subsidy is distributed among parties according to the number of votes polled, and is distributed at the rate of 10 per cent in the first year after the election, IS per cent in the second year, 35 per cent in the third year and the remaining 40 per cent immediately after the general elections. (1.00DM = SA0.317 as at 30 March 1976).

Sweden

Since 1966 each political party holding seats in Parliament has received a fixed amount per seat per annum. In addition, since 1972, each political party which captures 4 per cent of the votes at a general election receives a fixed amount annually as a consequence.

Denmark, Norway, Finland

Each has a system somewhat similar to the Swedish system where subsidies are paid at the National, Regional and Local levels.

Italy

Since 1 974 there has been State subsidisation of all parties represented in parliament. Amount of subsidisation is determined by a formula that will give a fixed amount to all parties and a further amount to parties on the basis of their representation in the two Houses. In addition to the amount payable for election campaign purposes, a sum (equivalent to $A35m) will be made available each year to the parties. Of this latter amount, 20 per cent will be divided equally among parties represented in Parliament, while the remainder will be apportioned to parties on the basis of the number of seats they hold in each House.

Austria

Austria is in the process of introducing an arrangement that will relate payments to parties to proportion of votes received in election years, and to parliamentary representation for party running costs in non-election years.

France

No direct contributions. Candidates who receive 5 per cent of the votes are reimbursed the cost of paper, printing etc.

United Kingdom

Each candidate is reimbursed for the cost of one communication per annum to each elector in his prospective constituency.

Election Campaigns: Limits on Expenditure (Question No. 239)

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

am asked the Minister representing the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Can he say what countries impose a limit on expenditure by candidates or organisations m respect of Parliamentary elections.
  2. If so, what are the details of (a) maximum expenditure, (b) method of enforcement and (c) penalty imposed for infringement in each case.
Mr Street:
LP

– The Minister for Administrative Services has provided me with the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

  1. and (2) I refer the honourable member to the reply by the then Minister for the Interior (Mr Hunt) to Question on Notice No. 5406 (Hansard, 17 August 1972, pages 442-443), which sets out the position as at 1972.

The following information in respect of Canada, the United Kingdom, New Zealand and the U.S.A. indicates relevant developments in English-speaking countries since 1972.

Canada

The Electoral Expenses Act 1974 imposed ceilings on expenditure by both political parties and individual candidates. A political party may spend a maximum of Can$0.30 for each voter in constituencies where that party fields a candidate. A candidate may spend Can$1.00 for each of the first 15 000 voters in his constituency, Can$0.50 for each of the next 10 000 voters and Can$0.25 for each additional voter. Hence, in a constituency of 50 000, the maximum permissible expenditure by a candidate would be Can$26,250.

Parties and candidates are required to send an audited return of expenditure to the Chief Electoral Officer. A party which exceeds the limit may be fined up to Can$25,000. A candidate who exceeds the limit may be fined up to Can$ 1,000. All limits are to be reviewed by the parliament after each general election.

United Kingdom

Section 64 of the Representation of the People Act provides that a candidate may not spend more than £1,075 and an additional 6p. for every 6 electors in a county constituency, and f 1,075 and an additional 6p. for every 8 electors in a borough constituency.

New Zealand

The maximum expenditure that a candidate for the House of Representatives may incur is $NZ2,000.

United States of America

The Federal Election Campaign Act 1974 provided that a candidate for the Senate could spend a maximum of US$150,000 or US$0.12 per voter, whichever was the greater. In the case of a primary election the limits were US$100,000 or US$0.08 per voter, whichever was the greater. A candidate for the House of Representatives could incur expenditure no greater than US$70,000 in respect of a primary campaign and a further US$70,000 in a general election. However, on 30 January 1976 the U.S.A. Supreme Court struck down the provisions limiting campaign expenditure.

New Zealand-Australia Free Trade Agreement (Question No. 295)

Mr Young:

asked the Minister for Overseas Trade, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Did his Department publish an advertisement in the Melbourne Age of 26 February 1 976 calling for comment on proposals to include items in Schedule A of the New Zealand- Australia Free Trade Agreement.
  2. If so, does that advertisement indicate that the addition of the commodities named would take effect from 1 January 1976.
  3. If so, what steps have been taken to prevent speculation in the importation of these goods, when his Department has indicated an intention to make the goods free of duty to a retrospective date.
Mr Anthony:
NCP/NP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. Yes. However the date of 1 January 1 976 should have read 1 July 1976.
  3. The advertisement which appeared in the Melbourne Age and other daily newspapers on 26 February was part of a normal procedure carried out in connection with regular 6 monthly reviews of the New Zealand-Australia Free Trade Agreement. There has been no evidence that this procedure provides opportunity for financial gain through speculation in the importation of goods.

Foreign Aid Program (Question No. 334)

Mr Lloyd:

asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice:

Will he initiate discussions with the Australian Dairy Cor- g (ration to consider the possibility of formally donating to Deomcratic Cambodia, as pan of our foreign aid program, the now unused milk reconstitution plant in that country, together with the technical assistance necessary to re-open the plant and the provision of the essential raw materials for its operation.

Mr Peacock:
LP

– The answer to the Honourable Member’s question is as follows:

The composition of Australian aid programs to recipient countries is determined after consultation and by agreement with those countries. Australia is not in diplomatic relations with the Government of Cambodia, the Australian aid program for Cambodia was suspended when Australian representation was withdrawn in 197S, and there has so far been no discussion of its resumption. In these circumstances it would be inappropriate to initiate discussions with the Australian Dairy Corporation regarding the milk recombining plant in Phnom Penh in which it has a 20 per cent equity interest. Indeed, any such discussions would presuppose knowledge of the state of that plant- such information as would be needed is not, however, currently available.

Oriental Fruit Fly (Question No. 387)

Mr Bungey:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) What action is being taken by his Department to contain and/or destroy Oriental Fruit Fly recently discovered in the Northern Territory.
  2. What funds have been provided for this purpose.
  3. What deficiencies exist in the quarantine regulations, or the enforcement of these regulations, to permit the entry of such flies to Australia.
Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) Oriental fruit fly was detected on Melville Island in the Northern Territory last November. Because of the known significance of Oriental fruit fly in other pans of the world, a programme of suppression was designed and approved to contain the pest to Melville and Bathurst Islands.

During subsequent surveys on the mainland, the pest was detected in the Northern Territory. Suppression activity was suspended and a decision on eradication deferred pending further information, including the extent of mainland infestation.

Intensified surveys, undertaken since that time revealed that the Oriental fruit fly is distributed over 300 000 square kilometres of the Northern Territory.

A considerable amount of biological data on the pest is being assembled following recent overseas studies by leading Australian entomologists. CSIRO is establishing a laboratory in Darwin for further biological assessment of the Oriental fruit fly species in Northern Australia. Quarantine measures have been instituted.

  1. Funds provided 1 975-76-$ 1 ,803,000.00; Funds expended 1975-76-5344,472.37.
  2. It is not known when or how Oriental fruit fly arrived in Australia and so specific deficiencies in quarantine legislation or administration cannot be identified. However, as a result of recent investigations both overseas and in Australia it is now concluded that Oriental fruit fly has been established in the Northern Territory for a considerable period of time.

Oriental Fruit Fly (Question No. 388)

Mr Bungey:

asked the Minister for the Northern Territory, upon notice:

What action is being taken by his Department to contain and to destroy Oriental Fruit Fly recently discovered in the Northern Territory, and what funds have been provided for this purpose.

Mr Adermann:
Minister Assisting the Minister for National Resources · FISHER, QUEENSLAND · NCP/NP

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

My Department with the co-operation of the Departmenof Health, CSIRO and the Queensland Department of Primary Industries conducted a suppression campaign using protein hydrolysate and malathion insecticide. The campaign was commenced shortly after the first positive identification of oriental fruit fly was made in the Northern Territory in November last year. The suppression campaign ceased in January 1976. The decision not to proceed further with the suppression was not taken lightly in view of the possible threat to Australian fruit industries and was based on 4 main factors.

1 ) The extremely heavy wet season rains at the time was reducing the effectiveness of the spray and causing serious logistical problems in the supply of the chemicals.

Environmental considerations especially in Darwin where there had been an unusually heavy use of insecticide in the area following cyclone Tracy.

Mounting scientific opinion that the infestation was not new. This question had been raised following the results of an intensive trapping program which showed a very wide distribution. The insect is now known to occupy the entire top end westward to Kununurra and south to Newcastle Waters. It has now been confirmed that oriental fruit fly has existed in the Northern Territory since 1964.

The lack of any apparent effect on cultivated fruit. This has also been confirmed since January by intensive surveys of over 300 household gardens in Darwin which have failed to show any infestations in cultivated fruit.

Although suppression has been suspended and eradication now appears to be technically not possible, other measures have been pursued. Quarantine precautions recommended by the Australian Agricultural Council have been investigated and a report prepared by my Department and the Department of Health outlining staff and facilities required will be available shortly

Funds for all aspects of the oriental fruit fly campaign have been provided from a $ 1.803m allocation made available by the Minister for Health. Expenditure to date and anticipated commitments to 30 June 1 976 total $805,250.

Audiology (Question No. 404)

Mr Lloyd:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Did the previous Minister Tor Health appoint an Australian Audiology Investigation Committee and was Dr Ronald J. Balthazor of the Lincoln Institute appointed as its Chairman.
  2. If so (a) is the committee continuing, ( b) what are its terms of reference and (c) who are the other members of the committee.
  3. If not, what standing does this committee have with the Minister or the Department of Health.
Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) My Department has no knowledge of this Committee.
  2. and (3) Seed) above.

Launceston Hospital (Question No. 419)

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

am asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) What sum has the Australian Government paid to date for the first stage of the new hospital at Launceston.
  2. What is the estimated date of completion.
Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) Grants made to date total $732,933.
  2. The contract for preliminary site works has been let and the anticipated date of completion of the first stage of the new hospital is late 1981.

Taxation (Question No. 445)

Mr Young:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Has his attention been drawn to advertisements being circulated by Rydge Publications of Sydney headed: ‘How would you like an extra $ 1 ,000 take home pay this year’.
  2. If so, does this advertisement advise businessmen that they can increase their take home pay by a variety of means, such as claiming deductions for food, clothes, houses, purchase of shares, overseas travel, credit cards and expense accounts.
  3. Does the advertisement also state that all this requires is ‘a little co-operation from your company’.
  4. Will he ascertain which companies have responded to this advertisement, and take steps to invoke section 260 of the Income Tax Assessment Act against them.
Mr Lynch:
LP

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

  1. 1 have been informed that the advertisement in Question is part of a campaign to promote the sale by Rydge Publications Pty Ltd of a book entitled ‘The New Ways of Reducing Executives’ Tax’.
  2. Yes.
  3. Yes.
  4. As the Commissioner of Taxation has the sole responsibility for the administration of the income tax laws, the matter has been drawn to his attention.

Taxation Appeals (Question No. 446)

Mr Young:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice:

  1. How many taxpayers are waiting to have appeals against their assessments heard by a Taxation Board of Review.
  2. What is the average waiting time for an appeal to be heard.
Mr Lynch:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) There are three Taxation Boards of Review and the number of cases awaiting hearing by the Boards at 30 April 1976 totalled 416
  2. The average waiting time for an appeal to be heard is between eight and nine months. If an earlier hearing is desired, it is always open to the taxpayer concerned to make representations to that effect to the Chairman of the Board.

Hovercraft (Question No. 448)

Mr Young:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Industry and Commerce, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Did a group of Australian engineers and designers approach the Department for support in the development of a revolutionary type of Hovercraft.
  2. If so, was this group located in a Victorian country town.
  3. Is it a fact that, because of assistance from the Department of Overseas Trade, Japanese and American interests observed the work in progress, and that the group is now moving to the United States to market its Hovercraft.
  4. What criteria were applied to the request for assistance, and why did this result in the loss of valuable technology and design facilities.
Mr Howard:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) An organisation styling itself Neoteric Engineering Affiliates Pty Ltd in 1975 approached the Department of Manufacturing Industry seeking information on the Australian Inventions Assistance Scheme; the organisation claimed it was developing hovercraft, and mentioned that it was seeking assistance in the development of one part of the craft. Information on the Assistance Scheme was supplied and the organisation was invited to submit further details so that its case could be assessed. Such details have not yet been provided but the same organisation applied in 1975 to the Industrial Research and Development Grants Board for assistance.
  2. The correspondence from the organisation originated from a Melbourne city address. A subsequent article in the press stated that operations were based in the Victorian town of Hastings.
  3. 1 have not been informed by the organisation of its intentions, although I have seen a press report to the effect that operations will be transferred out of this country.
  4. The approaches received by the Department and by the Industrial Research and Development Grants Board were appropriately dealt with in each case. In the latter case the approach resulted in a grant to the maximum permitted, in the circumstances, under the Act; no application was made for assistance under the Inventions Assistance Scheme. The two schemes are mutually exclusive, and the Act seems to be the appropriate mechanism in this case.

Canberra: Small Businesses (Question No. 454)

Mr Young:

asked the Minister for the Capital Territory, upon notice:

  1. How many small businesses are affected by the introduction of the City Area Leases Ordinance 1976.
  2. What is the estimated number of small businesses which will be forced to close in the face of threats of fines of up to $ 10,000 unless they leave business premises.
  3. What special provisions are being made to ensure that the small businessman who had conducted his business from his home does not join the growing queue of unemployed.
Mr Staley:
LP

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

  1. 1) to (3) The questions asked reveal a misunderstanding of the situation. This is understandable in view of press reports about an amendment recently made to the City Area Leases Ordinance.

The Ordinance was first introduced in 1936. It enables leases in Canberra to be granted for specific business and/or residential purposes. It makes it an offence for land to be used for any purpose other than that authorised under the lease. The honourable Member will recall the importance his party has always attached to leasehold and to regulating and use through the purpose clause of a lease.

The 1976 Ordinance amendment was promulgated to correct a legislative deficiency which inhibited the Department in its proper administration of the Ordinance.

Recent publicity has suggested that the Department would use the provision to put small businessmen out of business. Particular reference was made to those businessmen operating from their homes.

These statements ignore the fact that the Ordinance provides separately that bonafide residents may seek and obtain approval to carry on their profession, trade, occupation or calling from their home, provided a nuisance is not caused to neighbours and the activity is not against the public interest.

A large number of residents conducting minor businesses have sought and obtained such approvals which are given conditionally upon them complying with specific conditions intended to control the impact on neighbours. Any other applicants whose activity is acceptable would obtain a similar approval. In a small proportion of cases only, where neighbours would be adversely affected, has approval been refused.

However any business which is established on a site in defiance of the lease conditions and without such foregoing approval would face possible legal action. I make no apology for this in view of my Ministerial responsibility in regard to the leasehold system under which planned land use is maintained in Canberra.

The Ordinance also contains a procedure for seeking a permanent change of lease purpose by application to the A.C.T. Supreme Court.

Imports of Onions and Onion Compounds (Question No. 474)

Mr Yates:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Industry and Commerce, upon notice:

What steps does the Minister propose to take to halt the heavy imports of foreign onions and onion compounds, which are causing serious dislocation of the sale of onions grown in Australia and confusion in the food industries.

Mr Howard:
LP

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

The Department of Industry and Commerce is investigating a request from the onion processors for urgent temporary tariff protection against imports of dehydrated onion and onion essence.

The Department is consulting with the Department of Primary Industry before finalising its investigation and a decision on the request is expected very soon.

Bell Insurance Corporation (Question No. 479)

Mr Jacobi:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice:

Further to Question No. 2 1 4 relating to the recent collapse of the Bell Insurance Co. Pty Ltd and as no public statement was issued either by the Insurance Commissioner or himself subsequent to the refusal of an authorisation in December 197S, will he take immediate steps to introduce appropriate legislative measures to ensure that the public is informed and, in particular to enable policy holders to seek alternative cover.

Mr Lynch:
LP

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

As the Minister Assisting the Treasurer announced on 6 May 1976, the Government has decided to introduce legislation to amend the Insurance Acts 1973 and the Life Insurance Act 1945-73 to strengthen the administrative machinery of the legislation supervising the insurance industry. The honourable member can be assured that his views regarding public notification of refusals of companies to carry on insurance business have been considered in this context.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 18 May 1976, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1976/19760518_reps_30_hor99/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant