House of Representatives
5 October 1977

30th Parliament · 2nd Session

  1. House of Representatives
  2. 30th Parliament
  3. 1977

The House met at 2. 1 5 p.m.

page 1619

ABSENCE OF MR SPEAKER

The Clerk:

– I have to inform the House of the absence of the Speaker who is on parliamentary business overseas. In accordance with Standing Order 14, the Chairman of Committees will take the chair as Acting Speaker.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Lucock) thereupon took the chair, and read prayers.

page 1619

PETITIONS

The Clerk:

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

Private Nursing Homes: Pensioner Patients

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

That many pensioners who are holders of the Pensioners Health Benefit Card, have suffered undue hardship as inmates of Private Nursing Homes, because the Federal Government subsidy was insufficient to meet the charges as laid down.

Many pensioners whose spouse was an inmate of the Private Nursing Homes suffered poverty in an endeavour to sustain their partner while in the nursing home.

Only in rare cases was the statutory minimum patient contribution as laid down adhered to.

That the telephone was a matter of life and death to many pensioners, but because of the cost of installation of the telephone many are unable to afford the installation.

That those pensioners who have only their pension and very little else to live on and are forced to pay high rents, are in many cases living in extreme poverty.

The foregoing facts impel your petitioners to ask the Australian Government as a matter of urgency to:

  1. . Make sure that subsidies paid to Private Nursing Homes are such that each pensioner holding a Pensioners Health Benefit Card will pay the Private Nursing Home no more than the statutory minimum patient contribution, which will allow six dollars per week to be retained by the pensioner patient for their personal use.
  2. That a pensioner holding a Pensioner Health Benefit Card shall have a telephone installed free of charge, or at a very nominal charge.
  3. That those pensioners who have only their pension and very little else to live on, shall receive a subsidy to assist them. The subsidy to be governed by a Means Test.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Gillard, Dr Klugman, Mr Les McMahon, Mr Morris, Mr Antony Whitlam and Mr E. G. Whitlam.

Petitions received.

Tertiary Education Assistance

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

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

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

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

Your petitioners, therefore, humbly pray that the Commonwealth Government will act immediately to reverse it decision.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Dr Klugman, Mr Les McMahon and Mr E. G. Whitlam.

Petitions received.

Broadcasting and Television Programs

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

That because television and radio

  1. affect our social and moral environment,
  2. are family media watched and heard by many children at all times, and
  3. c) present too much explicit violence and sex, they therefore need stronger control than other media and the existing standards need stricter enforcement in both national and commercial sectors.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray:

That the Australian Government will amend the Broadcasting and Television Act, in relation to both national and commercial broadcasters, to legislate:

  1. for adequate and comprehensive programs in the best interests of the general public,
  2. against self-regulation by the broadcasting and television industry,
  3. for an independent consumer body to represent the best interests of the general public, and
  4. for immediate and effective penalties to be imposed for breaches of program and advertising standards.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray,

Petitions received. by Mr Katter and Mr E. G. Whitlam. Petitions received.

Medical Benefits: Abortion Claims

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 abortion has become a multi-million dollar business in Australia in spite of the fact that the Medical Practice Clarification Bill in 1973 was overwhelmingly defeated.

The multi-national giant, Population Services International which operates in Sydney, is now expanding its business to include Canberra.

In 1976 alone, over 46,000 abortions were being paid for under the existing Medical Benefits Schedule which stipulates the benefit payable for Medical Services under both Medibank and the Private Health Insurance Funds.

Item 6469- “The evacuation of the contents of a gravid uterus by curettage and suction curettage” now attracts a benefit of $65.00. In 1976, close to $5 million were spent to destroy unborn children.

Under the ‘abortion item ‘ No. 6469, abortion-on-demand is now being paid for from Public monies, i.e. contributions to the existing Health Funds.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government takes action:

  1. to stop payments of abortion claims under Item No. 6469 of the Medical Benefits Schedule except in the case that the abortion has been carried out in a hospital and it being a certified medical procedure of preventing the death of the mother.
  2. to stop the funding and operation of any so-called pregnancy help service or health centre which offers abortion-on-demand.
  3. to financially assist those pregnancy help services which provide genuine support to both mothers and thenunborn children.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received. by Mr Bourchier Petition received.

Replacement Constitution

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled; The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: that we believe that Australia’s constitution is undemocratic and should be replaced by a democratic constitution. This new consitution should be drafted at a representative, directly elected people’s convention following extensive public debate, and then put to a referendum of the people. The petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Parliament, as a matter of urgency, will help to promote such public debate and will arrange for the holding of such a people’s convention and referendum.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray,

Petition received. by Mr Lionel Bowen. Petition received.

Estate Duty

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

That where whole or part of a deceased estate passes to the surviving spouse it should be free from Federal estate duty.

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

State Housing Organisations: Interest on Loans

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of residents in the dry area of Sydney respectively sheweth that they are opposed to the Treasurer’s recommendation to increase the interest rate of loans to State Housing organizations. They assert that the proposed increase from 4 per cent to 10 per cent will drastically increase rents and cause hardship to public housing tenants.

Your petitioners therefore pray that your Honourable House will abandon the present proposal and maintain the existing interest rate.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray,

Petition received. by Mr Les McMahon. Petition received.

Australian National Gallery: Purchase of Major Works of Art

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 Cabinet’s decision to reject the Council of the Australian National Gallery’s proposal to purchase the Georges Braque painting, Grand Nu, ignores the knowledge and experience of the Council ‘s members.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that:

The Council of the Australian National Gallery be granted the right to purchase major works of art within the Gallery’s budget without Cabinet intervention and that Cabinet revoke its decision to reject the Council’s recommendation to purchase the Grand Nu.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray,

Petition received. by Mr Morris. 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. b) 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 introduced.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray,

Petition received. by Mr Morris. Petition received.

Whaling

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 due to the new information on whale communication, behaviour and intelligence, and to the depleted state of most of the great whale stocks and the uncertainty associated with whale population estimates, that commercial whaling is no longer acceptable to the vast majority of Australians. It is urged that immediate steps be taken to end this activity.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray,

Petition received. by Mr Morris. Petition received.

Mr Ignazio Salem!

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned Australian Council of Trade Unions Congress delegates assembled respectfully showeth:

  1. That we believe the Government should grant resident status to Mr Ignazio Salemi an Italian journalist engaged in important work within the Italian community.
  2. We believe the Federal Ombudsman’s report indicates that Mr Salemi has been denied natural justice, and subsequent comments by the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs confirm that Mr Salem ‘s deportation order was based on political motives.
  3. We believe the Government should not impose its political bias on the implementation of its immigration policy.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray,

Petition received. by Mr Antony Whitlam. Petition received.

page 1621

AUSTRALIA’S RELATIONS WITH INDONESIA

Notice of Motion

Mr Kevin Cairns:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

-I give notice that at the next sitting I shall move:

That Australia needs to retain and preserve amicable and friendly relations with Indonesia, without allowing that relationship to be poisoned by a campaign directed and supported from Australia in relation to East Timor.

page 1621

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

page 1621

QUESTION

GLASS AND FIBRE PACKAGING INDUSTRIES

Mr Les McMahon:
SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I ask the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs: Is it a fact that, without reference to interested local manufacturers of packaging materials, the Government has removed the duty differential between certain imported spirits in bulk and in bottles? Were the effects on unemployment in the glass and fibre packaging industries taken into account before making this decision? Does this decision mean that approximately 1,000 employees in New South Wales alone are faced with unemployment and that many firms in the glass and packaging industries will have surplus machinery which has been installed at great expense?

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

– It is not a fact that there was no consultation with the industries concerned in this matter. An inquiry was conducted and it was open to all interested parties to make representations. There was no consultation between me as Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs and the particular industries but there was an opportunity for all interested parties to make these representations. The representations made were very carefully considered by the Government before a decision was taken. The Government had to weigh up carefully as did the Commission the effects of its decision. The decision was very carefully considered. I also inform the House that since the decision was taken by the Government further representations have been received by, I think, the Minister for Primary Industry, the Minister for Industry and Commerce and myself. Those representations are being given careful consideration at present.

page 1621

QUESTION

DEBATE WITH MR HAYDEN

Mr SAINSBURY:
EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES

-I direct a question to the Acting Treasurer. I refer to the rather pathetic and feeble calls by the Labor spokesman on economic affairs for a public debate on the economy. I ask the Minister whether it is a fact that the Australian Broadcasting Commission invited both him and the honourable member for Oxley to debate the issue on the television program This Day Tonight last evening?

Mr Eric Robinson:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

-Certainly the Australian Broadcasting Commission invited me to appear on This Day Tonight last night. I understand that it also asked the honourable member for Oxley to appear. I am told that he declined. The honourable member for Oxley is a bit degraded and downgraded these days. He is now entering the House. For his information, I am referring to his inability to appear on television last night with me. When he sensed a week or two ago that there might be yet another leadership struggle in the Labor Party he busied himself trying to avail himself of the media. First of all, he wanted to debate the economy with the Prime Minister. Why should the Prime Minister lend his personal prestige and the prestige of his office to debating with the honourable member for Oxley? Then the honourable member for Oxley wanted a debate with the Treasurer. The Treasurer was overseas serving the national interests, not back in Australia doing all that he could to subvert the national reputation.

When the ABC approached me, I must admit that my first reaction was why should I lend my personal prestige to appearing with the honourable member for Oxley? But out of sheer compassion I decided, as a fellow Queenslander, that I would give him an opportunity to apologise to the Australian community for the things he has been saying. I was particularly concerned about him yesterday after he had been demolished by the honourable member for Denison and his supporters. I do not know why the honourable member for Oxley was unable to appear on television. Perhaps he was busy in Sydney having a look at the garbage tins outside the Reserve Bank.

page 1622

QUESTION

ECONOMIC ADVISERS TO THE GOVERNMENT

Mr MORRIS:
SHORTLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES

-I direct my question to the Prime Minister. Which management consultants which his Government utilises from time to time are known personally to him and what access do they have to classified economic and fiscal information? Is it a fact that economic advice conveyed by these consultants has been at variance with that provided by Treasury, the Government’s official economic adviser? Is the acceptance of the consultants’ advice the reason for the sudden shifts in the direction of the Government’s economic policies? Finally, is the economic policy being pursued by the Government this week based on Treasury advice or that of the world wide consultants to multinationals, McKinsey and Co. Incorporated?

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-Order! The final part of that question relates to a matter of policy. I leave it to die Prime Minister to answer it if he so desires.

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

– I am not aware of economic advice being given to the Government by any management consultant. The Government’s advice comes from a variety of sources. Obviously it comes from the Government’s expert departments which never fail to give honest and firm advice as to the best course that the Government and the country ought to take at a particular time. Advice also comes from the Reserve Bank of Australia, as the honourable gentleman would know, and Ministers have their own views of what should be done.

One of the things that the honourable gentleman seems to fail to understand is that no matter what advice comes to the Government, the Government is plainly responsible for what it does. It accepts that responsibility. The Government must use its judgment. One of the differences between this Government and its predecessor is that the former Prime Minister was constantly seeking scapegoats and excuses for the failures and the abysmal record of that Government. Inflation went up to 19 per cent in one particular half-year, and that Government’s actions were adding to unemployment to the extent that the number of unemployed went up 200,000 in one year. This Government is responsible for what it does. It accepts that responsibility, quite unlike its predecessor. My predecessor as Prime Minister sacked Treasurer after Treasurer after Treasurer and tried all the time to say that he was innocent and did not know what was happening.

page 1622

QUESTION

CITIZEN BAND RADIO LICENCES

Mr JULL:
BOWMAN, QUEENSLAND

– I ask the Minister for Post and Telecommunications whether it is a fact that the bans imposed by unions on the issue of CB radio licences have been lifted. Can the Minister now indicate what delay applicants for CB licences will have to face before licences are issued?

Mr Eric Robinson:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

-I am pleased to say that the bans have been lifted after a considerable delay. About 25,000 licences have been issued, and I am informed that the Department hopes to catch up with the rest of the backlog of applications in about four weeks. It could be a little longer in a few areas. I have asked that the issuing of licences be expedited as much as possible so as to reduce any inconvenience to the community.

page 1622

QUESTION

PERMANENT BUILDING SOCIETIES

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

– I crave the prestige of an answer to a question addressed to the Acting Treasurer. Since another building society in Queensland had to suspend some operations last week I ask him whether he will at last show compassion to investors in permanent building societies by taking action available to the Federal Government, namely, to proclaim Part IV of the Financial Corporations Act, so that nationwide regulations can be made specifying the asset ratios, lending policies and interest rates of those societies.

Mr Eric Robinson:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

– The Government’s decision has been not to proclaim that part of the Act. The Leader of the Opposition refers to the collapse of a substantial permanent building society in Queensland. This matter is of concern, particularly in Queensland and to that financial sector throughout the Australian community. It has to be understood that traditionally building societies have come under State legislation. After difficulty some months ago, the Queensland Government brought in additional legislation so that it could monitor problems that arose. It was out of the monitoring by the Queensland

Government of the Queensland Permanent Building Society that the decision was taken a few days ago that a liquidator be appointed.

Let me say to the Leader of the Opposition that, of course, I am in touch with the Queensland Premier and the Deputy Premier and Treasurer concerning this matter. Discussions and negotiations are now going on between the Government, the liquidator, other permanent building societies and the trading banks, and some discussion is also taking place with the Reserve Bank of Australia, for the purpose of seeing that a nervousness and concern does not spread throughout the Australian community. I take this opportunity to say that there is no need for Australians to be concerned. This is a matter peculiar to this one society which has had a history of difficulty in investment and some managerial problems for some time. I hope that, in a spirit of co-operation with the Queensland Government, we will see a solution to this problem and a sense of security given not only to investors in that society but also to those who have invested in permanent building societies generally. As to the honourable gentleman’s suggestion that the Government should consider proclaiming that part of the Act, I just take note of it

page 1623

QUESTION

X-RAY SCANNERS

Mr DOBIE:
COOK, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Has the attention of the Minister for Health been drawn to the high cost of installing and operating a new method of total body X-raying, technically known as computerised axial tomography scanning? Is the Minister aware that there is an area of possible abuse of such CAT scanners in Australia in that excessive claims may be made under Government approved medical insurance schemes? Is the Minister in a position to advise the House whether he has taken any action to investigate any such abuse that could arise following the recent installation of these advanced and efficient yet expensive items of medical equipment?

Mr HUNT:
Minister for Health · GWYDIR, NEW SOUTH WALES · NCP/NP

– I am well aware of the development and introduction of computerised axial tomography scanning which is perhaps the most modern diagnostic equipment yet to be installed in Australia. In the United States of America there has been a tremendous proliferation of these pieces of equipment, which is of course adding enormously to the health bill of the United States. I think that there are something like 22 CAT scanners either installed or on order in Australia. To try to avoid any abuse or over use of this type of diagnostic service the Commonwealth Government has set up a committee under Dr Sidney Sax to inquire into ways and means of ensuring that unnecessary proliferation does not occur, at great cost, in this country. We have received the co-operation of the Australian Medical Association, the Royal Australasian College of Physicians, the Royal Ausralasian

College of Surgeons and the Society for Medical and Biological Engineering who will also be playing a part in the inquiry. Also, all State governments have indicated their concern at the possible proliferation of these machines, and they are co-operating with the inquiry. I hope that in the not too distant future I will be able to report to the Parliament on what actions the committee recommends to the Government, to prevent a situation similar to that which has worred us very greatly in the pathology area. I thank the honourable member for his question.

page 1623

QUESTION

RANGER URANIUM MINE

Mr UREN:
REID, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I direct my question to the Prime Minister. I refer him to a telegram that he has received from the Northern Lands Council protesting at works projected at the Ranger uranium mine site in the immediate future. I ask: Can the Prime Minister assure the House that no works will proceed at Ranger or at any other mine site until the national park has been proclaimed, all Aboriginal land rights questions have been settled and the recommendations of the second Ranger report have been fully implemented?

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
LP

– The honourable gentleman will know that the Government has made its decisions concerning the mining and development of uranium- I should say ‘the continued mining and export of uranium’ because some people fail to appreciate that this has been going on for about IS or 20 years so far as Australia is concerned. The Government has followed very closely the decisions of the Ranger Uranium Environmental Inquiry and its recommendations. The Government’s decisions have been made known and those decisions will be adhered to.

page 1623

QUESTION

AIR SERVICES: ROCKHAMPTONBARCALDINELONGREACH

Mr KATTER:
KENNEDY, QUEENSLAND

– Will the Minister for Transport advise the House whether any action has been taken in relation to the restoration of the air services between Rockhampton, Barcaldine and Longreach, in Queensland?

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

– One of the problems we found when coming to office resulted from die decision of the previous Government to cut out support for small airlines and commuter services servicing isolated areas. One of the great tragedies of the Whitlam Government was its decision to stop that support and to phase out subsidies for Connair Pry Ltd and Bush Pilots Airways Ltd services on a great number of runs. We said from the start that we were concerned to see that outback areas and isolated people were properly serviced in this manner. The House will be aware of the forceful advocacy of the honourable member for Kennedy in this regard. I know that when the Prime Minister was up there late last week he received deputations on the matter and listened with a great deal of concern and interest to the people who were putting their case to him.

We have decided to reinstate the subsidy of $30,000 to Bush Pilots so that that airline can maintain the service. The honourable member for Port Adelaide is attempting to interject. I know that he has no sympathy on a subject like this. He has no concern at all for isolated people. The actions of the previous Labor Government proved that. The honourable member has as much interest in the outback of Queensland as has the man in the moon. We have decided to reinstate the subsidy to Bush Pilots so that the service from Rockhampton through Alphax to Barcaldine and on to Longreach can be continued.

page 1624

QUESTION

EMERGENCY UNEMPLOYMENT COMMITTEES

Mr STEWART:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations: Is it a fact that all funds granted to emergency unemployment committees for Community Youth Support Scheme programs have been frozen? If so, why was this decision taken? Is the Minister aware of the excellent work being done by these committees, particularly the South West Sydney Emergency Unemployment Committee, in assisting young people of varying ethnic groups to find employment? Will the Minister take immediate action to restore funds to these schemes?

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

-No, it is not true that all funds to Community Youth Support Scheme projects have been frozen, although I understand that telegrams relating to, from memory, five projects and indicating that funds would be frozen or suspended were sent out. I am well aware of the very fine job that is being done under many of these schemes, which are supported by many honourable members of this House. Some 212 schemes have been approved throughout Australia. At any one time about 8,000 young people are participating in them and in total some 20,000 young people have participated.

I was not happy about the way in which the instructions relating to the suspension or termination of funds for a few projects were issued. I have instructed that new arrangements should be followed whereby the State committee concerned, which has the responsibility to administer and approve such projects, will notify the federal member in whose electorate the project is involved. The committee will inform the appropriate federal member of any information it might have which would lead to the suspension or termination of funds, permitting him the opportunity to make his views known to the committee and to carry out whatever investigations he wishes to make. Finally, before any decision to terminate funds for any project is made, such proposal will need to come back to me for my personal assessment and approval.

page 1624

QUESTION

COMMUNITY HEALTH PROGRAM

Mr SIMON:
MCMILLAN, VICTORIA

– My question is addressed to the Minister for Health. With regard to the community health program, is the Minister able to advise whether he recently met State Health Ministers? If so, does he anticipate that State governments will meet funding projections established by the Commonwealth Government? Does he agree that a legislative base for the community health program is necessary to ensure continuity of the Commonwealth Government’s commitment and to encourage State governments to treat the program as one which is essential to contain the nation’s health costs because of the program’s preventative health bias?

Mr HUNT:
NCP/NP

-Yes. I met State Ministers on 23 September and there were two principal items on the agenda. The first was the new funding disciplines to be adopted by the joint CommonwealthState officials committees in meeting the Commonwealth’s obligations under the arrangement for equal sharing of the net approved operating costs of our hospitals. The second item on the agenda was the long-term funding arrangements for the school dental program and the community health program. The States have accepted in principle die new funding arrangements to restrain the escalation of hospital operating costs throughout Australia, which have been escalating at the rate of about 30 per cent per annum. This year we have allowed for an increase of 16 per cent and we hope that the State and Commonwealth officials will be able to constrain hospital costs within those bounds. The States also have sought a commitment from the Commonwealth to ensure that the present funding levels of the school dental program and the community health program are maintained, the commitment to be embodied in two separate Acts to give the States a guarantee that Commonwealth funding will continue. The Government places great importance on the school dental program and the community health program as means of maintaining an active preventative health policy with the co-operation of the States. So we certainly are considering the possibilty of introducing legislation as a means of ensuring that the States have this guarantee and as a means of gaining the full co-operation of State governments in both programs which we believe are essential to long-term long term preventative health measures in Australia.

page 1625

QUESTION

UNEMPLOYMENT STATISTICS

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-I ask the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations: Is it intended to defer publication of Commonwealth Employment Service unemployment figures with a view to substituting a new system which would show unemployment running at 60,000 persons below the CES figures? Is the new system likely to cost an additional $2m a year? What is the justification for this expensive proposal to defer publication of unemployment figures prior to a premature election?

Mr STREET:
LP

-The honourable member will be aware that during the time of his Government an inquiry into the reliability of Commonwealth Employment Service figures as a measure of the state of unemployment showed that they had serious deficiencies and that the figures of the Bureau of Statistics were a much more accurate measure of the state of the labour market. This was referred to in very strong terms by Mr Norgard in his review of the CES. He said that replacement of CES figures by figures derived from a monthly survey by the Australian Bureau of Statistics should have the highest priority. In view of the facts which came to light as a result of the inquiry made while the honourable gentleman’s party was in power and as a result of the recommendations made by Mr Norgard, the Government is considering how best to inform the public of the correct state of the labour market.

page 1625

COMMONWEALTH LOANS: INTEREST RATE

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

– I call the honourable member for Wentworth. I am sorry, I call the honourable member for Mackellar.

Mr WENTWORTH:
MACKELLAR, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the Acting Treasurer. Is a meeting with the State Premiers contemplated in the near future in order to discuss the possibility of reducing the interest rate on Commonwealth loans? In connection with this subject, has the Acting Treasurer considered the matters brought forward in the notice of motion which was given by me on 9 March last and which sets out a mechanism for raising money and, at the same time, reducing interest rates? Does the Acting Treasurer recall that I suggested that by the -

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-Order! I suggest that even though I made a mistake in calling the honourable member for Mackellar, when I called him by name instead of by his electorate, I called him for the purpose of asking a question and not making a speech.

Mr WENTWORTH:

-Mr Acting Speaker, I bow to your superior knowledge of the Standing Orders. Will the Acting Treasurer answer my question?

Mr Eric Robinson:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

-Of course, meetings with Premiers are convened from time to time by mutual agreement between the Prime Minister, the Premiers and the Treasurers. I have not been involved in any of those meetings. Like everybody else I am informed as to what is discussed. Any economic matter concerning interest rates, amongst other things, would quite possibly be discussed at such a meeting. However, the honourable member for Mackellar asked me whether I had had an opportunity to study the notice of motion which he gave on 9 March in which he indicated some economic advice to the Treasurer and to me. I regret to say that because of some other matters of concern which have had to have my attention, I have not been able to settle down and study that motion in depth. But given the opportunity before the Treasurer returns to Australia on Friday, I will be very pleased to have a look at the motion and I hope we will find time to have a discussion about it in the next couple of days.

page 1625

QUESTION

TELEVISION PROGRAM DISTRIBUTION USING SATELLITE

Mr CHARLES JONES:
NEWCASTLE, VICTORIA

-I direct a question to the Minister for Post and Telecommunications. I draw his attention to the announcement that he made on 22 September that the Government had set up a task force to carry out a detailed investigation into a report which he had recently received from the Australian Consolidated Press Ltd entitled: ‘Opportunity for Television Program Distribution in Australia using Satellites’. I ask the Minister whether he is aware of a feasibility study into the development of a domestic satellite system which was commissioned by a former Postmaster-General and which was received by Senator Bishop when he was

Postmaster-General in the former Government? Will the Minister table both these reports so that honourable members will be aware of what they contain? If not, why not? Having in mind that the task force will be considering a report by the Australian Consolidated Press Ltd, will the Minister give honourable members an assurance that all television and broadcasting operators will likewise be given an opportunity of putting a point of view to the task force? Also, will the Australian Broadcasting Commission be given an opportunity to comment?

Mr Eric Robinson:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

-I announced on 22 September that the Government would set up such a task force. I hope to have an opportunity in the next day or so of discussing with the Prime Minister the names of some nominees for the position of chairman of that task force, in the hope that we can get it moving in the next week or two. There is substantial benefit to be gained if we have more knowledge of the possibility of using domestic satellites within Australia. Of course, it would be a substantial decision for any government to make. Given the difficulties of communication within Australia it will not be possible to bring all the telephone services and all the television viewing facilities to all Australians, irrespective of where they may live, by the traditional means. We just will not have the funds or the capacity to do that. Therefore we are taking the opportunity to look at such a concept. I think the honourable member for Newcastle said when he was speaking to the statement I made that there could well be some merit in this proposal. The honourable member mentioned a report by Telecom Australia. I have discussed that with Telecom. Of course, one of the officers from the Telecommunications Commission will, I hope, be part of this task force. Such an invitation to join certainly has been extended to Telecom. A similar invitation will be extended to the Overseas Telecommunications Commission. I want a substantial task force to bring to us all the expertise that is available. I shall give consideration to the honourable member’s request to have that report and the other report tabled.

Mr Charles Jones:

– What about all the other broadcasting and television operators?

Mr Eric Robinson:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

-Of course, representatives of the industry will be asked for their opinion. We want to get an overall opinion from all of those people who are interested in this matter. The purpose of the exercise is to have available the greatest possible knowledge, competence and expertise both in this country and outside it. Indeed, the statement referred to talking to people in Papua New Guinea and in New

Zealand, because there could well be an involvement in those countries as well.

page 1626

QUESTION

BANS ON BUILDING PROJECTS IN VICTORIA

Mr FALCONER:
CASEY, VICTORIA

-Can the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations advise the House of the current state of the disputes involving bans on building projects in Victoria imposed by the Australian Builders Labourers Federation?

Mr STREET:
LP

-The House will be aware that bans imposed by the Australian Builders Labourers Federation on major building projects in Victoria are costing thousands of jobs at a time when the unemployment rate is relatively high, and when jobs could otherwise be immediately available on projects involving some $500m worth of investment. Some little time ago, as a result of an application made by the Master Builders Association, Mr Justice Alley of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission ordered under section 45 of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act a secret ballot to be held by the builders labourers involved in work on the State Savings Bank. The result of that ballot was that 44 members voted for a return to work and 16 voted against a return to work. The Master Builders Association then sent out notices to the men concerned asking them to report for work this week. I am informed that 40 men duly turned up at the site but were met by an organiser from the Builders Labourers Federation who informed them that no work was to take place. I am informed further that the men who had turned up thereupon held another ballot amongst themselves, the result of that ballot being that they would resume work, as I understand it, tomorrow.

Nothing could give a clearer indication of the very deep feeling among the rank and file members of Builders Labourers Federation against the totally irresponsible and destructive actions of their union leaders. They have expressed their opinion when given an opportunity to do so and they have reiterated that opinion despite the presence of a Builders Labourers Federation organiser who attempted to intimidate them out of voting to return to work. That is indicative of the fact that, when given the opportunity to do so, rank and file union members often indicate that they do not go along with the disruptive tactics of those who allege that they are representing their interests. I believe that the use of the ballot legislation in this instance, and in other instances in recent times, is an indication that the people concerned appreciate the opportunity of being allowed to voice their opinion.

If the BLF persists in its attempts to dissuade people from working on this project, as honourble members know there is currently a bans clause in the award and the Master Builders Association has made application for a certificate under it which could lead to the invocation of penal provisions of the Act. I have no doubt that the actions of the Builders Labourers Federation officials will be taken into account by the Deputy President of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission when he hears this case.

page 1627

QUESTION

UNEMPLOYMENT

Mr MARTIN:
BANKS, NEW SOUTH WALES

-The Prime Minister will recall that in his 1976-77 Budget Speech the Treasurer stated that it would be rash to predict an early reduction in unemployment. The Treasurer, in his recent Budget Speech, omitted to foreshadow any immediate reduction in the rising rate of unemployment. My question to the Prime Minister is this: When can we expect the fulfilment of his pledge of 27 November 1975 that only under a Liberal-Country Party government would there be jobs for all? Will the Government change its policy of deliberately created unemployment and cease using this tragic method of economic control?

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
LP

-The honourable gentleman rather spoilt his question by his comments at the end of it. He would know that during the period of inflation caused by the extravagance of the previous Administration in one year alone government expenditure went up by 46 per cent, a year to which the Leader of the Opposition said he would return if he had any chance to do so. Unemployment increased in that year by 200,000 as a very direct consequence of policies that the honourable gentleman then supported. Also, the wages policies that were pursued during those years led to very great disparities and made it very difficult for manufacturing industry in Australia. In addition, the then Administration reduced tariffs by 25 per cent, encouraging more imports, adding very greatly to unemployment and leading to the export of Australian jobs overseas. That demonstrates the utter gall that the honourable gentleman has in coming into this place and suggesting that this Government is not concerned about unemployment, when he belonged to and supported an administration that created the unemployment that Australia has.

Quite plainly it takes some time, as we said before the election, for imbalances in an economy to work themselves out. We said it would take a considerable time. So it will. The kind of wages policies that the honourable gentleman supports will delay the period in which there can be a return to proper levels of employment. Surveys during the winter months have shown that as a result of wage decisions taken in the early autumn a number of firms contained additional costs by shedding labour. I believe it is time honourable gentlemen opposite came to thensenses in these matters and realised, as a former distinguished Treasurer said before he left office, that unreasonable wage rises only take jobs away from other people, or words to that effect. That statement remains true. I believe that under the policies of this Government conditions are being established in which inflation has come down very markedly indeed. That is the first precondition for getting back to a situation in which there will be jobs for those who want to work.

page 1627

QUESTION

ESTATE DUTY

Mr LLOYD:
MURRAY, VICTORIA

-The Prime Minister will be aware that several State governments either have abolished State probate duty or are about to do so. Will this mean that the Commonwealth Government will collect more Federal estate duty and, therefore, to a degree nullify the actions of those State governments? Does the Prime Minister agree that this is a most unjust tax and that Federal estate duty should also be abolished or at least updated to compensate for the inflation of the past few years?

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
LP

– I think one of the reasons that State governments have been able to abolish what many people, including I am sure many people in this House, regard as a pernicious and evil tax is the policies of this Government which has made much greater sums available to State governments. As I have said on more than one occasion, I look forward to the day when the Commonwealth is as wealthy as the State governments which have acted in that way.

page 1627

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH CITIZENS: COMPULSORY VOTING

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

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Administrative Services. He will know that after newspaper articles and parliamentary questions which showed that electoral officers had given incorrect advice to ctizens of Commonwealth countries, particularly Cyprus and Malta, on their voting rights in Australia, the Chief Electoral Officer sent a circular to all divisional returning officers saying that Commonwealth nationals who have resided in Australia for six months are eligible to be enrolled as voters. Will the Government make it known that Commonwealth nationals are not only eligible to be enrolled as voters but are also required to be enrolled and that, under Australia’s system of compulsory enrolment and voting, they are subject to the same penalties as Australian citizens for failing to enrol and vote? Will the Chief Australian Electoral Officer take further steps by notices and advertisements to inform Commonwealth nationals of their rights and duties in Australia?

Mr STREET:
LP

-The Leader of the Opposition will appreciate that, in view of the ramifications and the serious nature of the questions he has raised, I shall need to take them up with my colleague the Minister for Administrative Services. I will see that he is provided with an answer.

page 1628

QUESTION

COMMUNITY HEALTH PROGRAM: TASMANIAN FUNDING

Mr BURR:
WILMOT, TASMANIA

– Is the Minister for Health aware that certain organisations in Tasmania have been informed by the State Government that their projects cannot be funded because the Commonwealth Government has not agreed to the release of funds under the Community Health Program? Can he inform the House as to the details of the Commonwealth funding arrangements for Tasmania under this program?

Mr HUNT:
NCP/NP

-I do not know whether ‘bunkum’ is a parliamentary word but that is how I would describe that report. The Commonwealth Government has increased its contribution to the Community Health Program by 14.8 per cent. The allocation to Tasmania this year is higher than it was last year. In fact, it is $2. 8m. It will be receiving its share under the Community Health Program of the $lm additional money that was set aside for the funding of women’s refuges in that State. Discussions are going on with the Tasmanian authorities and other State authorities so that they might establish their own priorities after discussion with organisations within their States. I do not think that Tasmania has much to grizzle about. It received by far the biggest share of the hospitals development program. It is receiving also a very fair share of funds under the Community Health Program. The honourable member for Wilmot might tell the Tasmanian Minister for Health when he goes back that he should be grateful for and gracious about what he is receiving.

page 1628

QUESTION

STORM DAMAGE IN SUNRAYSIA DISTRICT

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

– This morning my officers at my request contacted the various State departmental officers in the areas affected. It seems that the damage is mainly confined to the Red Cliffs area which is about IS kilometres south of Mildura. It is true that it has extended to a degree into other areas also. In that region there has been a serious effect on the dried fruit and wine grape industries at one of the most critical times m the growing season. The Australian Dried Fruits Association has estimated that there has been a loss of 15,000 tonnes of dried fruit grapes and 40,000 to 60,000 tonnes of wine grapes. I am told that about 400 properties are particularly badly affected. Most of these have experienced a total loss of product for the coming season. The industries or individuals affected should lodge claims in the first instance by an approach through their own State Government. The Federal Government in the normal course provides assistance for natural disasters, and of course it would consider sympathetically any approach which might be made by a relevant State government in respect of this disaster.

page 1628

QUESTION

ECONOMIC DAMAGE CAUSED BY STRIKES

Mr WILSON:
STURT, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

-Can the Prime Minister inform the House of the extent of disruption and damage to economic revival being caused to the country by irresponsible strike action?

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
LP

– In the first six months of this year the total number of days lost through industrial disputes was very much less than in 1974 when, for example, instead of 700,000 or 800,000 days being lost, something over four million man days were lost as a direct consequence of the activities of the previous Administration. Those statistics would seem to indicate that under the policies of this Government there has been a very considerable improvement in the total situation. A point that needs to be emphasised is that some extreme elements in the union movement are becoming more skilful in exerting a thoroughly disruptive effect on large sections of the Australian community by pulling a relatively few people out on strike. In addition, a number of industries which are prone to industrial disputes are engaged in the export areas, areas which are of great importance to general development and economic recovery in Australia.

There is not the slightest doubt that the disputes which are taking place and which have taken place are directly denying the right to work to thousands of Australians all round this country. People might have their attention focused on Victoria and the State Electricity Commission power dispute at present but unfortunately that is only one of a number of serious disputes that are resulting in a denial of the right to work to tens of thousands, and in that case perhaps even hundreds of thousands, of Australian workers. One of the amazing things about the members of the Opposition in this place is that they seem to applaud this kind of action. They seem to applaud the kind of action that is taking place at Yallourn at present. Have we ever heard them dissociate themselves from this kind of industrial disputation which is designed to tear the heart out of the economy of Australia?

This is happening not only in that area. The activities of the Seamens Union in Queensland in relation to the Utah dispute and the export of coal have resulted in the suspension of the Norwich Park project. That could well result in the suspension of work for 1,500 people or more in the coal fields of Queensland. If the same policy were to spread to New South Wales it would lead to very significant problems in the coal export industry there.

There is also the dispute conducted by certain members of the Australian Workers Union in Bass Strait I think that at this stage most honourable members are unaware of the fact that that dispute could lead to the cessation of oil production from Bass Strait by tomorrow or the day after. This is a serious dispute and it has been going on for many, many weeks. It is continuing because the people involved in it are not prepared to accept arbitration, they are not prepared to accept the judgment of the umpire. In fact a number of these disputes are quite deliberately designed to demolish any possibility of orderly settlement of disputes and the orderly determination of wages in Australia. Many of them are designed to deny the right to work to tens of thousands of workers in many States.

In relation to the matters that are very much before the Victorian Government at the present time I say that this Government gives its fullest possible support to the Victorian Government in the stand that it is taking in respect of a most important and vital matter affecting the interests not only of Victorians but also of Australia as a whole. I am advised that already well over $60m has been lost in wages and that there has been a production loss of over $140m. In the face of those figures can anyone deny that certain extreme elements in the union movement are seeking to destroy economic recovery in Australia? Even more importantly, at a time when there is too much unemployment those elements are denying the right of their work mates to work. All the Opposition can do is to applaud the fact that this is occurring.

page 1629

BURDEKIN RIVER PROJECT

Mr NIXON:
Minister for Transport · Gippsland · LP

– For the information of honourable members I present the report of the Burdekin Project Committee on resources and potential of the Burdekin River Basin, Queensland.

page 1629

INQUIRY ON MEDICAL FEES FOR MEDICAL BENEFIT PURPOSES

Ministerial Statement

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

For the information of honourable members I present the 1977 inquiry on medical fees for medical benefit purposes by Mr Justice J. T. Ludeke. I seek leave to make a statement relating to this report.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

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

Mr HUNT:

-On 13 April 1977, I announced the appointment of Mr Justice J. T. Ludeke, Deputy President of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, to conduct an inquiry to determine fees for medical benefit purposes to apply from 1 January 1978 to 31 December 1978. As background to the inquiry, honourable members will recall that a Medical Fees Tribunal had been convened in 1973, also under the chairmanship of Mr Justice Ludeke, to determine fees for fixing medical benefits. The establishment of the Tribunal followed a protracted period of disagreement with the medical profession over the level and nature of the most common fees then in existence.

As a result of the Tribunal’s determinations, amendments to the Medical Benefits schedule were made in November 1973 and April 1974. During the term of the Whitlam Government, there were three private inquiries- one in 1974 and two in 1975- to update those fee levels generally on the basis of increases in the costs of conducting medical practice and increases in the net income component. These inquiries resulted in total increases of 5 8.9 per cent, except pathology, over a two-and-a-half year period; pathology increased by 38.6 per cent over the same period. At this point, I seek leave to have a table of movements in medical benefits schedule fees incorporated in Hansard.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

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

The table read as follows-

Notes: (a) Percentage increases in columns (3) and (4) excludes Pathology. Increases in Pathology fees were-

There has been no increase in Pathology fees since 1 . 1 .76.

Changes in Pathology from 1.10.76 would mean a reduction in overall utilisation and cost. The 1.8.77 Pathology Schedule was completely re-drafted.

Increases in 1978 for Pathology fees have been deferred by the 1977 Enquiry. An Enquiry may be reconstituted, following a request from the A.M.A. to the Minister for Health, to determine increases (if any) in Pathology fees to apply in 1978.

  1. Increases as above in column (4) were determined as follows- 31.9 per cent increase determined by the 1974 Private Enquiry on Medical Fees for Medical Benefit Purposes; 4.2 per cent interim increase determined by First 1975 (Interim) Private Enquiry on Medical Fees for Medical Benefit Purposes; 20.5 per cent (incorporating the 4.2 per cent interim increase) determined by the Second 1975 Private Enquiry on Medical Fees for Medical Benefit Purposes; 7.5 per cent increase negotiated between A.M.A. and Government; 7.3 per cent increase determined by 1977 Enquiry on Medical Fees for Medical Benefit Purposes.
Mr HUNT:

– I thank the House. There was no inquiry held in 1976. Instead, the Government negotiated an overall increase with the Australian Medical Association. The increase of 7.5 per cent applied from 1 January 1977. In announcing the Government’s acceptance of this proposal on 8 September last year, I indicated that the overall increase was restrained and represented real progress towards the Government’s objective m containing health care costs in Australia. I also indicated last year that as a prelude to a detailed inquiry in 1977 to determine medical benefits fees from 1 January 1978, there would be continuing discussions with the AMA on ways of modifying and improving the mechanism by which fees for medical benefit purposes were periodically adjusted.

The determination of the 1977 inquiry was received on 22 September 1977 and in accordance with a prior undertaking by the Government to accept the determination for medical benefit purposes, the Government will take steps to implement it from 1 January 1978. The determination provides for increases in medical fees for medical benefit purposes which are restrained and consistent with current Government economic policy. The overall increase is 7.3 per cent, excluding pathology, which is less than the underlying rate of inflation. This represents a further major step in containing increases in health care costs in Australia. The Inquiry deferred an increase in pathology fees. If there is no increase in pathology fees in 1978, the overall increase would be about 6.7 per cent.

In contrast with previous inquiries, there were a number of participants in the proceedings of the Inquiry in addition to the Australian Medical Association and my Department. Other participants were Senator Shirley Walters, the New South Wales Health Commission, the Australian Association of Neurologists and the Society of Pathologists in Private Practice. The determination provides that there should be increases in fees for medical benefit purposes from 1 January 1978 to provide for increases in the gross income derived by medical practitioners from medical benefits schedule services. The increase in the gross schedule fee income determined by the Inquiry are: 8.2 per cent for general practitioners and consultant physicians; and 6.1 per cent for all other specialties, except pathology, where there was no increase. These increases were determined to cover increases in practice costs and to allow for an increase in net income. I need hardly emphasise at this point that doctors’ gross incomes have to cover practice costs before a net income is produced.

The component increases of the 8.2 per cent increase determined by the Inquiry in the gross schedule fee income of general practitioners and consultant physicians comprise a 12 per cent increase in practice costs and a S.2 per cent increase in net income. The increase of 5.2 per cent in net income was determined on the basis that it does not exceed increases over the last year received by persons in similar income brackets as a result of wage indexation. A lower increase in gross schedule fee income for other specialties, except pathology, was determined by the Inquiry. An analysis of this increase indicates that after allowing for increases in practice costs, the increase allowed in respect of net income was 2.2 per cent. The overall effect of the determination for all doctors, except pathologists, is to allow increases in gross schedule fee income of 7.3 per cent. After allowing for practice cost increases of 12 per cent, the increase in net income is 3.8 per cent for the whole year. This compares with an estimated increase of about 9 to 10 per cent in the average weekly earnings in the community, which can largely be attributed to wage indexation increases over the year.

Pathology fees were not increased by the Inquiry. The part of the Schedule relating to pathology fees was revised on 1 October 1976, and then completely revised again from 1 August 1977 following the report of the Pathology Services Working Party in March 1977. Honourable members will recall that these changes were introduced to curb over-utilisation and abuse of pathology services. Due to lack of information at this stage on the results of the 1 August changes, the Inquiry deferred any increase to pathology fees. However, the Inquiry recommended that, on a request from the AMA to the Minister for Health, a further inquiry should be convened to determine increases, if any, to such fees. This is an area of particular interest to the Government and we will be watching all developments closely. The Inquiry determined that the increases in schedule fees be made differentially, that is, that the increases in schedule fees for items vary but will provide, overall, the determined increase in gross schedule fee income by specialty. This method, which is a departure from previous methods of adjusting schedule fees, was developed by my Department in consultation with the AMA, on the basis that it provides a more equitable approach in apportioning increases.

As an example of the increase in schedule fees from 1 January 1978, a standard general practitioner surgery consultation, in hours, would rise from $8.20 to $8.90 in New South Wales-an increase of 70c. Medical benefits would rise from $7.00 to $7.60-an increase of 60c. Other important features of the determination are that:

The Inquiry declined the recommendation of the AMA and of other participants in the proceedings of the Inquiry to take any ‘across the board’ steps towards uniform national fees in the determination. The Inquiry found that there was little evidence to support the move but there was information sufficient to raise questions about the grounds on which claims for uniform fees are based.

Three new items should be introduced into the medical benefits schedule, and there will be amendments to two items, for services covering consultations at nursing homes and hospitals.

The fees in Tasmania for consultations by consultant physicians in psychiatry will be raised to the level of the fees in Victoria, Queensland, South Australia and Western Australia. A similar adjustment should be made to items covering interview by a consultant physician in psychiatry of a person other than the patient.

Medical benefits should be payable for a consultation and for a radiotherapy treatment when rendered on the occasion of the initial referred attendance.

Preliminary estimates made by my Department indicate that, excluding pathology, the overall increase of 7.3 per cent would increase medical benefits schedule fees by some $67m in a full year. Increase in benefits would cost Medibank and private medical benefits organisations about $59m in a full year. The increases in benefits flowing from the fees increases determined by Mr Justice Ludeke should result in increases in family contribution rates of up to 35c per week. However, the actual increase in contribution rates is a matter for each individual organisation to assess in the light of its particular financial experience. The organisations will be advised as soon as possible of the increased benefits so that they can assess what increase in contribution rates will be necessary.

Action will be taken shortly to prepare regulations under the Health Insurance Act to implement the determination, and to re-print the medical benefits schedule book for use by medical benefits organisations and doctors. In conclusion, I would like to thank the Australian Medical Association for its goodwill and cooperation which were evident throughout this Inquiry. I would also like to express the Government’s appreciation to Mr Justice Ludeke for the manner in which he conducted the 1977 Inquiry and for his timely presentation of this comprehensive determination.

Dr KLUGMAN:
Prospect

-by leave-Whilst I have a copy of the statement by the Minister for Health (Mr Hunt), as yet I have not seen a copy of the determination. I therefore find it difficult to comment upon the determination. The Minister emphasised the relatively small increase- as he put it- in medical fees proposed for the year commencing 1 January 1978. He emphasised that the increase for the year would be 3.8 per cent compared with an estimated increase of about 9 to 10 per cent in average weekly earnings.

The point that should be emphasised is that in that time there have been quite a number of changed circumstances. Whilst the Minister has ignored those changed circumstances, hopefully Mr Justice Ludeke has not and has discussed these factors in his determination because it is very difficult to apportion an exact value to those changed circumstances. For example, since Medibank II came into operation in 1 976 a much larger proportion of persons has been privately covered. Those doctors who previously recieved a large proportion of their income from performing their duties in hospitals- I do not mean employees of hospitals but private doctors on fee for service performing their duties in hospitals- now receive a much larger proportion of their income from that source. There are other aspects which the Minister covered in answer to a question on notice from the honourable member for Murray (Mr Lloyd) reported on page 2088 of Hansard of 27 May this year. The important point in the answer is the one we find difficulty in dealing with and hopefully Mr Justice Ludeke got some information from the Commonwealth Department of Health. The honourable member for Murray asked the Minister for Health:

What information can he provide to either substantiate or demolish the allegations that medical practitioners’ incomes have increases dramatically since the introduction of Medibank.

The Minister’s answer was as follows:

It has not been possible to quantify the increase in gross incomes of medical practitioners from available records.

That is the important point. We do not know what the actual incomes are. Later in his answer he states, accurately:

However, medical practitioners’ gross incomes have increased since the introduction of Medibank on 1 July 1 975. The increases are related to: (a) increases in fees for medical benefit purposes. Increases in fees were implemented on 1 January 1976 and 1 January 1977 . . .

He goes on to give the details. The answer continues:

  1. the introduction, particularly in New South Wales and Victoria, of sessional or modified-fee-for-service systems of payment to medical practitioners for services to standard ward patients in recognised hospitals, for those services previously rendered in an honorary capacity.

I will return to that part of the answer in a minute. The answer continues:

  1. payment of medical benefits for the whole range of medical services for services to persons previously covered by the Pensioner Medical Service. The Pensioner Medical Service Scheme provided for payments to participating medical, practitioners for general practitioner consultation only; and
  2. an increase in the coverage of the population. Persons who had not previously taken out health insurance with private medical benefits funds were covered, from 1 July 1975, to the extent of medical benefits for medical services.

Of course, they still are because under the new medical insurance scheme everybody is compulsorily covered. Part (c) of that answer refers to the increase in the incomes of general practitioners from their treatment of pensioners because previously there had been a special fee for services rendered to pensioners. Whereas general practitioners now receive 85 per cent of the full fee, previously it was only about 50 per cent of the full fee. Other doctors, especially procedural doctors working outside hospitals, now receive a higher proportion of their income from their treatment of pensioners whereas previously they did not see pensioners privately but saw them in hospitals. For example, ophthalmologists doing refractions previously did a lot of this work on elderly people in an honorary capacity but they now receive a significant payment for their treatment of these people from Medibank or the health insurance funds for doing the same work in their own rooms.

In part (b) of the answer the Minister referred to payments for services previously rendered in an honorary capacity and in this regard I shall quote from an editorial in yesterday’s Melbourne Age. The editorial refers to an article which was published the previous day about a complaint from the Victorian Hospitals Association concerning payments to honorary doctors, so called, by agreement. The editorial states:

Under the agreement, public hospitals have paid more than $2 4m in the past year in sessional fees to specialists who formerly served as honoraries.

So in just one State there was an increase, justified or otherwise, of $24m in the income of one relatively small group of people. When the arguments of the Victorian Hospitals Association were put to the Victorian Minister for Health, Mr Houghton, last night he said that the Victorian Hospitals Association figures did not give a true picture of the amounts paid to most visiting specialists, and it certainly did not when it comes to a figure of $6,000 for one hour’s work. But, in defending the payments, Mr Houghton went on to say:

Under existing arrangements for visiting specialists the average cost per hour worked is only $ 1 10.

That is a payment of $1 10 for visiting specialists doing work on standard hospital patients for which previously they received no payment at all. For a 40-hour week they would receive $4,400 by way of what they consider to be an ex gratia payment for work which they previously did for nothing. I do not know whether those factors have been taken into consideration by Mr Justice Ludeke in determining the new fees. I am pleased, as is the Minister, that the inquiry determined that the ‘increase in schedule fees be made differentially, that is, that the increase in schedule fees for items vary but will provide, overall, the determined increase in gross schedule fee income by specialty’. Obviously some specialists and some general practitioners have not benefited as much by changes to the health insurance system as others have and they undoubtedly are entitled to an increase in fees; but those who receive an ex gratia payment in some States and therefore receive much extra money, obviously should not have their fees increased or, if they do have them increased, not at anything like the same rate.

I shall provide just a few extra figures. The average cost of medical services between 1975 and 1 976 increased by 1 7.8 per cent even though fees apparently were not increased by anywhere near that amount. The figures provided by the Director-General of Health show that in 1975-76 the average cost of a medical service was $ 10.85. For the six months to 31 March 1977 they increased to $12.78, a 17.8 per cent increase. Medical benefits payments in 1975-76 amounted to $629.5m. Doctors still received on top of that about 15 per cent from patients and $ 166.5m from the health insurance funds. I know that the Minister is just as concerned as I am that total health expenditure as a percentage of gross domestic product has increased in this country from 6 per cent in 1972-73 to . 7.5 per cent in 1975-76. This is a huge increase, a 25 per cent increase, in the proportion of gross domestic product. Obviously we cannot carry on like that. If the amount spent on health services increases at that rate everybody in this country will be either a patient or an employee of hospitals by the year 2000.

page 1633

QUESTION

COST/BENEFIT STUDY OF IMMIGRATION

Ministerial Statement

Mr MacKELLAR:
Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs · Warringah · LP

– by leave- A study of the economic costs and benefits of immigration was one of three projects commissioned by the Commonwealth Government in 1970. Two of these, the National Population Inquiry, headed by Professor W. D. Borne, O.B.E., and the 1973 Immigration Survey were completed in good time and produced valuable results. The first report of the National Population Inquiry was tabled in Parliament in February 1975 and was the first major study to identify, and publicly comment upon, the national decline in fertility and its implications for the future growth and development of Australia. The report showed that the demographic scenario of the future is likely to be substantially different from that which formed the background for economic development in the 1950s and 1960s.

The report of the 1973 Immigration Survey, entitled ‘A Decade of Migrant Settlement’, was tabled in Parliament in September 1976. This was the first comprehensive study of migrants’ experiences in Australia and covered such areas as employment, accommodation, language and recognition of qualifications. In addition to listing the major problems experienced by migrants in Australia, the report also identified the migrant groups most seriously affected by problems m these areas. These two reports provide a valuable data base for the formulation of Australia’s future population and immigration policies. Their findings are also of immediate relevance to other areas of Government, both State and Federal, and to the private sector.

I now refer to the report on the third project, the cost benefit study of immigration. Associate Professor J. R. Wilson, of the University of Sydney, in 1970 undertook to carry out a cost/ benefit study of immigration. His appointment was recommended by the then Immigration Planning Council and the project was subsequently placed under its general supervision. Over the period 1970-71 to 1972-73 a total of $39,000 was provided for the study, mainly for computer processing and research assistance for Associate Professor Wilson’s work on this project. Progress was, for reasons I am not informed about, unsatisfactory. The Council made assiduous efforts to have the study completed, including the use of a special committee to discuss future action on the study with Associate Professor Wilson.

Successive Ministers for Immigration pressed to have the study completed as did I. The final report was received in June 1977. 1 believe that I will, in expressing some regret about the apparent quality of the report, speak not only for myself and the Government but also for previous Ministers for Immigration who, like me, had hoped for a greater contribution to an understanding of the economic impact of the post-war immigration program than this report offers. I do not propose to formally table the document. However, copies have been placed in the Parliamentary Library for members and senators to examine.

I present the following paper.

Immigration- Economic Costs and Benefits- Ministerial Statement, S October 1977

Motion (by Mr Hunt) proposed:

That the House take note of the paper.

Mr INNES:
Melbourne

– I am disappointed that such a negative statement should be made at this time. The study took seven years and cost the taxpayers of this country $39,000. As has been indicated, it took longer than the Second World War to produce the report. I agree with the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr MacKellar) that it is inadequate. It seems to me that $500 a page is an extraordinary amount of money to pay for such a report. However, I think the statements in the document will be of some use in the important debate which ought to ensue over the whole concept of population policy. I think the Minister has rubbished the paper because some aspects of it are rather unpalatable to him. Whilst I agree that the report has certain deficiencies I think we should nave the grace to inject tables into the report if it is to be left somewhere to be examined. I think it ought not to be just left somewhere to be examined. To give some finishing touches to the report and to reasonably expect it to be a document worthy of its cost, we ought to add something to it. I ask that a table which I have shown to the Minister be included in Hansard.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

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

The table read as follows-

Mr INNES:

-The table simply outlines the work force in which overseas born are involved with people who are Australian born. I think we ought to apologise to Professor Wilson, notwithstanding that we may not agree with all the arguments proposed, as he has put seven years work into this work. We might criticise but I think that some of the areas he mentions should be canvassed far more widely. We should not blithely put this study in an area where it will be shelved and never be referred to again. Professor Wilson raises many important issues. We may not agree with him in relation to many of the points. Many issues are not observed in the paper but they are worth while of study and of some further discussion. He has said that some matters are tentative, such as those relating to the lack of comprehensive data, demonstrating the need for better statistical coverage- as I have indicated- and there are many issues which he does not canvas at all, such as the dogmas of immigration and population growth, educational disadvantage to many migrants and children, the extra cost to the system, the reliance of certain industries on high tariffs, cheap immigration labour and low capital.

I think we have to canvass the three projects which were referred to in the Minister’s statement. Looking at the report of Professor Borrie’s National Population Inquiry- I have made this observation to the House before- we find that many of the projections from that inquiry are absurd. In the final analysis we have to ascertain whether they are projections or whether they are the individual’s personal opinion about the matter. I believe that the population inquiry report and the Green Paper are political documents. I believe that they serve to underpin the Government’s policy in relation to what it would love to proceed to do at the present moment. I think the Government is doing this in a rather underhanded way in many respects by leaving an open-ended population intake. That might mean anything between 50,000 and 150,000 people. The Minister has said that economic considerations will be applied when considering the level of the intake. But when one examines the criteria under which migrants will be accepted into this country, I think they leave a lot to be desired. There is a whole range of discretion. As I have said, the number might range widely. If we look at the first report, if we look at the further report entitled ‘A Decade of Migrant Settlement’, if we look at the Bailey Inquiry report, if we we look at the various reports from the migrant task forces, the Good Neighbour Council and the Commission of Inquiry into Poverty and if we look at the current economic circumstances which are projected for job opportunities for the future, we will see that one million jobs will disappear between now and 1981.

Mr Shipton:

– Disappear?

Mr INNES:

– Yes, disappear. If the honourable member knew anything about what he talks about and if he made an examination of what I am saying and what Dr Birrell from the Monash University in Melbourne is saying he would be educated a little more. He will find that what I am saying is very near the mark. If we are to take the next decision to bring people into this country then we take the reasonable responsibility, surely, to ensure that all aspects of immigration policy are investigated. Professor Wilson’s cost benefit analysis seems to be part of a serious aspect of the whole inquiry. For instance, if what the Minister says is correct then what we lack is fundamental to this matter. Is it cheaper for us to bring people out here under an immigration program than to use the money elsewhere? Obviously that was the basic consideration of the then Minister for Immigration, who is now the Treasurer (Mr Lynch), when this inquiry was launched. It seems to me it is fundamental- I agree with him- that we need to know what the matter is all about. We need to ask whether the children of migrant settlers now have a very bleak future. We need to answer that question. We cannot leave Professor Wilson’s report in the Library for all to see. It should have been tabled in the Parliament, as bad as the Minister thinks it is.

There are some positive aspects to the report, notwithstanding that the production of it is a disgrace and an insult to Professor Wilson. It seems to me it has a lot more value than was suggested by the Minister in his statement. It seems to me also from the report that consideration has not been given to such matters as the growth in the work force and the decline in employment prospects for the unskilled, the inexperienced or the people who are at risk. One simply cannot consider merely the disadvantages experienced by migrants or the children of migrant settlers. They are not the only people to be considered. Eighty per cent of our own indigenous people, the Aborigines, are unemployed in many areas.

The Minister shakes his head. What I am saying does go to the point. I am pointing out that this report was commissioned for the purpose of conducting a cost benefit analysis in relation to migration to this country. Surely we have to look at that matter in the context of our present capacity to serve individuals, youth, disadvantaged groups, migrant groups and Aborigines in this country. Even if there is an upturn in the economy, the prospects of future employment for people in those groups to which I nave referred are pretty bleak. I challenge the Minister to look responsibly at this matter to see just what are the prospects for the children of migrant settlers and to seek to determine, if that cost benefit analysis is not good enough, where and how we may find answers to the questions I pose. I am saying now that the aspects with which this report has not dealt include such things as the growth of the work force. There is no doubt that the work force is in decline. I repeat what I said in reply to an interjection by the honourable member for Higgins (Mr Shipton), namely, that there are job prospects, but the prospects are diminishing to the extent where we are facing unemployment of 900,000 to one million, and that is what we have to face up to.

It is obvious from the report that such matters as the disadvantages caused to unskilled migrants, particularly the recent settlers, have not been considered. That situation is reflected in the number of young people who are now unemployed. We notice that 14.3 per cent or 14.4 per cent of the females who arrived in this country between February 1976 or thereabouts and May 1977 are unemployed. A lesser percentage of males is unemployed. We should look at the reality of the situation. The Minister referred obliquely- he did not do so in any substantial way but by means of a very scant statement- to the deficiencies in Professor Wilson’s report. We have to go ahead and find out what is the real situation. We find, when examining the situation of apprentices and others, that there is no retraining program. Such a program is fundamental to the restructuring of industries and to an examination of the prospects of the Australian work force in the future. Rather than spend our money on assisted passages, would it not be better to spend it in doing something for the kids who are here at the present moment? I am speaking about the young people who adorn this public gallery time after time. Their prospects for employment in the future are very bleak. Not one honourable member opposite can produce any evidence to the contrary. I challenge them to do so.

That being the case, the third point I make is related to the additional hospitalisation costs created by migrants. What sort of shortfall do they create in hospital facilities, education facilities, water supplies and other public utilities and services which are already strained to the limit at this point in time? They are strained to such a degree that we do not have the capacity to fulfil our obligations to the people who already live in this country. The Opposition spokesman on health matters has made that point time and time again. If that is the case, it seems to me that we ought to be looking seriously at Professor Wilson’s report. It is not a document that I would acclaim under any circumstances. It is our responsibility to make up the shortfall which is created and which is mentioned in previous reports. There are political documents which make this point also, and the Minister blithely writes off Professor Wilson’s report which has taken seven years to produce and which has been in production during the tenure of office of various Ministers who have doubted the veracity of the report. I challenge those people who have criticised it to stand up and criticise it in detail, and not to be completely negative when looking at the prospects for the future. The whole of the rationalisation of what we see for industry in the future only -

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

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

Debate (on motion by Mr Graham) adjourned.

page 1636

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

Mr WENTWORTH:
Mackellar

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

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

– Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr WENTWORTH:

-Yes. I am reported at page 1591 of yesterday’s Hansard as saying, in response to a comment by the honourable member for Adelaide (Mr Hurford):

Whatever I am in this chamber or elsewhere, I am not wet behind the ears. I will not have a jumped-up little accountant talk to me like that.

In point of fact what I said was: ‘I will not have a jumped-up little accountant from Adelaide talk to me like that’. The point is important. I had not meant any contempt for accountants in general; I had meant contempt only for the honourable member for Adelaide. I might say that there was so much confusion in the House at the time I do not blame Hansard for one moment.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member has explained his point of misrepresentation and is now debating the matter. He will resume his seat.

page 1636

AUSTRALIAN ECONOMY

Discussion of Matter of Public Importance

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

– I have received letters from the honourable member for Oxley (Mr Hayden) and the honourable member for Lilley (Mr Kevin Cairns) proposing that definite matters of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion today. As required by Standing Order 107 I have selected one matter, that is, that proposed by the honourable member for Oxley, namely:

The economic uncertainty caused by the comments of the Prime Minister about the economy and an early election.

I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.

More than the number of members required by the Standing Orders having risen in their placesMi HAYDEN (Oxley) (3.53)-In the past few weeks the nation has been subjected to almost unrelieved speculation as to whether or not there is to be an early election. The speculation has been inspired by the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser)- by his comments and by his behaviour. It has been added to with characteristic good humour by the Minister for Defence (Mr Killen) by the comment he made in Canberra last week. In an equally characteristic way it has been vulgarised by comments made publicly by the Minister for Transport (Mr Nixon). They have all indicated clearly enough that it is their belief that there should be an early election. No one has said it directly, but all of them have implied it in a most clear fashion. This has created a great deal of uncertainty in the economic community, especially amongst businessmen.

Business recognises, first of all, that at a time of election the administration of the affairs of a country tend to be left somewhat in suspense. In a situation of a very weakened economy- that is the sort of situation we have in this country today- that can have disastrous consequences. Furthermore, in a situation such as that which we are experiencing with the national economy at the moment and with the predictions which have been published as coming from the authoritative economic advisers of the Government who have indicated a much tougher year ahead, suggestions of an early election create the gravest uncertainty imaginable, especially amongst the business community. In short, the effect of this sort of loose speculation, aggravated by the behaviour and not so oblique comments of the Prime Minister especially, and of his senior Cabinet Ministers also, in fact is to undermine further the weak level of activity in the economy and to shatter confidence.

We have noted for some time the scene-setting for an early election. The Prime Minister has been indulging in his favourite exercise- abusing others. I gather he learned this when he was on his parents’ cattle property early in his life, and he could play the country squire with some of the hired hands. So he is seeking to extend this on a vaster range, as the national leader of Australia. He has abused the Industries Assistance Commission, suggesting it is responsible for the problems created for manufacturing industry as a result of imports. He neglects totally that the Commission has absolutely no executive authority; it is restricted to the role of an advisory body. Any decisions about protection, one way or the other, rest with the Government, and finally, with this Parliament.

He was exposed by a member of the Liberal Party of Australia- an office-bearer until the date that he made the exposure-a Mr Tanner of

Sydney who was stripped of all his rank in the Liberal Party. So much for Liberal principles. Mr Tanner properly pointed out that the problem confronting manufacturing industry today as a consequence of the inflow of imports has nothing to do with the Industries Assistance Commission; it is a direct result of the weak state of the Australian dollar. He forcibly pointed out a number of measures which ought to be adopted.

Mr Neil:

– He was talking rubbish.

Mr HAYDEN:
OXLEY, QUEENSLAND

-Mr Tanner a good big ‘L’ Liberal, pointed this out. I believe it was a correct analysis of the economy. It was pointed out in the letters to the editor column of the Australian Financial Review a few weeks ago. Mr Tanner paid a high price for his candour. He was stripped of office!

The Prime Minister also sought to abuse, accuse and blame the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission for the present state of the economy. It is handy to have scapegoats, especially if one believes one has the Commission muzzled, but he was wrong on this occasion because the Arbitration Commission bit back. Members of the Commission, including the President, Sir John Moore, pointed out that many other influences are at work in the economy, all of which are of much greater significance in terms of its present condition than wages. Why would Sir John not make that obvious point when in fact wages last financial year increased by a little over 10 per cent and the cost of living increased by more than 1 3 per cent? Accordingly, there was a real reduction in wages and, incidentally, in living standards. That latter point is important. It means that the capacity of consumers to buy in the market place was reduced. Therefore any strengthening that might have been coming into the economy which must come by way of improved consumer demand was demolished.

The Prime Minister has attacked the unions. He has abused and accused them too. He ignores the simple fact that days lost through industrial disputes in this country each month this year are the lowest for any comparable month for more than a decade. He is seeking to set up straw men so he can easily demolish them and hopefully, he believes, distract the people’s attention from the key issue in the political scene at the momenteconomic management or the abject and unchallengable failure of the Government to handle the economy. In Queensland he is seeking to incite the oil companies to engage in collusive practices- to rig the price of oil at retail outlets. I am not sure whether he reached new heights of sublimity or what. I will leave it to others to observe but he has even resorted to elevating me to the economic demonology of the country by abusing and accusing me. I almost feel like Samson Agonistes. I have reached the point at which I am now preferring to quote what others say, because I fear I have so much power at my fingertips and so much thrust at the point of my tongue that I will wreck the economy, much as Samson was able to wreck the temple of the non-believers, with a simple word, a casual gesture.

What all this boils down to is that if the Government is genuinely scrabbling about for an early election it is conceding failure. It is conceding failure in administering the national economy. That is why there is unease in the community. That is why there is uncertainty. That is why there is insecurity in the economic system of this country. People recognise that a government with a majority as large as this one has- it has the highest majority on record in this place and has a most generous majority in the Senate- with a considerable amount of its parliamentary term yet to run and yet is seeking an election in spite of that, is clearly unsure, has lost its confidence, has lost its will, is no longer certain. In short it no longer has the conviction that it is able adequately to handle the affairs of the country. I know that if I alone say this there will be a tendency for the whole economic system’s underpinnings to fall out. Let me hasten to add that what I am saying is derived from what two conservative newspapers have said. The editorial in the Age of 29 September stated:

When a Prime Minister comes to power declaring that he needs three years to get the economy into shape- and then calls an election after only two-thirds of that time- he cannot complain if voters interpret his move as an act of desperation or an admission of failure.

The Canberra Times of 4 October stated:

But if Mr Fraser and his Ministry have so little confidence in their ability to govern despite their massive majority that they need constant reassurance, perhaps they need a term of rest and relaxation on the Opposition benches.

That was a perceptive comment. The situation for the Government is one akin to panic- panic converted into fear and frenzy. Its slogans have been scuttled- scuttled by the Reserve Bank of Australia that is why its panic now becomes fear. The Bank, in an analysis of the economy which the Acting Treasurer (Mr Eric Robinson), the echo as it were, suggests is not an important document, has provided a thorough, critical, condemnatory analysis of economic policy and its implications.

Let us be clear on one thing. That document is a high level document of the greatest importance. It represents succinctly the condensation of all the analytical wisdom of the Reserve Bank. I speak as a former Treasurer, as one who knows the procedures which are adopted in the Reserve Bank and the Treasury. Each month the Reserve Bank considers, at a board meeting, the state of the economy. The basis of that consideration is derived from the sort of report which appeared in the National Times. Whilst the Treasurer (Mr Lynch) may not see that report-after all it has some polysyllabic words in it and may present some difficulties for him- he is ‘apprised in simple laymen’s terms of the details of that report, of the analysis and of the conclusions arising from it. That is done one day each month, and that day is the day after the Reserve Bank Board meets.

That report shows that economic growth will be extremely sluggish this year, much slower than was proposed in the Budget documents. Clearly it reveals that the country will be on the edge of stagnation throughout 1977-78. It indicates that we will have much higher unemployment than the Government is prepared to concede. We of the Opposition have been making that obvious point after analysing the state of the economy and interpreting various sources of official information which are available publicly. Now we have it clearly and unconditionally stated in an unchallengeable form by the Reserve Bank of Australia in its most important analysis on the state of the economy and the outlook for the year.

Unemployment in June 1978 will be about 6 per cent. The Reserve Bank says so. The Government would have us believe the Reserve Bank’s view will not have any influence. If I were to say that however I would destroy the economy. That’s why I quote the Bank. It’s safer to do so. The prediction means very simply that unemployment in the early part of the year will be in excess of 7 per cent and as high as 7½ per cent. We will have 120,000 more people unemployed, at least, than we currently have. We will have unemployment in excess of 450,000. Proportionately, the greatest burden of unemployment will be imposed on the young and on the migrants in the community. It will be imposed on the women in the work force. The report from the Reserve Bank makes it clear that interest rates will stay up and probably increase. I shall quote it:

Overall, the forecasts imply financial conditions that will be relatively tight … the forecasts also suggest the possibility of upward pressures on private short-term interest rates (with associated consequences for expectations about official interest rates, the net take-up of government securities, etc.), downward pressures on bank liquidity, possible bottlenecks for local and semi-government securities, etc. that in turn could influence importantly the state of financial markets in 1977-78.

Let me explain that in laymen’s terms. The Acting Treasurer will welcome this assistance greatly. He has great difficulty in understanding some of these official documents which come from the various advisory departments of government. That report simply means two things. It means that interest rates, given the present monetary policy of the Government, cannot come down. If the Government seeks to manipulate them in some sort of marginal and meaningless way by a reduction of one-quarter of one per cent as suggested by some sources close to the Prime Minister as he likes to have it put, that is merely a cosmetic action because it is considering an early election. The report from the Reserve Bank makes it clear that if that is done and if the Government retains its monetary policies this year, those interest rates will have to be adjusted upwards soon after any such election. Therefore, it would be a dishonest, deceptive and misleading tactic.

That is the first thing. Interest rates cannot come down. In fact, they are more likely to go up under the present monetary policies of the Government. The Acting Treasurer shakes his head with that sort of economic wisdom that comes from success as chief floorwalker in women’s underwear in David Jones. He does not do so well in understanding economics.

The next thing this report states clearly is that we are in for a tougher credit squeeze in the course of this financial year. That is what the part I quoted means. It states that simply, bluntly and clearly. Any fool can understand it. Most Government supporters have a great deal of difficulty in understanding it. I shall give a simple explanation of why there must be a credit squeeze this year even tougher than the one we have been going through. The monetary target, M3, is to increase between 8 per cent and 10 per cent. That is the supply of money. If we allow for movements in inflation and the Government’s projection for economic growth, mentioned in the Budget documents, there will be a demand for money between 13 per cent and 14 per cent. The difference is between 3 per cent and 6 per cent. That is the order of the credit squeeze which we are facing.

For all this cost and the enormous social dislocation of a deeper recession, more unemployment and a dislocation to business, inflation will still be approximately 1 1 per cent to 12 per cent according to the Reserve Bank of Australia. For all the enormous cost and dislocation imposed on the community, very little will be achieved in terms of conquering this key problem. The Government recognises that the political climate at the moment and for the rest of this calendar year is and will be bad for an election. It recognises that it will be even worse next year. For them it is better to hold the election when the political environment is bad rather than waiting for it to get terrible. It acknowledges this tacitly by seeking to exercise the option of an early election.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Giles:
ANGAS, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

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

Mr Hodgman:

– You are a traitor.

Mr Hayden:

– I will sock you in the bloody ear if you call me a traitor again.

Mr Hodgman:

– You have a go.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! I call the Minister for Post and Telecommunications.

Mr Eric Robinson:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

– I fear that the concern of the honourable member of Oxley (Mr Hayden) with his future and his ambition is leading him into irresponsible statements. Regrettably, the nation is witnessing the reaction -

Mr Hayden:

– I rise to take a point of order. Mr Deputy Speaker, you called me to order for a comment I made to the honourable member for Denison. I think you ought to be fair. If you heard what I said, you would have heard what he said and called him to order.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The Chanis trying to be fair. I did not call the honourable member for Oxley to order over anything. I might well have done so, by the way, when there were personal references to honourable members earlier on. I do not like your statement implying that the Chair is not being impartial.

Mr Hayden:

– I do not hesitate to say that the Chair in this House is consistently biased and you are no exception.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-The honourable member will withdraw that remark.

Mr Hayden:

– I will withdraw it as a formality but without prejudice to my beliefs.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-The honourable member will withdraw without qualification.

Mr Hayden:

– I withdraw it now without qualification but the others will be on the record.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-The honourable member for Oxley will resume his seat, and the honourable member for Melbourne who is trying to interject will remain quiet.

Mr Eric Robinson:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

– We have just heard IS minutes of rag tag, of grizzles, gloom and complaints. It has to be put on record that these are the words of a former Treasurer in the Labor Administration. The honourable member for Oxley forgets bis own record. I think I should remind him of it. I well remember that when I entered this Parliament 5 years ago the requirement for the national expenditure was just over $ 10 billion. Then, $10 billion of the taxpayers funds were required for the national expenditure after 72 years of the Federation of States and after 72 years as a nation. Three years later, the Hayden Budget and the Whitlam Administration more than doubled that requirement. Inflation ran riot. Inflationary expectations ran riot.

How are these expenditures funded? They were funded by an increase of about 89 per cent in personal income tax and substantial deficit funding. The inflation rate more than doubled to about 17 per cent. Unemployment increased substantially. Manufacturing industry which the honourable member for Oxley dared to talk about today started its substantial decline. Today the honourable member’s motion refers to economic uncertainty. If anybody ought to know about economic uncertainty it would be one of the Labor Treasurers. During the Labor Government ‘s three year period we had rampant inflation, growing unemployment and lack of stability. In relation to my own portfolio, in that three years there was an increase in postal charges from 7c to 18c. That is the Labor Government’s record. That is what it cost the Australian community. There have been no increases since. In some areas there have been decreases. The basic charge for telephone calls increased from 4c to 9c That was the sort of wreckage we saw under the Labor Administration.

What has been our record? Why is the honourable member for Oxley coming into this House today in his unsure and emotional state? He is apparently concerned that before long he might have to go to the nation and compare his record and the record of the Government of which he was a part with ours. We said when we came into Government and we have repeated ever since that the key issue was to get the rate of inflation down. That is what we have done. We have had substantial success. It is now in single figures. There has been a reduction of about 7 per cent.

One of the ways we have achieved this is by reining in the rate of growth of government expenditure. In doing this we have been concerned about the size of the deficit. The honourable member for Oxley who moved this motion introduced a budget in which he planned a deficit of $2.8 billion. When we achieved office some four or five months later, the deficit was running in excess of $4 billion. Had we not come into office and pulled it back it would have been moving towards $5 billion. The honourable member for Oxley’s record of economic management is utterly dismal.

People ask why the Government is not only concerned about reining in expenditure but also concerned with reducing the deficit. It is difficult to get Labor members of this Parliament to understand that the size of the deficit impinges very much upon Australia’s reputation overseas, its currency and its interest rates. The honourable member for Oxley keeps saying that interest rates will continue to increase. He will again be disappointed. He will be seen to be saying things which are incorrect. Interest rates will be nudged down. Part of the Government’s policy as we reduce and contain inflation is to lower interest rates in a steady, sustainable way. In contrast to the uncertainty of the economic period from 1973 to 1975, we have had a certainty and stability of policy in fiscal matters. Members of the Labor Party do not like to see the emergence of recovery signs. They are there. We have said consistently that they are there. In some areas they are tentative but the recovery signs in the economy, particularly in regard to investment and the profit share, are there for all to see. We have helped.

Instead of increasing personal income tax by 89 per cent, what has been the Fraser Government’s record in the field of personal income tax? It has undertaken the greatest reform of the taxation system ever undertaken in this country. Not only have we had personal tax indexation, which we pledged we would implement over a three year period but in fact implemented in the first year, but from I February next year there will be substantial reform and simplification of the Australian tax system. In the corporate area- the Whitlam Administration was not concerned about the corporate area- we have encouraged development and growth by the trading stock valuation adjustment and by the investment allowance. We have shown our interest in small business and small companies by easing the requirements of Division 7. Our record in taxation is quite distinct and apart and in substantial contrast with that achieved by the Labor Administration.

While the Labor Government was in office we saw a substantial decrease in manufacturing throughout this country and what did it do to rural industry? It deliberately set out to wreck and destroy. It acted as utter vandals would act in regard to rural industries. Those honourable members who were here will remember the complete lack of interest and lack of concern on the part of Labor Ministers about what was happening in the great rural industries of this country.

We are committed to strengthening rural industries. That is why we brought in income equalisation deposits and that is why we are seeking to bring in, and will bring in in the next week or two, provisions relating to the averaging of income tax. That is why we took a stand on the fixing of floor prices for wool. Only a few weeks ago we took the decision to help substantially the important beef industry which is temporarily going through a very difficult period. We are committed to bringing in legislation, and will bring it in in the next few weeks, relating to a rural bank which is so necessary to assist rural industries.

Compare this Government’s record in the field of industrial relations. Again at Question Time today we saw a complete lack of interest in the stability of industrial relations expressed by members of the Labor Party. We have said consistently to the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission that we want to see greater stability in wages costs throughout Australia. We want to give the nation a chance to be competitive again, to earn export income, and to create job opportunities in our manufacturing industries.

The honourable member for Oxley, who has left the chamber, got very excited last week because he managed to find in some way or another some unofficial and informal Reserve Bank document which had not come to the Government and which was prepared inside the Bank on the basis of certain assumptions. If people want to prepare a document based on certain assumptions they can come to any decision that they wish. This document fell, either directly or indirectly, into the hands of the honourable member for Oxley, and he seized upon it and used it in a most improper manner to try to sabotage not only the economic wellbeing of this country but, most significantly, as was said yesterday, the standing of the Australian dollar. He was so irresponsible as to make public comments about the Australian currency. So we are seeing a continuation of this attitude of wanting to wreck and to destroy the very valuable program and the process of achievement that has occurred over the last two years. The Reserve Bank placed no importance on the document, as was made perfectly clear by the Deputy Governor of the Bank. It was just a document which suited the purpose of the honourable member for Oxley and he used it in a very false way so that he could try to propel himself into leadership of his Party. It is not to his credit at all that he is prepared to operate in such a shabby way.

The Opposition should realise that its policies have been rejected. It should realise that its policies are not acceptable. It should realise that the nation has overwhelmingly rejected it. The honourable member for Oxley should try to act responsibly as a member of the Opposition. He should try to act responsibly as a member of the national Parliament which is concerned with improving the national economy. But oh, no, the honourable member for Oxley leads the band of gloom. His attitude is that if he cannot get into office he will talk down the economy, degrade it, disrupt it and wreck as many opportunities as he can.

Again today we had from him not only his quite immature suggestion regarding interest rates; he also wants to instil a sense of fear and despondency in the Australian community by talking about a credit squeeze. He well knows that the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) and the Treasurer (Mr Lynch) have said that there will be no credit squeeze, that the monetary policy of this Government is to have sufficient money supply to finance necessary business and commercial development but not at a level which will add to expectations of an inflationary sense. I repeat that interest rates will start to nudge down and there will be no credit squeeze. Business people throughout Australia ought to reject the improper comments of the honourable member for Oxley.

In this discussion on a matter of public importance the honourable member for Oxley tried to link the comments of the Prime Minister about the economy with the possibility of an early election. The honourable member and the Labor Party continue to speculate on an early election. The Prime Minister will not be goaded into speculation about an early election. The Deputy Prime Minister ( Mr Anthony) will not be goaded into it. I will not be goaded into it, nor do I know what is in the Prime Minister’s mind. I suggest to members of the Labor Party that they put a noose around the honourable member for Oxley because I do not think he is doing himself any good. I doubt whether these tactics have helped him. I think that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr E. G. Whitlam) would be far more secure in his position now than he was a few weeks ago. I think that the little skirmish over East Timor, about which the honourable member for Oxley got so excited and which he tried to seize on as an opportunity for yet another leadership struggle, has misfired. No doubt the Leader of the Opposition draws some comfort from seeing the honourable member for Oxley fall into such grievous error as he has.

I have nothing to add to speculation on an early election. The Prime Minister has said that the policy of the Government is to continue along the stable economic path on which it set itself two years ago, a path of certainty and stability, a path from which the Australian people know that we will not depart. It is a path of responsibility. It is to be very much regretted that somebody who achieved the office of Federal Treasurer, although he failed in that office, is now not capable of being big enough to lift himself above this attitude he has of preaching gloom and despair. The Labor Parry had its chance in office. The honourable member for Oxley had his chance as Treasurer and made a mess of it. He mucked it up. He brought the economy of Australia to the brink of disaster but he has learnt nothing and the Labor Party has learnt nothing. We see a continuation- indeed, this week inside the Parliament and last week outside the Parliament- and in fact an acceleration of an irresponsible approach which is an act of vandalism, an act of economic sabotage against Australia. The Government rejects the Opposition’s claims in the subject matter of this discussion and the Opposition should have no pride in what it has done.

Mr Antony Whitlam:
GRAYNDLER, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I am delighted to support the comments made by the honourable member for Oxley (Mr Hayden) in respect of the matter of public importance which we are discussing. I suppose that first of all I ought to deal with some of the statements made by the Acting Treasurer (Mr Eric Robinson). I could not fit his comments into any logical framework so I shall deal with them simply in the order in which he raised them. The first thing the Minister said was that the honourable member for Oxley had done nothing for 15 minutes but produce a ragbag of grizzles and gloom. To the extent that any grizzles and gloom were put to the House by the honourable member for Oxley they were grizzles and gloom expressed by impeccable non-partisan sources, particularly the document from the Reserve

Bank. That document, we were told by the Acting Treasurer who has ministerial responsibility for the Reserve Bank, is a document to which the Bank attaches no importance. If that is the case I suggest that the Minister immediately should send for the Governor of the Bank and ask him why it is that his officers are wasting their time producing documents to which no importance is attached. Of course importance must be attached to it. The Reserve Bank is at least expert enough a body to ensure that its officers ‘ time is not being wasted on the production of documents which are not important.

The Minister talks about the document being based on certain assumptions. He ought to be aware that if one is looking at any economic scenario one makes certain assumptions, and the assumptions upon which this Reserve Bank document were based are the assumptions that are expressed in the Budget Papers, which are available for all to see, and in the constant updating of those forecasts, provided again by the Treasury. The assumptions can be argued with, the assumptions can be argued about, but the Minister has not sought to do that one bit. It struck me that the Minister fell into the trap into which all Government supporters in this House constantly fall, when they talk about ‘during the past three years’. They do not mean the past three years of course; they mean from 1972 to 1975. It is a fair example of the way in which not only Government supporters but, inexcusably, Government Ministers seek to run away from their responsibility for the performance of the economy during the past two years that they have been in Government- two of the three years for which they sought office. Now everybody in the community is concerned that the Government is seeking to run away from that responsibility by bringing on an election to distract attention from its miserable performance.

The Minister sought, as part of the rehearsal of his earlier statements during the Budget debates, to defend the Government’s economic performance and to defend its priorities. He gave a couple of quite pathetic examples. He talked about increases in personal income tax during the three years of Labor Government. Immediately I was able to turn to my colleague, the honourable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr Crean), and get from him the Budget Papers. If one looks at the bar chart in Statement No. 6 attached to the Budget Papers one will see that, as a percentage of total Budget receipts, personal income tax is greater now under the Fraser Government than it has ever been. For the first time it has gone over 50 per cent. They are the facts. They are here for everybody to look at. That is the record of the Fraser Government on increases in personal income tax.

The Minister, in an incredible piece of double think- which never ceases to amaze me, although when I have been here long enough no doubt I will get used to it- talked about increases in postal and telephone charges when Labor was in power and said that that was a deplorable thing. In the very next breath he went on to talk about the importance of containing the size of the deficit and cutting government expenditure. Honourable members can be sure of one thing: The deficit would have increased if those charges had been left at the level at which they were previously. But this is the kind of double think in which Government members and Government supporters in this House engage constantly. Of course, quite predictably, the Minister concluded with a pathetic attack on the honourable member for Oxley. It was a personal attack on his integrity and on his performance in the economic debate during the past couple of months. Let us be in no doubt about it. The Opposition has charged both the honourable member for Adelaide (Mr Hurford) and the honourable member for Oxley with the responsibility to go out into the community and to argue about the economic administration of this country. That is their job. It is their responsibility. Anybody opposite who talks about the responsible role of the Opposition ought to know that that is what we are supposed to be about and it is what those gentlemen are supposed to be doing. When they do it they deserve to be applauded.

Yesterday we had the deplorable situation in which the Government whipped its members to censure the honourable member for Oxley, to divert attention from this matter which was raised yesterday as a matter of public importance.

Mr Cadman:

– Ha!

Mr Antony Whitlam:
GRAYNDLER, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-The honourable member for Mitchell says ‘Ha! ‘ He scorns the suggestion that the whip was used. Of course it was used on the proposal that the honourable member for Oxley ought to have an extension of time to defend himself at least one Government member thought that on such an important question, when an honourable member’s personal integrity was under attack, he ought to have that right. To his credit, the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Wentworth) supported the Opposition to allow an extension of time. He abstained quite deliberately, as he made clear, from voting on the motion. Other honourable members opposite ought to be ashamed of themselves. If persons are going to come into this House and move motions of censure against individuals and if the Government is going to apply whips on those motions, Government Ministers ought to be prepared to speak in such debates and not to leave it up to the grandstanding individuals on the back benches who are more concerned with examining the impact of the parliamentary retiring allowances scheme on persons who have served one term in the Parliament.

Honourable members ought to have no doubt about the way in which the economy is talked about. It is talked about not simply by persons in this House, not simply by persons who support the Government parties or the Opposition party; it is discussed by a whole range of institutions and interests outside. Persons who make decisions on the question of exchange rate administration and who make decisions to move capital in or out of Australia are influenced by quite objective factors as they perceive them. That is the fact, and that ought to be the way in which Government Ministers look at the economy- not in the fairyland way in which some Ministers here seem to look at it. Senior Ministers opposite are constantly seeking scapegoats. The Acting Treasurer was at pains to point out that he has not indulged in any speculation about an early election. Indeed I would be prepared to concede that I have not seen any reference to where he has done so. But if he looks at the wording of the matter of public importance he will see that we are talking about the comments of the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) and senior Ministers. We refer especially to the Prime Minister who has come under very close scrutiny and condemnation consistently by Government supporters for his muddying of the waters on this question.

I hold here in my hand the editorial of the Sydney Morning Herald of 29 September which says that the Prime Minister is behaving irresponsibly and that he should now in the interests of good government put to rest any suggestion that, in the present circumstances, there will be an early election at this time. That is the Sydney Morning Herald. It is not the Murdoch Press, which Government supporters were able to quote yesterday in condemning the honourable member for Oxley. This newspaper is a member of the organisation which writes editorials in support of the Government parties and which, whenever the next election is held, can be fairly anticipated to do so again. But there ought to be no doubt about only Opposition members raising this concern. It has been raised by a great many Government supporters. The seeking for scapegoats goes on and on. The Arbitration Commission is to be blamed for the poor performance of the economy. It is to be blamed by the same purist monitorists, the same Friedmanites who if they go back to their text books will see that there is no place for such a wage fixing body anyway in the text which they regard as holy writ. The honourable member for Oxley referred to the abuse constantly and quite improperly heaped by the Prime Minister on the heads of the commissioners and associate commissioners of the Industries Assistance Commission for performing the duty with which they are charged by this Parliament to advise the Government, and to do nothing more than that, on the protection of Australian industry.

If we are to talk about the speculation about an early election being raised by other senior Ministers I can think of no more irresponsible example than that indulged in recently by the Minister for Transport (Mr Nixon), a very senior member of the National Country Party, in his address to that Party in Melbourne the other day when he again fanned the flames of industrial confrontation in this country. It was a theme to which the Prime Minister himself returned with great delight at question time today, not in any endeavour to improve industrial relations in this country but in the hope and the expectation that massive dislocation will occur and will give him the pretext that he wants for an early election and to divert attention from the sad and sorry economic performance of this Government. It wants to have an election on an issue that would be completely irrelevant so that the attention of voters is diverted from the condition of the economy to which this Government has reduced it consistently over the last two years.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Giles:

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

Mr HODGMAN:
Denison

-Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek leave to make a personal explanation in respect of certain statements that have been made.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr HODGMAN:

– I have most certainly been misrepresented by the honourable member for Grayndler ( Mr Antony Whitlam). A few minutes ago the honourable member for Grayndler distinguished himself by saying- I noted it in the other room where I was listening to the debatethat the motion moved yesterday was promoted by grandstanding Government back benchers preoccupied with their parliamentary entitlement, having served only one term in this Parliament. The reference was clearly to me and I just draw the attention of the honourable member for Grayndler and other honourable members to the fact that I have served two terms in another Parliament and, thanks to the previous honourable member for Grayndler, that time counts. I am not concerned about my pension, but I am concerned that the honourable member for Grayndler can cast such a slur on Government back bench members.

Mr BRAITHWAITE:
Dawson

-In rising to speak against the allegation made in this matter of public importance it pleases me that the previous speaker had so little to say that I do not need to spend any time on his arguments; there were none. It surprises me also that after yesterday’s debacle by the shadow Treasurer or Opposition spokesman on finance this matter of public importance was not taken off the order of business and another put in its place. Then again, that may be attributable to the usual sloppiness of the Labor Party, even when in opposition.

There is no doubt that debating this topic must bear some resemblance to an act of hypocrisy on the part of some of the Opposition members. They talk about uncertainty. The two years in which they have been in Opposition certainly have not been a lesson to them. In that time they might have sat down, matured and acted as an opposition in this Parliament. I remind you, Mr Deputy Speaker- although I know you need no reminding- that a responsible opposition is a very essential part of any Parliament. But in the past two years we have seen no degree of responsibility on the part of this Opposition. Its members have shown no loyalty to Australia as a nation and no responsibility to the Parliament, to the economy, to the nation or to the people in the past two years in which they have been in Opposition.

Let me outline the situation which has existed over the past fortnight as far as this type of irresponsibility is concerned. The Australian produced a leading article- ‘Kamikaze Economics’ I think was the heading- which was relevant to this matter. Only this week the Nation Review is wondering who will be the alternative leader of the Opposition if the Opposition does not want Gough. Certainly its members do not pay too much attention or credence to what Hayden says. Only this morning a letter to the editor was published in the Sydney Morning Herald which certainly must make the nation wonder so far as the spokesman for the Opposition on this subject is concerned.

One thing I will say for the honourable member for Oxley (Mr Hayden) is that in the period in which he has been in Opposition there have been many tides which could be attributed to him if he wanted to claim them. Put into parliamentary language, there are such terms as ‘economically irresponsible’, ‘instant economies’, not ‘Blind Freddie’ but ‘Blind Billy’. This letter published in the Sydney Morning Herald refers to the ‘organ grinder and his monkey’. I believe that all these terms are an indication of what the people of Australia -

Mr Carige:

– Which is the honourable member for Oxley- the organ grinder or the monkey?

MrBRAITH WAITE-I think he would be the monkey; I do not think he would be the organ grinder. The honourable member for Oxley briskly throws out challenges to debate with the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser), yet this letter published in the Sydney Morning Herald states:

Mr Hayden is not backward in accusing others of lacking the ‘courage and conviction’ to debate with him on the Australian economy.

Your readers may be interested to know that in June of this year Mr Hayden refused a similar challenge to debate the merits of his 1975 Budget at the first national conference of Labor economists in his home State.

I presume that refers to Queensland. Many people give Queenslanders a particular reputation. I am happy and proud to be a Queenslander but I am not sure that the honourable member for Oxley is exactly improving the image and the great reputation we have as Queenslanders. Certainly I do not think he is improving the reputation which we are trying to gam in this place. When Opposition members speak of uncertainty- the matter of public importance relates to uncertainty about the economic situation and an election- they speak with a certain degree of experience. If anybody has sown the seeds of uncertainty within the Australian economy and the community it certainly has been the Opposition, both when in government and in the two years since. Let us look at the uncertainty which must be attributed to the Labor Party. For instance, on what will the honourable member for Oxley be an expert next? Who is the present Leader of the Opposition? Who is the spokesman on a particular subject?

From where will the next challenge come? Certainly there is uncertainty about the Opposition in the minds of the community.

I am afraid I must go back to the events of 1972 to 1975. It is important that the Australian people remember that the seeds of destruction of the Australian economy and of uncertainty in so many ways were laid in that era. The Acting Treasurer, the Minister for Post and Telecommunications (Mr Eric Robinson), has indicated already that the inflation rate when Labor took office was 7 per cent and it ended up at 17 per cent under its leadership. Unemployed numbered 90,000 people when the Opposition took office and 250,000 when it left office. At a time when the people expected that the Labor Party, of all parties, could possibly work with the unions, we saw a record level of industrial disputationsthe greatest number that this nation has ever seen. We saw the uncertainty of three Treasurers, ministerial sackings and the then Government going from one crisis to another.

Yet in this matter of public importance we are accused of giving an air of uncertainty to certain things. In fact, it was the Government in that period from 1972 to 1975 which skimmed the crest of desirability but never plumbed the depths of practicality and that is what led to the uncertainty which existed at that time. That is a very good expression. Not only were there economic uncertainties at that time, but also in the minds of business people there was uncertainty about investing because of inflation and there was uncertainty about jobs because of the increasing rate of unemployment. One thing that is of particular relevance to our retaining our status in world affairs is the uncertainty in the development of the mining industry. Not one mining development got under way in those three years because of the fear and the uncertainty that the Labor Party inspired in the minds of the electorate.

Even now we see a continuation of these things. We see a lack of confidence that has been sparked by claims made by the honourable member for Oxley. The honourable member for Oxley is a self-proclaimed genius on the economy- he is an instant expert. But we have the disasters of his period as Treasurer, his period as a Minister in the three years of the Labor Government and his exclamations of the past two years as evidence that irresponsibility and uncertainty can still be attached to him. His 1975 Budget raised the deficit $1 billion over expectations and the figure was rising. The confidence with which he introduced his new tax scales was nothing but a gigantic fraud perpetrated on the people of Australia. In fact, the only confidence he displayed at that time was the great confidence trick he played on the people with those tax scales.

Let us not forget Medibank, that great socialistic program which has been pruned but probably needs further pruning. It could not be paid for by the Australian public; it was paid for through the inflation rate because we could not afford to finance it. The deficit reached a level which had not been reached previously. All these things can be attributed to the honourable member for Oxley. I believe that his comments made more recently in 1976 probably made the rate of devaluation 4 or 5 per cent higher than it would have needed to be had he not talked the economy and the people into such a situation. I believe that what he has said today is evidence of the fact that he is still prepared to talk down the economy; that he is still prepared to be the disciple of gloom in this place and to spread the gospel of uncertainty.

Let us look at the election situation. How many times have I heard challenges from the Opposition for us to go to an election on the uranium issue or on anything? The Australian Council of Trade Unions has led to speculation about an election by calling for a moratorium and laying down a time by which we are to give a definite answer as to whether we will call a referendum on the uranium issue. The referendum concerning simultaneous elections held earlier this year now gives the Prime Minister additional options. These are speculated about, not only by supporters of the Government but also by members of the Opposition and members of the Press.

I believe that if Australia is to return to a state in which there is no uncertainty and in which we have a certain amount of responsible control we must as a government act responsibly and not go for popular short term measures. To do this we require a national spirit which will not be talked down by the honourable member for Oxley. We require co-operation from the unions and the Opposition. I hope we can achieve this together.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Giles:

-Order! The honourable member’s time has expired. The discussion is now concluded.

page 1646

OILSEEDS LEVY COLLECTION AND RESEARCH BILL 1977

Notice of Presentation

The Deputy Clerk- I have received notice from the Minister for Primary Industry of his intention at the next sitting to present the Oilseeds Levy Collection and Research Bill.

page 1646

NITROGENOUS FERTILIZERS SUBSIDY AMENDMENT BILL 1977

Notice of Presentation

The Deputy Clerk- I have received notice from the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs of his intention at the next sitting to present the Nitrogenous Fertilizers Subsidy Amendment Bill 1977.

page 1646

REMUNERATION AND ALLOWANCES AMENDMENT BILL 1977

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

Second Reading

Mr MACPHEE:
Minister for Productivity · Balaclava · LP

– I move:

The primary purpose of this Bill is to implement the recommendations of the Remuneration Tribunal as to salaries and allowances of judges and persons of judicial status. This is effected firstly by clause 4 of the Bill which provides for the salaries and allowances set out in the Second Schedule and secondly by clause 9 which repeals and re-enacts in substance the existing legislative

E revision for remuneration of presidential members of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission at rates fixed for the Federal Court of Australia.

In accordance with the recommendations of the Remuneration Tribunal, the new salaries are back-dated to 1 June 1977. Opportunity has been taken to revise provisions in a number of Acts relating to the salaries and allowances payable to judges and persons of judicial status occupying offices created by those Acts. The amendments will bring those provisions into a form which accords with the present policy of fixation by the Parliament of judicial salaries after recommendation by the Remuneration Tribunal. Subject to some exceptions, no provision is made for additional remuneration for persons occupying more than one office. The exceptions to which I refer fall into two groups. Firstly, the Chief Judges of the Supreme Courts of the Australian Capital Territory and Northern Territory receive $2,500 by way of salary and $250 by way of annual allowance over and above their remuneration as members of the Federal Court of Australia. Secondly, an additional annual allowance of $250 is payable to the Presidents of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and Trade

Practices Tribunal and the Director-General of Security.

Opportunity has also been taken to ensure that the appointment of a judge or presidential member of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission to some other offices does not effect tenure of office as a judge or presidential member, as the case may be. In the case of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, Trade Practices Tribunal and the Prices Justification Tribunal, the new provisions, to be inserted by clauses 5, 16 and 18, make explicit what is probably implicit in the existing legislation. In the case of the Law Reform Commission, the new provisions in clauses 1 1 and 13 of the Bill have the effect of extending to a presidential member of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission the existing provisions which protect the status of a judge appointed as chairman of the Law Reform Commission. Clauses 12 and IS make amendments of a drafting nature only consequent upon the new definition of ‘judicial office’ to be inserted by clause 1 1. 1 commend the Bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr Lionel Bowen) adjourned.

page 1647

LOAN BILL 1977

In Committee

Consideration resumed from 4 October.

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

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Third Reading

Motion (by Mr Garland)- by leaveproposed:

That the Bill be now read a third time.

Mr HURFORD:
Adelaide

-It is not often that the Irish in me comes to the surface but it did last night when I was gagged in seeking, as Opposition spokesman, to speak at the second reading stage of this Bill. I am grateful, having made my fuss, that better counsels prevailed and the Bill did not get rushed through last night, giving me an opportunity now to say something at this third reading stage. Incidentally, we understood that there were to be three speakers in the second reading debate and I want to thank the honourable member for Corio (Mr Scholes) and the honourable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr Crean) for their contributions in my absence from the House during the second reading debate.

In supporting the Bill at this third reading stage I want to point out that it is a machinery measure which has formed pan of the legislative program of successive governments over a number of years. The Bill provides legislative authority for the Treasurer to borrow up to $ 1,100m during 1977-78 to meet the anticipated deficit in the Consolidated Revenue Fund. This Bill gives me and others who wanted to speak on this Bill an opportunity to discuss the value of deficits. It also gives us an opportunity to discuss the value of borrowed funds for defence purposes. Effectively this Bill transfers amounts up to $ 1,100m from consolidated revenue to the Loan Fund. No authorisation is given for new expenditure and the Bill does not involve a change in debt management policy. Similar Bills have been enacted by the Parliament for the same purposes almost annually for decades. The Australian Labor Party has never opposed such Bills. We have regarded them as what they are and as I have described them before, machinery measures required for legal and accounting reasons.

I realise that I am obliged to stick closely to the details of the Bill in a third reading debate and not range widely as I would have done at the second reading stage, but I would like to draw attention to a certain amount of nonsense involved in setting an arbitrary limit to the funds to be borrowed. In this regard I refer to clause 3 of the Bill which we discussed during the Committee stage last night. The Government has embarked on this meaningless exercise of setting these limits each time it has introduced a Loan Bill over the last couple of years but the repetition of what I call a farce adds nothing to the usefulness of this action of setting a limit. In effect this Bill, as with its predecessors, is not more or less than an open ended attempt to gain funds by borrowing. The only reason which the Government could have for including a cash limit would be to create some sort of impression of responsibility and efficiency but frankly it is window dressing and it is obligatory on me to point out where the window dressing takes place.

If we want to discuss administrative efficiency let us do it in the context, for instance, of die Auditor-General’s report which we have not yet discussed in this Parliament. The AuditorGeneral has shown in his latest report presented in this Parliament just how staff ceilings have led to such enormously inefficient operations. Just because mistakes were made when the Liberal and National Country parties were in Opposition and they discussed from the Opposition benches a Bill such as this, do not let us pretend that setting an arbitrary limit like $ 1 , 100m on this transfer from Consolidated Revenue to the Loan Fund for defence purposes means anything at all. The setting of a limit on funds to be borrowed under the Bill is, as I have already said, a preoccupation which comes to us from the Government’s opposition days. In this case setting up the image has no impact on efficiency. I repeat that the staff ceiling example which I mentioned earlier in achieving the image has obviously had an adverse effect on real efficiency levels.

Despite the fact that this Bill is merely a machinery measure, when a similar Bill was introduced into the House some two years ago members of the then Opposition who are now in government used it as a vehicle to make outlandish and irresponsible predictions about the possible level of the 1975-76 Budget. That was the last Australian Labor Party Government Budget. The Opposition at that time, led by the present Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) and the present Treasurer (Mr Lynch) who was then shadow Treasurer, embarked on a systematic program to distort the role which the public sector was playing in the economy at that time. The Australian newspaper of 9 September 1975 quoted the then Leader of the Opposition as saying that the Budget deficit would reach $6,000m. He arrived at this figure by multiplying the deficit for the first two months of the financial year by six. I point out that if we do such a calculation this year we will get a projected deficit of more than $9 billion. But I doubt whether the Prime Minister will make such a calculation this year. Certainly, I am not going to do so as, I hope, a responsible spokesman for the Opposition in these Treasury matters.

It was ridiculous and irresponsible to suggest that a deficit of $6 billion was a likely outcome of the Hayden Budget or the 1975-76 Labor Party Budget just as it would be absurd to suggest that this year’s Budget deficit on present indicationsadmittedly, we have already had changes with some benefits for the beef industry and changes to tax averaging-could reach $9 billion. But in spite of these and other possible changes to the Budget before it has been put through the Parliament, I am not going to assert that because the deficit for the first two months of the financial year is at such a rate, then we will end up with a $9,000m deficit this financial year. But I am bound to point out that this is the sort of irresponsibility which was taking place two years ago and which led up to the premature election of December 1975. Total cuts in projected expenditure made by the present Government on the

Hayden Budget of 1975-76 amounted to something less than $300m. The final actual deficit, adjusted for the present Government’s Medibank pre-payment fiddle, was $3.5 billion, that is $1.1 billion less than the figure the Prime Minister claimed it would have been. It would take an extremely rubbery-to use the Treasurer’s latest famous adjective-$300m to stretch out to the $ 1 , 1 00m mentioned in this Bill.

Mr Kevin Cairns:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

-It is used as a noun, not as an adjective.

Mr HURFORD:

– I thought the figures were rubbery. I am grateful for the intervention by the honourable member for Lilley. If they are rubbery figures, then I think that would be an adjective as it describes them.

Mr Kevin Cairns:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

– The honourable member for Diamond Valley is a grammarian also.

Mr HURFORD:

– I think that even he has gone back into his shell now that I have drawn attention to the context in which Treasurer Phil used that adjective. The claims by the Liberal and National Country Party Opposition in 1975 regarding the deficit were, of course, nonsense. Nobody with even the minimum of economic literacy could have made them, with any sense of responsibility. However, let us have a look at what happened to the 1975-76 Budget and trace through the sorts of things which can happen to a loan Bill such as this. Before concluding I comment on another aspect of the role played by the public sector in recent years which has been the subject of much debate and, possibly, of much misunderstanding. The present Government claims that many of our current economic problems result from the increase in the size of the public sector which is supposed to have occurred between 1972 and 1975. In current price terms Commonwealth Budget outlays increased from 25 per cent of gross domestic product in 1972 to more than 30 per cent of gross domestic product in 1975. This expansion could have occurred as a result of the public sector deliberately increasing its call on the nation’s resources or, alternatively, as a result of the public sector’s share being maintained in real terms while the price of the goods which it consumed rose at a much faster rate than did the price of goods which the private sector consumed. They are the two alternatives before us. It behoves us to look at which of those two alternatives apply.

I draw attention to the fact that at a recent seminar on urban management processes two officers of the Department of Environment, Housing and Community Development produced a paper in which they claimed that the lack of relative price effect was a major reason for the apparent increase in the size of the public sector. They found that in real terms public consumption and investment by all levels of government have maintained a fairly steady share of gross domestic product at around 27 per cent in recent years. That is, under Labor the public sector merely retained its real share of the nation’s resources. I am not making any final determination on this thesis but I point out these alternatives.

I take the opportunity to draw attention to some work being done at the Australian National University at the present time on this matter of relative shares of our gross domestic product going to the public and private sector over a longer period than the period which was the subject of assessment by the two officers from the Department of Environment, Housing and Community Development. I believe the point is that the rapidly expanding public sector was far more an apparent than a real phenomenon during that period. It behoves us all, when we are trying to discuss or assess the past in order to help us with decisions about the future, to get at the real facts.

This type of evidence further underlies the folly of the present Government’s attempts to reduce the real level of public sector activity. In fact, we can learn from views expressed at the recent International Monetary Fund conference in Washington and from the changed attitudes of the governments of Prime Minister Fukuda of Japan and also Chancellor Schmidt of West Germany, to mention two countries. I point out that there is great merit at a time of stagflation, such as at the present time, in adopting the Australian Labor Party’s alternative short term economic policy of moderate, stimulatory public spending to help the economy return to health, provided that spending is in areas where there are underemployed resources of men and material. As I said at the outset, although this Bill is a link in the operations of the funding of government activities, it is merely a machinery measure. Last night I was annoyed when, as spokesman for the Opposition, I was gagged. I know there is a great feeling of shame on the Government benches about this matter but honourable members have absolved themselves by allowing me to say something now. I thank the House.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a third time.

page 1649

NON-GOVERNMENT SCHOOLS (LOANS GUARANTEE) BILL 1977

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 15 September, on motion by Mr Viner :

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
Smith · Kingsford

– The Non-Government Schools (Loans Guarantee) Bill 1977 was introduced into the Senate and has been passed by that House. The Opposition in the Senate moved an amendment to clause 7 of the Bill. I propose to move at the appropriate stage an amendment in almost identical terms. I indicate at this stage that the effect of my amendment to clause 7 would be such that if a guarantee is given for an amount which exceeds the $10m originally provided for it would have to be done by prescription and the Minister should table the details of same within three sitting days. I note that it was suggested in the Senate that there was no need for such an amendment. I propose to mention my reasons for pursuing my amendment when the Bill is considered m Committee. I might add that a reading of the debate which took place in the Senate reveals that it seemed to cover everything but the matters contained in the Bill. I shall try to confine my remarks basically to what the Bill envisages.

The point made was that the suggestion that the Government guarantee loans to nongovernment schools came from the Schools Commission. That is true, but I would like the House to address its mind to the specific reasons given by the Schools Commission for what it called the approach for non-government schools to raise their necessary capital. It drew an analogy between the government and the nongovernment schools in relation to financing. The Opposition believes that both government and non-government schools are in most cases in dire need. We are well aware of the deficiencies in the guidelines of the present program. The recommendation of the Schools Commission reads:

The Commission has been impressed by arguments it has heard concerning the difficulty many non-government schools have experienced in bridging the gap between the grants and the total cost even when assessed on a needs basis. Consideration was given to a possible variety of methods for alleviating this difficulty … On balance, … the Commission concluded that it should seek to have a loans guarantee scheme introduced to complement the existing system of grants. This would allow building loans raised commercially by non-government schools to be backed by government guarantees in respect of approved projects. The Commission would envisage that a guarantee might facilitate renegotiation, on more favourable terms, of loans already entered into at high rates of interest.

I hope that is so. But I remind the House that, in practical terms, at the present time there are problems in New South Wales and, I would say, m every other State, in getting adequate funds for schools. We are dealing with what might be called the capital improvements area; we are not talking about recurrent grants. It will be noted that because of the guidelines that have been set down severe problems are experienced in financing the capital area as well. It seems that the Government has decided to say that the Commission’s recommendation is a very worthwhile one because it will allow the Government virtually to opt out of its responsibilities in financing the needs of schools, whether they be government or non-government schools. I can indicate at this stage that the guidelines, which have meant less money being available for schools, have meant a $33m reduction in funds being made available to New South Wales alone as compared with the amount which would have been provided under the guidelines applicable in May 1976.

The Bill provides for $10m guarantee to be made available to non-government schools for capital works throughout Australia. There is no doubt that the need for funds is massive. I shall illustrate that point clearly. I am not talking about category 1 and 2 schools; the wealthy schools. On a needs basis the non-government schools in New South Wales sought $48m this year. They have $6m available by way of grants. So there is a gap of $42m. The point I make is that that shortfall of $42m exists in relation to those schools. The Government then says: ‘We are going to try to help you a little bit further by providing a guarantee if you can raise the money yourself. But honourable members will notice that the Schools Commission in its recommendation was speaking of a bridging loan to fill the gap between the grant and the eventual cost. In most of the cases there will be no grant. As I say, $42m will not be made available to those schools in need. Some part of that $42m shortfall will be met by the $ 10m which is to be provided. It should be remembered that that $10m is to satisfy the requirements throughout Australia, and the $42m shortfall applies to New South Wales alone. So honourable members can imagine the real need position in Australia. Schools will be applying for a grant to cover the whole of a project because no other grant will be available. That means that they then have to convince the Minister that they will be able to get the grant on more favourable terms. They are not likely to get grants on more favourable terms from the banking community; such money is only obtained on commercial terms. One of the fears I have about this legislation concerns the provision in clause 6. The Minister has to be satisfied that the schools authorities can arrange the loan of money on suitable terms and conditions. One can read into that requirement that the loan has to be obtained on more satisfactory terms and conditions than would normally be available under a commercial transaction. The Schools Commission was talking about sectional funding. But substantial funds will be needed if a capital program of some size is envisaged. A bank will not be interested in anything other than a commercial transaction. Furthermore, looking at the practicalities, it is well known that in the main schools in the non-government sector are associated with religious groups which are interested in religious education as well as in normal school type education. Because those schools have what we might call the backing of the religious institutions, they are in no way in need of a guarantee because the banks lend money to the religious institutions all the time. They never default. So what we have here is a cosmetic approach based on the belief that the Government is doing something very worth while; it is providing a guarantee. I think most school authorities would agree that such a provision would certainly be required in a situation where a substantial grant was required and they could not bridge the gap between the grant and the final cost. A guarantee would be worth while in such circumstances. Because of the relatively small amount of money being made available for grants for capital works, it does appear, as I said at the outset, that the non-government schools in the main and those schools in need will be required to finance the whole of the capital cost of a project They would be able to do that in any event if they were able in the normal course to put to the bank a commercial proposition. There is no provision in the Bill which gives them any money; it merely says that the Government will provide the substance for them if they fail and go broke. I cannot see any church institution or school institution of the type in existence ever doing that because such institutions provide close support for their schools. I commend that situation, but the Bill does nothing for them because they will still have to find the full sum of money and they will have to repay the whole of the capital. There is no grant involved here at all.

The situation here is similar to the donkey and the carrot situation which was introduced a long time ago in relation to non-government schools, particularly those in the Australian Capital Territory. Provision was made for an interest subsidy. That situation still applies. The interest was the carrot and the donkey had to raise all the money and to repay the full amount of capital. That situation still applies. We have a peculiar system of financing the needs of children in Australia. It is at two levels. Firstly, the State governments are in dire need of more funds, but they will not get those funds. Secondly, the non-government schools in the needs area are in dire need of more funds, but they will not get those funds. We introduce into this situation a guarantee, on the basis that the Schools Commission recommended it. It is worth while to the extent that it is bridging finance for only a segment of the costs where there has been a grant.

I put to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs ( Mr Viner), who represents the Minister for Education (Senator Carrick), and the Government that they should look at the situation in Australia at present. We have massive applications for substantial capital funds to assist government and non-government schools. Those funds are not being made available. It is no value to say: ‘We will give you a guarantee if you can get the money elsewhere yourself, because that leads to this question: How would these people be able to repay the money? From what source would they get these funds? The funds could come only from school fees or from their own pockets. If they are in need, as they must be before they can qualify, how would they get any advantage out of this position? There would be an advantage if there ad been a substantial grant of 70 per cent to 75 per cent of the capital cost. They would have that money. They would merely have to find the difference- the 30 per cent or the 25 per cent. When one looks at the prospects- a massive need for capital funds, and no money made available at all- one sees that the schools will be denied their opportunity.

I think it is worth while also to talk about the Government’s attitude to the Schools Commission. I commend the Commission for its courage and independence in saying to the Government what it thought of those guidelines. It virtually said that the guidelines would have to be interpreted as directions. I think it is a complete negation of democracy. We set up an independent Schools Commission to advise a government on the basis of need. The Commission is given what are now deemed to be directions. If it does not comply with those directions it says that apparently it will be in some jeopardy with the Government. One wonders whether some members of the Schools Commission will be reappointed after December 1977 because of their approach to this problem. They acknowledge the fact that they are obliged to make certain provisions not only in the capital area but also in the recurrent area.

I will give the House one example. This was a direction. The Commission is to make recommendations towards the implementation of a government policy of providing a basic per pupil grant equal to 20 per cent of the running costs. No needs aspect is involved. I remember the present Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser), when he was Opposition spokesman on education, opposing the establishment of the Schools Commission because it could make grants on any basis of need; he said it had to be on the fixed mathematical ratio of 20 per cent of running costs, irrespective of need. We would not have a Schools Commission today if we had relied on the likes of the then Opposition spokesman on education, namely the present Prime Minister. He fought that Bill tooth and nail.

Now, by directions to the Commission, he is getting in his personal policy. This was not announced policy when this Government turned on the lights in 1975. It was not announced at all. It looks like Fraserism at its best. We wonder where Senator Carrick fits into the situation. Where was the policy announcement, where was the mandate to give directions of this type? Is it just to suit the personality cult of one man? Now the Commission says that it believes it can interpret the guidelines only as directions. What sort of Minister for Education has the Government if he is subject to directions from the Prime Minister as to what the Commission will do? I think it is a most serious indictment of the whole education program into which the Government has intruded.

We must bear in mind that 20 years ago if one mentioned education in this Parliament it was deemed to be outside the ambit of the constitutional powers of this Parliament. That was a quick way to get out of all responsibility. There was no question at all of funding education. Twenty years ago if one dared to ask for any funds or to ask a question he was ruled out of order. At least we have grown up. There has been the Karmel report. What did it clearly indicate? It indicated massive needs for capital and recurrent grants both to government and nongovernment schools. With the new Fraserism, there is to be a specific grant to all schools, irrespective of need. That means that parents who have substantial funds can give substantial financial backing to schools which their children attend and those schools can get a subsidy by way of a grant. The poor parents cannot match that. The children of the two groups must compete at examinations and at every other level.

The children of parents in the lower socioeconomic group are really suffering a burden, as the Karmel report clearly showed. It showed that 80 per cent of pupils in the lower socio-economic group never made the tertiary stage. Most of them had to leave school by the time they reached 16 years of age. The Commission was set up in an effort to reverse that imbalance, on the basis that every child should have an equal opportunity and on the basis that they should be supported by way of funds.

It is a complete reversal of that process to say: ‘It does not matter what you need or what your parents can give, we will give you all the same amount. We know that at the end of the year, when you come up for examination, those who went to schools and who have had financial support, perhaps to the extent of $2,000, will do a lot better that the poor unfortunate child who has had support to the extent of about $300. All the techniques, all the teaching aids, everything will be there for the children of the wealthy parents because the aids could be bought. Children from the lower socio-economic group will have to do the best they can. Everything is deemed to be equal because you sit for the one examination’. The Karmel report clearly showed that that was not the case. It clearly showed that the people entering the tertiary field were those who had the best parental support, and that meant monetary support. It said: ‘We should reverse the trend’. It is for those reasons that we are very critical of the Government’s approach to this whole question of education. If State governments have a responsibility, as they have to supervise government and non-government schools on a proper basis and if they say they need a certain amount of funds, those funds should be available.

The main criticism is this question of directions and guidelines, particularly the reversal of guidelines. In May 1976 the Commonwealth indicated guidelines that would have provided more money than has now been given. Why has not that money been given? It has not been given because the Government decided to bring in some more guidelines that gave even less funds than was proposed in May 1976. It is for those reasons that the whole aspect of schools and thenneeds must be looked at. When one sees this legislation talking in legal terms about what is deemed to be a project, how it must receive ap proval and how there will be grants of up to 10m, one thinks that it could be worth while. Then one looks at what it really means in practical terms. What school in need will be able to find the money to repay any part of the $ 10m? If it is in need it needs grants. The whole point is that it will not get grants. All it will get is the benefit of a mortgage, which is a very doubtful benefit indeed, if it has to find the money to repay.

The big issue is this: When banks finance on a commercial basis they expect their funds to be repaid at various intervals by way of capital repayments. If one borrows $10,000, the banks do not say: ‘We will take $1,000 a year’. They might want $3,000 in the first year. They want all sorts of variations of payment. Schools cannot match this sort of concept. This is why we are critical of this approach. Whilst the Schools Commission was putting it basically on the question of bridging finance between a grant and the ultimate cost, in this case it appears that the Government is saying that the only way a school will get a new building is if it borrows the money itself and makes its own arrangements to repay the money. That overlooks again the question of need. It could be that the people with the greatest parental support and financial strength are likely to be able to say that they have arranged to borrow the money and that they can repay it. That does not get to the question of needs at all.

Let us look at the reimbursement of interest and the allocations made in New South Wales budgets. In many cases the budgetary allocation for that interest reimbursement was not taken up, for the simple reason that the poor people could not afford to borrow the money. They did not have the ability to repay it. So we get the present problem in Australia that because a child might have poor parents he is to remain deprived and a victim of the environment into which he was born. They will not enjoy the same educational opportunities as the wealthy have. This is a complete negation of the spirit of equal opportunity in Australia.

In its latest report- Rolling Triennium 1978-80: Report for 1978-the Schools Commission clearly objects to these guidelines. The Commission makes the point that it believes that it must produce a further report on the basis of needs. Under the heading ‘A Subsequent Report on Needs’, the report affirms:

The Commission proposes, in addition to the present Report, to produce early in 1978 a full report on the needs of schools.

We will welcome that report. It will expose the present embarrassing situation. Schools which do not need money are receiving it. There is no objection to that circumstance if they get it from some source other than schools funds but to direct that they will get money at the expense of schools in need is a shocking way to express a government policy on education. I have already indicated one specification is that all nongovernment schools are to be funded on the basis of returning per pupil grants to 20 per cent of running costs per pupil in government schools irrespective of needs. An additional $2m is to be given to Level 1 and Level 2 non-government schools. Perhaps an argument can be made to support that proposition. But that money is to be taken from the schools in need. So, $2m is to be given not to the schools but to the parents of the children in these schools. That is ridiculous.

There had to be an increase in 1978 in the capital program of non-government schools of $3m, specifically to assist in establishing new schools and new places. That is worthwhile but the funds are to be taken from other schools. An analysis in respect of New South Wales raises the old sectarian issue that we are anxious to get away from because our belief is that all children are entitled to get the best possible education. The analysis shows that the reallocation in New South Wales can be as much as $13. 8m in capital and recurrent funds, $9.8m in government and $4m in joint programs from non-government schools. That is a reallocation of resources which is against the normal factor in relation to those categories. The Opposition does not object to schools being able to borrow money. We claim that they should never be put in this situation. Funds should be available for them. The Opposition objects to the Government’s guidelines and its directions to the Commission.

I turn now to the specific purposes aspect in this legislation. I propose to refer to a couple of minor matters in this respect I have mentioned one of them. It would appear that the Minister has to be satisfied that the school is able to borrow money at more favourable terms because of the guarantee the Government is providing. I very much doubt it. Unless schools can show that they can borrow money on more favourable terms than the normal commercial terms they still will not get the guarantee. That is the reading of clause 6. 1 propose to raise the other matter by way of an amendment to clause 7 sub-clause (2). That sub-clause states:

Guarantees given in any year commencing after 31 December 1977 shall not guarantee the repayment of amounts exceeding in the aggregate $10m or such higher amount as is prescribed in respect of that year.

It was suggested in the Senate that if that ever happens- because of the effects of inflation it must happen- the Minister should table the details. The Minister for Education (Senator Carrick) replied that there was no need to do so.

I think that, from the point of view of sheer accountability and supplying information, such a need exists.

The Opposition supports the concept behind this legislation. It can see that schools in certain areas need a guarantee- I believe that they need a grant- but the whole concept of education needs is opened up when legislation of this type is introduced. No government money will be given and no government money will ever be needed. The Government is merely urging parents to make a greater effort. In some respects, perhaps, that is worthwhile. But when that effort has to be made in the form of a financial contribution from their pockets, it is not fair. On the basis of needs, those who do not have the money cannot afford to borrow and repay. Their children will bear the consequences. It is for these reasons that we urge the Government to have another look at the recommendations of the Schools Commission and to give some cognisance to the fact that the Schools Commission objects to the guidelines.

The Government should clearly understand what has now happened because of the reduction in education funds. The suggestion in the previous Budget that a 2 per cent growth would be maintained has now been denied. The Government should look at all those factors and recognise that this is a piece of legislation that it should never have to use. It ought to be able to give adequate funds to government and nongovernment schools on a needs basis sufficient for their recurrent expenditure needs and reasonable for capital funds purposes. We all know and understand the problem of unemployment and its relationship to the building industry. But let us be clear that the guaranteeing of loans will not solve that problem when those people who are in need and those schools which are in need will not have the wherewithal to repay the money. No contracts will be let.

Debate interrupted.

page 1653

REDISTRIBUTION OF ELECTORAL DIVISIONS IN TASMANIA

Notice of Motion

The Deputy Clerk- Notice has been received from the Minister representing the Minister for Administrative Services (Mr Street) of his intention at the next sitting to move:

That the House approves of the redistribution of the State of Tasmania into electoral divisions in accordance with the report laid before the House on 21 September 1977 and that the names of the divisions suggested in the report be adopted.

page 1654

REDEVELOPMENT OF AIRWAYS FACILITIES AT ADELAIDE AIRPORT

Notice of Motion

The Deputy Clerk-Notice has been received from the Minister for Construction (Mr McLeay) of his intention at the next sitting to refer the following proposed work to the Public Works Committee:

The redevelopment of airways facilities, Adelaide Airport, South Australia.

page 1654

NON-GOVERNMENT SCHOOLS (LOANS GUARANTEE) BILL 1977

Second Reading

Debate resumed.

Mr MARTYR:
Swan

– I support the Non-government Schools (Loans Guarantee) Bill. I oppose the proposed amendment. We are not debating the whole ambit of any Schools Commission report or the Karmel report, but I hope, Mr Deputy Speaker, that later m this debate I will be afforded the same opportunity as other honourable members have had to discuss such matters.

The purpose of the Bill is to implement a scheme to enable the Commonwealth to act as guarantor for loans raised by non-government schools in the States to finance wholly or partially the construction of approved priority school facilities. In spite of the confusion of the Opposition which is suggesting the exact opposite, the Government has accepted the recommendation of the Schools Commission that a system of loan guarantees be established. In November last year the Minister for Education (Senator Carrick) announced this decision and foreshadowed the introduction of the necessary enabling legislation. In partial answer to the honourable member for Kingsford-Smith (Mr Lionel Bowen) the loan guarantees are important to the non-government schools. The scheme will have considerable benefit for nongovernment schools in that it will allow loans for building projects to a maximum of $ 10m in any one year to be backed by Commonwealth Government guarantees. That is not a bad sort of guarantee for expenditure in one year.

The scheme will provide much needed support for those schools wishing to raise loans, especially those without institutional backing. In addition, it will permit more favourable borrowing terms to be negotiated. Loan guarantees will also be available for projects which, while approved in principle by the Commonwealth, may not receive a grant. The Bill includes provision for the Commonwealth to recover any cost to it in the event of default. It is not a handout but an encouragement. It will foster increased building activity in non-government schools in the States. It will undoubtedly help the employment situation in those States. I think the honourable member for Kingsford-Smith alluded to this. Unfortunately, a small sectarian conflict has developed. This always happens when Bills of this nature or anything to do with education are foreshadowed. I think the honourable member for Kingsford-Smith also mentioned this. It has developed outside this House. Regretfully, I observed that it has been added to a little by the Opposition in the Senate. I hope that this nonsense which should have no part in our society will be ignored by the Opposition in this House. I think the honourable member for KingsfordSmith has set the stage to ignore it. I commend him for that.

It seems to me that irrespective of which party has been in power, the non-government sector has been somewhat disadvantaged. The legislation we are contemplating now is a forward step which will help redress the imbalance. There is another important point. It has been suggested that, during the term of the Whitlam Government, the state of non-government schools improved significantly. That is simply not true. The levels of resource use between the two systems actually widened between 1972 and 1975. Non-government schools were operating at a level 28 per cent below that of government schools. This represented a 5 per cent decline on the situation that the now Opposition inherited from us when it assumed government. The Schools Commission reports themselves clearly show this and the Government has kept its promises.

I want to pay tribute to my esteemed colleague the honourable member for Lilley (Mr Kevin Cairns), who is in the House at the moment who has always fought for education. He has fought hard over many years and so have a lot of other honourable members but I particularly mention the honourable member for Lilley because earlier this year, in March, he asked the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser), with some temerity if I recollect correctly -

Mr Bryant:

– You are all frightened of him.

Mr MARTYR:

– Well the honourable member for Lilley is not frightened of him and there are one or two others on this side who are not frightened of him. In fact I think I could speak for all of us.

Mr Jull:

– He is a fine chap.

Mr MARTYR:

-My colleague the honourable member for Bowman says that he is a fine chap and that we get on marvellously well with him. We will go along with him whatever he does, maybe to the disadvantage of the Opposition. In any case the honourable member for Lilley, in March, asked the Prime Minister for some assurances, assurances which to some people would amount to a statement, that the non-government sector would receive a fair go in the allocation of money for education. Naturally the Prime Minister, being the fair minded and reasonable man that he is, responded in the affirmative. I am glad that the honourable member for Lilley asked that question because it is important that attention should always be drawn to this matter. The continuing disparity between the nongovernment and the government sectors will be a source of difficulty in this House for all governments. I believe it is time an approach was made in order to try to reach full equality. I do not want to have a philosophical argument at the moment about the essential issues and essential differences of government and non-government schools but I think it is perfectly clear to everybody that the contribution to education by the non-government sector over all these years, of favouritism for the free compulsory and secular system, is very significant.

I wonder whether the Government might have a look at some time early in the future at an idea which is not new but which I belive will usher in an era of true equality. It is called voucher funding. Apart altogether from the state aid issue, voucher funding for schools is gaining wider and wider acceptance on sociological, economic and educational grounds. Schooling has become a social service which the Government has undertaken to provide and each child is personally entitled under our present system to a certain amount each year towards the rising cost of his or her schooling. It is the individual child ‘s personal need for a suitable education that establishes its right to this money, a right it exercises through its parents or guardians. Parents in turn have the responsibility and right of choosing for their children a school which meets their legitimate preferences. It seems to me when I consider the complications that might arise from this present Bill, which I support, that the simplest way of calculating the amount due to each child would be to make it equal to the actual average cost, whether it be the local, region or State cost, of maintaining a place in a government school.

In October 1976 a Senate estimates committee established this figure for a secondary school student as being $1,280 and for a primary school student $770. With all the statisticians who are attached now to the Schools Commission, it should be quite easy to establish the figures for the money being spent per student every year. I hope our friends in the corner of the House, the advisers, do not quail at the prospect of more work being loaded onto them but I believe this would be one way to solve this perennial inequality problem. Were this allowance that I am suggesting to be part of a family income it would be taxable and this would ensure provision according to family need which is more equitable than provision according to institutional need.

One way of paying the allowance would be to issue vouchers to parents at the beginning of each year or term, the vouchers being redeemable at any approved school. The vouchers could be available at schools, to be signed like cheques when parents enrol their children. However, the method we now use would be quite satisfactorygovernment payment to each school or system of a cheque whose amount is determined by the number of children in attendance. The vouchers being uniform for all children taking the same course, and not tied to institutional needs, the process would be even simpler than it is at present. Aid to children at non-government schools may have to be increased step by step over a number of years towards ultimate parity with what government school parents receive.

It is for actuaries to determine how far the anticipated additional cost of providing equal financial assistance for all children at school would be offset by the tax revenue collected from more affluent parents with children at either government or private schools, all being treated alike. Vouchers normally would cover only recurrent or operational costs whereas at present, according to the Schools Commission report of 1976-77, there are gross inequalities in plant. These could be reduced or removed by special purpose grants like those the Commission already recommends and rather like the capital guarantee that we are at present discussing in this House. All voucher funding systems envisage parents paying the cost of their children’s schooling at the school of their choice. The vouchers simply enable all parents to meet these costs or fees up to the level of an equivalent place at a government school. The vital difference between voucher funding and current Australian practice lies in formal recognition at law of the fact that basic aid moneys are due to children or families and not to institutions. Aid to the student, not the school.

Local experiments will have to be mounted to show which voucher model or models will work best in Australia. A two-year or three-year lead time would eliminate the damages of hasty action, however well intentioned. How often in the last few years have we seen these hasty propping up actions adopted? In some ways they have been to the detriment of the systems involved. Were school funding the responsibility of the Department of Social Security this would free the Department of Education to concentrate on formally educational and pedagogical issues and services. Voucher funding then would seem to be more equitable than the present system and less vulnerable to political interference. By increasing public interest in schooling it would attract to it a larger part of the national income than can be fairly raised by taxation. Vouchers would give government school parents the kind of authority some private school parents now enjoy. Many parents who are now made to feel that they have no say at all in their children’s schooling would be encouraged to take a really active interest in it. Those who simply supply schooling would become more sensitive to the wishes of those who consume it, even when there is only one school available to them.

There are many studies available on what I have been talking about. I mention two in particular, one by E. G. West entitled ‘Economics, Education and the Politician’ and another by A. Maynard entitled ‘Experiment with Choice in Education’. I think both are available in the Parliamentary Library. I am certainly indebted to John W. Doyle who lives in this city for his treatment in a study entitled ‘New Schools in a New Society’.

I commend to the House the Bill that we have been discussing and I also commend the voucher scheme which I think would be a serious and proper step towards solving the perennial inequality between state and non-state systems of education. No community can long remain healthy and productive that does not set great store by the personal dignity, authority and responsibility of all its members. These are basic to freedom, in my judgment. We want to reinvigorate the world we live in and to renew society and I believe that this means putting as much real power as we can into the hands of ordinary people, especially power over their own lives and over the things which concern them most deeply, like education and the family. The provision of vouchers for schools seems to be one of the effective ways of doing it. It may even be, in the long view, that the greatest value of voucher funding lies in the sense of personal responsibility which it restores to parents, teachers and children. In the meantime we are going to have to go on guaranteeing capital for the other schemes that we have in the hope that sooner or later the move to equality which started some considerable time ago will eventually see fruition.

Mr BRYANT:
Wills

– It is always a pleasure to follow my friend, the honourable member for Swan (Mr Martyr), as he has so many contributions to make. Now he has the magic formula- the vouchers- which will solve all the problems of education, except perhaps teaching the children who go to the schools. He said one thing- I think that we have gone a fair way towards achieving it- and that is that we should put power into the hands of ordinary people. That is what we have done, as one will see if one looks at the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser), the Ministry and the Cabinet. They are very ordinary people. So at least we have achieved that.

Let me take one or two of the points that the honourable member has made. I do not have time tonight to debate the general question of aid for government schools and non-government schools. People like the honourable member for Swan always overlook one fundamental point. Equality does not just mean equality of public expenditure on schools; it means equality of access to schools. I look for the day when, say, an average Australian family lands in Melbourne, having migrated from Queensland- nobody could blame them for that- and turns up at the door of the Melbourne Church of England Grammar School and are invited to come m. Of course, that is not what happens in any non-state school. Even the most open and accessible Catholic schools cannot and do not take all the people who knock at their doors.

I represent the areas of Brunswick and Coburg in Melbourne, to which thousands of people have come from all over the world in the last 20-odd years. Over recent times when people have gone to one of the local non-government schools they have often been told: ‘I am sorry but we are full.’ When they have knocked on the doors of the Moreland primary school, the Coburg primary school or one of the high schools the principals have said: ‘I am sorry, we are full, but still come in’. That is the fundamental difference. No matter how we tinker with the foundations of the financial side of the school system we will not solve that problem. The strongest objection I have to the continual pouring of money into non-government schools is that we are creating and continuing undemocratic access to the schools. It is true that there are 2,000 nongovernment schools in Australia and some 8,000 government schools. The big proportion of the non-government schools are Catholic schools. Many of them are more freely accessible than the others. My friend, the honourable member for Lilley (Mr Kevin Cairns), would know that. Surely the arithmetic is simple enough. One has only to look at the cost of them and one has only to try to get one ‘s children enrolled.

On occasions I have made telephone calls for people and have visited schools in order to enable children to be enrolled and I have been told that this is not possible. That is the fundamental principle to be looked at when we are talking about equality of education. In the area which I represent there are public schools which have been there for 100 years. The schools are neglected. There is no doubt about that. Very few of the 41 government schools or even of the 12 or 15 Catholic schools in my electorate are as well endowed as schools ought to be in a wealthy country such as this. So I am in sharp disagreement with some of the things the honourable member for Swan has said.

My colleague, the honourable member for Kingsford-Smith (Mr Lionel Bowen), outlined some of the weaknesses of this legislation. It puts forward a typical Liberal solution to a social problem. For the rich it will be easier. They will be able to face paying back the $100,000 loan and paying the interest on it. It will be more difficult for people who are generally less richly endowed. The legislation provides a commercial approach to the public question of educationone borrows money and pays interest and the Government accepts no direct responsibility. The history of the scheme is that back in 1969- there was another election coming up- it was introduced for the Australian Capital Territory and, I think, the Northern Territory.

Mr Martyr:

– Are you sure?

Mr BRYANT:

– It says 1969 on the Act. I am not sure about anything that was produced by previous Liberal-Country Party governments. Really anything could have happened. I am fully aware of the political content of the debate at the time. That is what I think is the weakness of the scheme. But I think that there are some principles in it that are worth fostering. Firstly, it allows for initiative by the school boards. Secondly, it gives government guarantees for the initiative of non-government schools. Thirdly, it is tapping sources of funds that are not readily available in some other way. I might ask what has happened to the new federalism policy, because I do not see State governments mentioned in it anywhere. Let us look at some of these things. First of all let us look at the initiative of the schools themselves. One of the advantages that the non-government schools have over government schools is that they are able to take action on behalf of the schools themselves. It is one of the weaknesses of the Australian government school system that not enough power, authority and initiative lie with the school councils, committees or advisory councils. I am a member of several of these bodies.

I think that in Victoria probably more progress is being made in allowing greater initiative for the state school authorities than in other States, but we still have a long way to go. For instance, high schools in my electorate have been battling for funds to have the schools rebuilt. The problem is complex. There are problems with the Public Works Department, the planning sections of the Victorian Government, the Victorian Government’s budgeting and its priorities. The Moreland high school has a board and a committee and is as capable of running the school and handling the building and redevelopment as anybody else. Up the road are non-government schools. I think that all the non-government schools in my electorate are Catholic schools. They can do the planning themselves, they borrow the money themselves and they can get on with the job. If we had the apparatus for guaranteeing government schools and funding them in some way, such as is implicit in this piece of legislation, we could make a substantial contribution to Australian educational development.

I believe that we have to find some way of tapping the extraordinarily large financial resources in this country. I think that there is something like $14,000m or $15,000m in savings bank funds and about the same in trading bank funds. Of course, a large proportion of that money is continually committed but there is no doubt that it could be made available. We have to find some means by which it can be made readily available to public utilities. So, critical as Opposition members are of some of the principles behind this legislation, I suggest that it contains the germs of further development of public funding for this system. For most of the schools for which I am concerned, and I think for all schools, we would have to find some method of funding the interest payments and capital repayments. If our problem is at any time the finding of financial resources to get on with the job without doing something dreadful to the arithmetic of the BudgetI suppose that that is a kind of fantasy- this is a way of tapping those resources. We still have not found a satisfactory method of tapping the financial resources of the country for public utilities.

Generally speaking, we have enough resources at our disposal through general revenue for the running expenses of the country. I recall that in the 1975 Budget the total expenditure was about $22,000m. The actual running expenses of Australia, for the day to day running of such things as the defence system, payments for education and pensions, was about $ 17,000m. Our revenue was about $ 19,000m. So on any balanced view of finance we had $2,000m operating surplus. Of course, we were committed to about $5,000m or $6,000m for capital works, of which schools are an important part. We have not found a satisfactory way of doing that without getting into all sorts of hand-wringing exercises over what is technically called a deficit but which I think is a misuse of the word ‘deficit’. In this way some of those problems could be overcome.

Mr Hyde:

– The honourable member for MacKellar has been lecturing you.

Mr BRYANT:

– I know his views but he has been here for a long while, as I have. He also has had to deal with the operations of government utilities. On one occasion I visited the electorate of the honourable member for Moore (Mr Hyde) and did it a lot of good. The honourable member might in his visits to Canberra look at institutions which were funded in this way. Commonwealth Brickworks (Canberra) Ltd and the Canberra Commercial Development Authority are both public utilities. Both are publicly owned. Both have borrowed money through the systemI think in both cases from the Commonwealth Bank under Commonwealth Government guarantee. This did not appear in the Budget anywhere. It did not cost the country anything. I think there is some government funding in each of them but it is minimal. I suggest that the honourable member go out and look at the Belconnen Mall and the immense work being performed there by a publicly established authority borrowing funds under government guarantee. This means that sources of revenue not available to the Government under ordinary circumstances, unless it does something different from the way we have been proceeding, are tapped for public utilities. I presume this happens elsewhere. Throughout the system public utilities, State electricity commissions and so on, go to the market to borrow money.

The other point about this legislation which in my view has some merit is that the Commonwealth is prepared to deal directly with the institutions involved. I have looked carefully through this legislation. Although a school has to be recognised as a school by the State education Minister, that Minister does not intervene in any way. The new federalism seems to be gone. There is no schedule at the back of this legislationno apology to the State ministers that the dealing is to be done directly with people who are operating under State education legislation. We nave the effrontery to deal directly with them! But if that were suggested with some other institutions, such as those which the great majority of young Australians attend, we would be in breach of that sacred document, the Constitution.

I commend the legislation to the House. I can see no reason for operations of this nature not being publicly explained to the House and documented before it continually. I remind the Parliament that whilst this legislation contains germs of useful operations, including the initiative that the schools can deal directly with the institutions, the tapping of funds which are not normally available and all the rest, it also contains grave difficulties, such as heavy interest burdens, repayments and so on.

My friend the honourable member for Lilley in one of his waking moments a while ago- he has a lot of waking moments, not that he uses them very usefully- asked why the States do not do something. It is interesting to note that Victoria, for instance, has a very big State bank with very large funds and that New South Wales has a large bank- the Rural Bank- both of which could be in this business too. I think the Parliament ought to start to attend to some of these matters. We could put an enormous number of people to work if we were prepared to give guarantees and some sort of interest support, say, to municipalities.

Critical though we are of this legislation and though we see it as weak in some respects- it makes more things available to the rich than to the poor- it does contain germs of ideas. If the Minister conscientiously studies the speeches which have been made on this matter by members on this side of the House we shall all make progress.

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

In Committee

The Bill.

Sitting suspended from 6 to 8 p.m.

Progress reported.

page 1659

NATIONAL DRUG INQUIRY

Ministerial Statement

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
Prime Minister · Wannon · LP

– by leave- I am pleased to be able to inform the House that the Government has completed arrangements to establish a National Royal Commission into Drugs. The Royal Commission will be constituted by Mr Justice E. S. Williams of the Queensland Supreme Court and will commence its hearings as soon as possible. Since the Commonwealth first announced the proposal to establish a national drug inquiry there has been a series of meetings between the Commonwealth and the States at officer and ministerial level to settle the terms of reference and mode of operation of the inquiry and to discuss co-operation and co-ordination with the two existing drug inquiries in New South Wales and South Australia.

Victoria, Tasmania, Western Australia and Queensland have agreed to the establishment of a National Royal Commission and to the terms of reference of such a Commission. These four States have also indicated their willingness to give any legal support necessary for the establishment and operation of the National Royal Commission. Negotiations are still proceeding with New South Wales and South Australia. I was not prepared to have the announcement of the national inquiry held up further by those two States.

The procedure will be that the Commonwealth will establish a Commonwealth Royal Commission and those States agreeing to support the National Royal Commission will take steps to appoint the Commonwealth Royal Commissioner to head identical inquiries under State legislation. The Government believes this to be a most important step as it is clear from all accounts that the drug problem extends right across Australia and is not confined to any one State. Because of this, the Government believes that a National Royal Commission is needed to investigate the total position. After the National Royal Commission has been established I feel sure that a workable relationship will be arrived at with the New South Wales and South Australian royal commissions. At least the Commonwealth will bend its efforts to achieve it.

The Government has been very conscious of the need to minimise as much as possible any overlapping or duplication between the roles of the various commissions. To this end the terms of reference of the National Royal Commission have been adjusted to minimise any such overlapping, particularly with the South Australian inquiry. I table the proposed terms of reference which I believe represent a satisfactory and comprehensive basis for a national inquiry.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
Smith · KINGSFORD-SMITH, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-I seek leave to make a short statement on the same subject.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

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

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
KINGSFORD-SMITH, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-The Opposition welcomes the statement of the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) and supports the establishment of a National Royal Commission. We are aware of some of the specific problems relating to two States which so far have not been able to agree completely with the terms of reference because of some minor difficulty, particularly in New South Wales which at present has a royal commission under way on specific matters. However, I am confident that all States will agree with what the Prime Minister has in mind.

I would like the Prime Minister to consider whether the terms of reference should be extended to include consideration of criminal conduct arising from the use of narcotics, the treatment of offenders and the monetary considerations involved in trafficking in narcotics. The sums are substantial and it would be appropriate that the terms of reference be extended to cover those matters. I do not think anybody would have any objection to that. It is always thought advisable that the terms of reference contain some ambulatory clause to provide for the terms of reference to be extended in such ways as the Royal Commissioner may from time to time advise. Honourable members will recall that I asked the Treasurer (Mr Lynch) whether the Commissioner of Taxation could assist any royal commission by providing information about people accumulating assets or having substantial funds which could well be related to illegal activities. In the case of drugs, particularly heroin, they could well be underworld activities.

It is well known to people interested in the treatment of people addicted to drugs that in the main it is the young who are affected. Certainly they are the subject of attention from pushers and others who have a close association with the criminal element. This is a great problem and it is as yet unknown how best to treat offenders. Certainly incarceration is deemed not to be the right way to go about it. It is for those reasons and the fact that there is an increase in crime in the community, particularly the crime of breaking and entering, directly related to getting funds to buy narcotics that I think the terms of reference should be extended to cover the matters I have mentioned.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER (Wannon-Prime Minister)- by leave- I wish to add to my remarks as a result of what the honourable member for Kingsford-Smith (Mr Lionel Bowen) has said. I welcome the support from the Opposition for this inquiry which the Government believes is of paramount importance. From the statement of the Opposition it is clear that the whole Parliament believes that this is a matter of great importance to the Australian community. Without seeking to change the terms of reference specifically to cover the matters raised by the honourable gentleman and as the delay in this matter has come about because of the need to get agreement from the States, although this has been achieved to the extent which I have indicated, could I put on record and confirm to the Royal Commissioner that if he believes there is a need to extend the terms of reference in any sense, shape or form the Commonwealth will respond, approach the States and seek such an extension of the terms of reference. That ought to cover the matters raised by the honourable gentleman and any other matters that might occur to the Royal Commissioner as a result of his investigations. I hope that the House believes that to be a satisfactory way of proceeding.

page 1660

NON-GOVERNMENT SCHOOLS (LOANS GUARANTEE) BILL 1977

In Committee

Consideration resumed.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
Smith · Kingsford

– In relation to clause 7 1 move:

At the end of sub-clause (2) add ‘, but, where such higher amount is prescribed, the Minister shall table details of same within three sitting days’.

In his second reading speech the Minister for Education (Senator Carrick) said that the Bill limits the amount to $ 10m in any one year. That is so under clause 7(1). Clause 7 (2) guarantees that in any year after 3 1 December 1977 where the amount exceeds $10m the amount shall be prescribed. That means that the Parliament eventually would know what is the amount prescribed in excess of $ 10m. I think it is appropriate that the Parliament should be advised as soon as that prescription takes place. It was the subject of comment in the Senate and I think the observation made by Senator Wright when discussing clause 11 of the Bill was particularly worth while. He said:

The validity of a guarantee purporting to have been given shall not be called into question.

In other words, he was doubting that the guarantee could not be challenged. We do not want to be worried about a challenge to the guarantee but as we do not have any legal supervision over or inquiry into the validity of the guarantee, Parliament ought to be aware of the extent of the guarantee. Accordingly, because it cannot be challenged it certainly should be noted. Clause 7 would give us the chance to do that because if an amount in excess of $ 10m is to be prescribed, the Minister would merely table those prescriptions within three sitting days. In answer to virtually the same amendment in the Senate it was suggested that under the Acts Interpretation Act there would be a period of 15 sitting days. Mr Deputy Chairman, as you know 15 sitting days can certainly take us over a period of months m the Parliament because sittings are not as frequent as we might require to get 15 sitting days in a short space of time. Accordingly, in my view and in the view of the Opposition we ought to reduce the time from the normal period of 15 sitting days which, as I say, could well extend into months, to a period of three sitting days which we think would not extend beyond seven days of a parliament. Accordingly, a parliament would be very quickly informed as to any amounts guaranteed over and above the amounts specified in the Bill.

We think it is good legislation if one can read it and clearly understand the monetary considerations involved. We can see that whilst the Bill is good to that extent the amounts will be increased by a prescription. Anybody reading the Bill will not be aware of the amount. A prescription could take place and the Parliament would not be ? aware of it for some time afterwards. In a nutshell, I am saying that 15 sitting days is not good enough. I suggest that three sitting days would be reasonable and adequate because the Parliament could then be informed and matters could be raised in the public interest if it was thought that the amounts were going in the wrong direction. It is for that reason that I have moved the amendment on behalf of the Opposition.

Mr Kevin Cairns:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

-Clause 7 to which the amendment has been moved by the honourable member for Kingsford-Smith (Mr Lionel Bowen) is at the heart of the BUI. It details the amount of money in respect of which guarantees are to be given. If anything is to be found about the capital funds and the nature of the Bill, it is found in clause 7. 1 suggest that the amendment moved by the Opposition- without being unkind- is a fiddling amendment. The amount of money proposed for which a guarantee may be appropriated is very small. After all, what is proposed is only a guarantee. There may be a passage of no money whatsoever. So when one looks at the capital funds required and the gap which exists in the provision of capital funds for schools, one sees that an amendment such as this would inhibit the flexibility which a government has in allowing an amount of more than $10m to be guaranteed in any one year. That is an unnecessary and, I think, burdensome restriction.

Let me illustrate what I am saying. When one looks at the capital funds spent on education at the school level, not at the tertiary level, one sees that they are quite immense. For example, in 1975-76, $383m was spent on capital funds for school education in Australia. The amount which was available from public sources for nongovernment schools was $25m. This Bill proposes to give a guarantee so that some of those schools can raise a loan which they have to pay back with the advantage of having a guarantee. The guarantee might enable such a school to go to a better institution to gain a loan at a lower interest rate. A school might decide not to go to a building society or a financial corporation. It may be able to go to a bank and get the better terms which are appropriate to a bank. If the guarantee which is to be given slips over $10m without the passage of money the Opposition would require an immediate accountability. I believe that that is a fiddling, unnecessary restriction.

For example, let us look at the States’ role in this matter. The honourable member for Kingsford-Smith is a broad-minded and fairminded man. He was sympathetic to the general measure designed to be satisfied by this Bill. I immediately give him all those virtues. I hope he will count them as virtues. One or two facts need to be indicated so that any extra amount of assistance which may be given can be seen in perspective. In 1975-76, according to calculations that I have done of the Government’s contribution towards capital expenditure on schools in Australia, State governments gave $260m to government schools but to nongovernment schools they gave only an interest concession of $2.6m. That is $1 for every $100 spent on capital expenditure was given to nongovernment schools. This could involve a little school in the electorate of the honourable member for Prospect (Dr Klugman). We are not talking about the Melbourne Grammar School or the Geelong Grammar School. We are not talking about the Kings School which is not very far from where the honourable member lives. We are talking about the Blacktown Convent or some school like that. Such schools get $1 out of every $100 spent by State governments in this field.

If the Commonwealth Government slips in an extra guarantee over $ 10m let us be fair and not measure immediately what is done. Let us be fair minded and open minded about the matter. The Commonwealth Government is more generous. Often it has to pick up the tab for what State governments do not do. In 1975-76 the Commonwealth Government gave $ 123m directly for capital expenditure on government schools and $22m for non-government schools. So out of a total of $383m non-government got nearly $25m. The parents of children attending these schools are not wealthy people. They are people on average award wages. The father is on an average award wage with a wife and a few children. The question is: How much do we expect them to contribute out of each week’s take-home pay in order to build a new classroom at the local school? The school might be Blackheath College in Townsville. It might be one of the Bush Brothers schools which exist in some parts of Queensland. It might be the Cunnamulla Convent. How much extra do honourable members opposite expect the parents to pay? In order to assist such schools we might say: ‘We will slip in a guarantee that year of not $10m but $llm. You pay the interest and the principal but we will guarantee you’. Are honourable members opposite going to try to monitor that amount and to check for every dollar which is spent? The situation has to be looked at against the background under which we operate.

I come to 1976-77. My calculations might be slightly out but they are of the correct order. In 1976-77 the State governments’ contribution to State schools for capital expenditure- I am only talking about capital expenditure- was $309m. State governments ‘ contributions in that year for capital expenditure towards non-government schools was about $2.7m or $2. 8m. Let us look at the gap. The Commonwealth Government has been fairer. It has been more generous. It gave $124m for government schools directly and about $24.5m for non-government schools. When we look at the total we see that we are not talking about rich people and the wealthy of this country. We are not talking about people whose only fear of a taxation system is that somebody might bring in a capital gains tax. We are talking about ordinary people who send their kids to non-government schools. They are not the wealthy schools of this nation. I suggest to honourable members opposite that any measure which gives a little bit of leeway in order to make up a modicum of the gap in terms of the guarantee should not be looked at askance. We should not look with a jaundiced eye at the proposal. After all, in this area- this has to be borne in mind- the Commonwealth has to distort its contribution in order to make up for what the State governments are not doing. If anybody is mean in this area it is the State governments. They do not have a good record. They have a very poor record- 1 do not desire to introduce politics into the matter.

Mr Martyr:

– Do not do that!

Mr Kevin Cairns:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

-No, I will not. I acknowledge immediately the sense and the sensibility of the honourable member for KingsfordSmith. The worst governments in Australia happen to be located in South Australia and New South Wales. Tasmania has slipped out from having the worst government; it is on a par with some of the others.

So you will appreciate immediately, Mr Deputy Chairman, the argument that I am putting. Let us be a little bit magnanimous in relation to this matter and let us not be pennypinching. We should not allow ourselves to appear to be mean. I know that the honourable member for Kingsford-Smith has moved this amendment only because it was proposed in the Senate and he has to do it. It has been proposed in the Senate and out of loyalty he has to put the proposition forward. I simply ask that it be considered in the context of the total situation. The total situation of these schools has deteriorated; it is worse today than it was five, six or seven years ago. Most of these schools have the lowest measurable physical standards in Australia. That is no reflection on them; it is a fact of life. So, out of a sense of fairness and out of a sense of justice, I say that an amendment such as that proposed would deprive these schools of some small amount of assistance which could be given under discretion, and the amendment ought to be rejected.

Mr JAMES:
Hunter

-The Committee is considering the Non-Government Schools (Loans Guarantee) Bill. I want to express not only my opinions but also the fears of many people in the Newcastle region in relation to how restrictions imposed on government financial assistance to public schools and to university institutions will affect the new School of Medicine at Newcastle. As you will be well aware, Mr Deputy Chairman, for many years- I believe it still is- the Newcastle region has been the industrial heart of Australia. That estimation is calculated on the volume of shipping that goes out of the Newcastle Harbour. For many years the people of Newcastle thought that they were being deprived of a medical faculty at the New.castle University. They recently acquired one. Now we find under this Bill that the development of the Newcastle School of Medicine which is in its early stages is to be restricted. The establishment of that school was important not only to the people in the region but also to the people of Australia generally, because we are all aware of the shortage of people trained in medicine in Australia. The Flinders School of Medicine in Melbourne and the Graduate School of Management at the University of New South Wales will be similarly affected by the legislation.

The Government has come in for severe criticism from different sectors of the community for breaking its promise in connection with education funding. We should all be aware that the Minister for Education (Senator Carrick) in another place in November 1976 committed the Government to a 2 per cent real growth in funds for universities, colleges of advanced education and schools in the 1977-78 and 1978-79 financial years. It appears to me that the Government has decided to ignore that promise, just as it has ignored so many other promises, by holding spending on the public education system to the 1976-77 levels in real terms, despite greatly increased enrolments. Despite what the honourable member for Lilley (Mr Kevin Cairns) says, only those private schools in the top two Schools Commission categories- that is, those whose need is least- will receive increased Federal assistance in this financial year. The Government’s decisions strike at the fundamental goal of our society, namely, equality of educational opportunity, a goal which successive Labor and Liberal governments have striven to achieve. I can say that the Labor Party will continue to oppose these decisions in the strongest possible terms and will seek to maintain the independence of schools and university commissions established by the Labor Prime Minister, Mr Whitlam.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr Giles)Order! The honourable member for Hunter should be debating, believe it or not, the Opposition’s amendment to clause 7.

Mr JAMES:

– I was going to link it up, Mr Deputy Chairman.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- I gave a certain amount of leeway to the honourable member for Lilley, but, as you proceed- I ask no more than this- I would appreciate it if you would tie your remarks to the amendment before the Committee.

Mr JAMES:

-The amendment moved by the honourable member for Kingsford-Smith (Mr Lionel Bowen) is supported by the Opposition because we believe that the Government has betrayed the people by not maintaining the 2 per cent growth in educational funds which it said it would. It came in for severe criticism in an article which appeared in the Melbourne Age of 30 June for not pursuing those things which it had promised. It came in for similar criticism in a letter written by Professor Niland President of the Federation of Australian University Staff Associations. As I understand it, he has no leanings towards any particular political party, but he points out in a three-page letter written to all members on 3 June the unfair actions of the Government in breaking its promises in connection with education funding.

I support wholeheartedly the amendment moved by the honourable member for Kingsford- Smith. I hope that the Government will give consideration to accepting the amendment and therefore somewhat retrieve some of the face which it has lost as a result of betraying its promise to the people not so long ago in the field of education.

Mr CORBETT:
Maranoa

– I think we can assure the honourable member for Hunter (Mr James) that neither this Bill nor this amendment will affect any medical schools in Newcastle, in Melbourne or in any other place about which he spoke. The honourable member for Kingsford-Smith (Mr Lionel Bowen) spoke of the massive funding needs of education. One of the reasons why those massive needs exist is that the Labor Government in its last Budget reduced spending on schools by some $44m. Naturally that had a bearing on the existing massive needs in the field of education. The Government is endeavouring to cope with that situation in the Bill. The amendment which has been moved by the Opposition will not make any major difference to the Bill at all, except perhaps, as the honourable member for Lilley (Mr Kevin Cairns) said- it is a very minor thing- that it may have an adverse or disadvantageous effect, if any effect at all, on the operation of the Bill. If the Opposition wanted to move an amendment at all

I should have thought that such an amendment would have been beneficial rather than disadvantageous to the schools system in this country.

The Bill is aimed at promoting the Government’s objective of ensuring the best possible educational standards for all Australian children, whether they attend government or nongovernment schools. The implementation of the provisions of the Bill will not cost the taxpayer money; it will provide some assistance to nongovernment schools by way of government guaranteed loans, which will allow them to obtain better loan conditions. That should be a foregone conclusion. Surely there is no better security than a government backed loan. Despite the fact that it has been claimed that these schools have not been in financial trouble, it still has to be said that there is nothing better than a government guaranteed loan, and that is what the Bill is aiming to achieve.

One reason for the Commonwealth Government aiming to provide this extra benefit is that non-government schools educate some 20 per cent of our school population. If they continue to enrol a shrinking proportion of the student population, as they have done in recent years, because of a lack of facilities to absorb students, those students are pushed into government schools, which causes very real pressures and overcrowding and which is costing the taxpayer substantially more money. So I feel that the Bill should be accepted in its original form, and the amendment should be rejected.

There is an urgent necessity for the Federal Government to ease pressures on government schools and non-government schools. This is one way in which the Government is doing it, at a very minimal cost, if any, to the taxpayer. At the present it costs the taxpayer an average of $765 to maintain a pupil in a government primary school, and $1,255 to maintain a pupil in a government secondary school. The cost to the Australian taxpayer of maintaining the extra students who could have been in nongovernment schools if accommodation had been available to them would be about $19m. The cost to the taxpayer of maintaining these students in non-government schools would be only about half of that amount. Some $9m would have been saved. It could have provided benefits for the educational system generally. Savings of such magnitude could be used to good advantage in widening the government school program, for example. Freedom of choice would be preserved. Everyone would benefit. That is what we want to do. That is what the Government is aiming to do.

In July 1976 the Schools Commission, in its report, noted that there was ‘a marked gap between the resources available to government schools and non-government schools’. This Bill tries to close that gap to some extent. The Commission also stated:

When in addition it is noted that in 1977 there can be no significant increase in the Commonwealth contribution and that government school resource levels are continuing to rise it is obvious that the gap between government and most nongovernment schools is likely to increase.

So there is an urgent need to do what we can. This is one way of assisting the non-government schools, without disadvantaging anybody. During the three-year period 1974-76, some 60 nongovernment schools closed! That is a demonstration of the need for this Bill to go through without amendment. Included in that figure were 10 closures of schools in the top category, the socalled wealthy schools. So there is very great pressure on these schools. If we are to maintain the policy on which this Government was elected- a dual system of education- we must honour that responsibility. This is one way in which we can contribute in some small way to honouring that obligation. If members of the Opposition do not want to be a part of it, so be it; that is up to them.

In 1970 the Liberal-Country Party Government introduced the principle of direct Commonwealth per capita grants for nongovernment schools. In 1972 the then Minister for Education, Mr Malcolm Fraser, indicated the Government’s intention to establish the principle that in future the grants would represent 20 per cent of the running cost per pupil m government schools, to be matched by a similar grant at the State level. That is a policy which we want to maintain. I believe it is a policy which everybody should be prepared to maintain, in light of the fact that this dual system of education certainly is accepted by the Government. This policy has been frequently restated by the coalition parties and was restated in the 1975 election campaign.

Sometimes the Government has been accused of not accepting the recommendations of the Schools Commission. Let me say that in a debate on an education Bill it has been stated that the Commission should have complete control and that the Government should do everything the Commission recommends; its recommendations should be accepted by the Government without question. Then I ask: Why not have commissions to run everything? We would not need a government at all if it did not have a right to oversee the situation in regard to the economy of this country. We must look at that aspect as well, although we endeavour, within the limits of the finances available and within sound economic management, to accede to the recommendations of the Commission. The Government has adopted the policy recommended by the Schools Commission of linking automatically grants to non-government schools to per pupil expenditure m government schools. In this way we are helping those schools in a minimal way but in a way which I am sure they would welcome. In 1978 it is expected to provide about $8m in additional funds to non-government schools, from which all those schools would benefit.

Tonight we are debating a Bill which will not cost the taxpayer any funds. All it provides is a guarantee. The guarantee should be given. The guarantee is to enable non-government schools to obtain funds at the maximum advantage. I emphasise that maintaining the percentage of the population in non-government schools is to the advantage of all students in this country. I have known of one or two cases in which nongovernment schools have had to close recently, and there has been overcrowding in the state schools as a result of that. No doubt that will be alleviated, but it will be alleviated at cost. If we could have maintained these schools in operation it would have been of general benefit to education as a whole and would have allowed to continue the dual system of education to which this Government is unequivocally committed.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-The Non-government Schools (Loans Guarantee) Bill is, in many respects, non-controversial. The honourable member for Kingsford-Smith (Mr Lionel Bowen) has moved his amendment which might appear to be a pedanticism but which I think will be accepted by members as representing the objective of good government housekeeping. I listened to my friend the honourable member for Maranoa (Mr Corbett). I think he has the lizard by the tail. He made a far-reaching speech which would be appropriate on some other legislation. In many respects he has missed the point. I do not want to canvass much of what he said. If I could say, merely as an aside, he knows as well as I do that the Labor Government ‘s reputation in education is beyond reproach. The allocation of funds for education purposes after the election of a Labor government trebled. The concern of educationists in Australia at present is to the effect that the Government has failed to honour its election undertaking that it would maintain a one per cent growth factor in education. I will leave the

General question of education at that. I do not beeve that people consider that this is the year to expand enormously expenditure on education, but I believe that a fair thing to do in this year of curtailment and restriction is to maintain a one per cent growth factor.

In respect of this legislation let me say, as I started off saying, that it is not a matter of controversy at all. The honourable member for Kingsford-Smith made it perfectly clear that the Government has the support of the Opposition so far as the general principles of this legislation are concerned. The honourable member for Maranoa is old enough in years if not in parliamentary service to know that the forerunner to this legislation was other legislation which concerned guarantees or which concerned the Commonwealth acting as a guarantor in regard to non-government schools m the Australian Capital Territory. The principle has been carried on into the States. When that legislation was before the Parliament at that time it had the support of the then Labor Opposition. It has had support in this unqualified way from that time on. There is no point in trying to make political mileage out of this matter. Politics should not be introduced. Most people in Australia hope that we have put the issue of non-government education beyond the realms of politics. The Labor Party helped to do that many years ago. I am a little surprised that the honourable member for Maranoa has tried to resurrect that issue tonight, to open up an old sore and to divide the Australian community. The matter has been settled. People are generally placated. To try to divide the Australian community is no way to operate in regard to a matter that concerns the well-being of young Australians.

The concern of the honourable member for Kingsford-Smith at this time of deficit financing is to ensure that there is good housekeeping. In another place there was a proposition to the effect that there should be an accounting to the Parliament after 15 days have elapsed. A substantial number of senators who I believe represented the various political emphases in the other place took the view that that should be done. After all, we are talking about a matter which could mean the Australian Government becoming the lender of the last resort in the nongovernment education area.

Mr Corbett:

-What is wrong with that?

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– The honourable gentleman said: ‘What is wrong with that?’ If he is suggesting to the Committee tonight that a responsible parliament and a responsible government should underwrite anything to an unlimited extent that is the height of irresponsibility. The people who will be the beneficiaries of this proposal would not put forward such a proposition for a solitary moment. In many situations governments are the lenders of last resort but certainly to prescribed limitations. I suggest to the honourable member that the recklessness which is abroad at this pre-election time which jettisons the concept of good housekeeping will have its sequel and its consequence. I seriously suggest to the honourable member that he ought to have regard for the fact that he is dealing with the taxpayers’ money.

No deprivation is proposed in this amendment. This was the point raised by the honourable member for Lilley (Mr Kevin Cairns). The fact of the matter is that there ought to be proper co-ordination about the whole matter. I remind the Committee that we are discussing an amendment to clause 7 which states:

  1. 1) Guarantees given after the commencement of this Act and not later than 31 December 1 977 shall not guarantee the repayment of amounts exceeding in the aggregate $ 10m.
  2. Guarantees given in any year commencing after 31 December 1977 shall not guarantee the repayment of amounts exceeding in the aggregate $I0m or such higher amount as is prescribed in respect of that year.

I emphasise those last words ‘or such higher amount as is prescribed in respect of that year’. I ask the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Viner) who represents the Minister for Education (Senator Carrick) to what extent he anticipates that there may be a higher amount? Might it be $20m, $30m, $40m, or $50m? What would such higher amount be related to? The honourable member for Kingsford-Smith has simply proposed an amendment. It is in precise terms. He wants to add these words: but, where such higher amount is prescribed, the Minister shall table details of same within three sitting days.

We are not worried about the recess period. The honourable member for Kingsford-Smith is simply putting the point that when the Parliament meets, its members and the people of this country should have the right to know precisely the extent to which this allowance of $ 10m has been exceeded.

As I have mentioned, it is possible in terms of clause 7 of the Bill that the amount might be exceeded. It is as fundamental as that. I ask the Minister to say that if, it is not the case that it can be exceeded, he will give a guarantee that the coordination and organisation will be such that no more than $ 10m will be guaranteed.

Mr Hodgman:

-You ought to be a pawnbroker.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-The honourable gentleman makes some lewd interjection. I did not hear what he said but if it was in keeping with his usual interjections one could describe it as lewd. Does he regard the Parliament of this nation as being responsible for the taxpayers’ affairs? Is it reasonable to know the extent to which the provisions of legislation are exceeded? Why is the proposition put forward by the honourable member for Kingsford-Smith regarded as unreasonable? I put it to the Government that it ought to face the facts of life. If it wants the amount guaranteed to be $20m or $50m, it should put that in the legislation. We do not want to engage in any sleight of hand. We want the Government to put things on the surface. The Opposition is anxious to ensure that this legislation will operate smoothly and effectively so that non-government schools can benefit.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr Giles)Order! The honourable member’s time has expired.

Mr HODGMAN:
Denison

-I am bitterly disappointed that the Labor Party has chosen to hinder and to restrain with bureaucratic red tape the actions and discretions of the Minister for Education (Senator Carrick) who will have the honour of administering this magnificent piece of legislation. On the one hand, the Labor Party says that it supports the legislation and welcomes it. On the other hand, it endeavours to encumber with pettifogging red tape a Minister who might find that, at the end of the prescribed period, he has gone a few dollars over $10m in helping the non-government schools of Australia. What a terrible crime that would be! I should be delighted if the figure was $1 10m. For the Labor Party, on the one hand, to say that it supports the legislation and, on the other hand, to put forward such a mingy and miserable amendment as this, brought into this chamber no doubt on the instructions of those above because the same amendment was brought forward in another place, quite frankly does a disservice to the legislation.

I noted with interest the remarks of the honourable member for Hughes (Mr Les Johnson), one of the great thespians of the Parliament. In a stirring speech a few moments ago, he urged support for the legislation and said that the Opposition would like it on the statute books as soon as possible. Yet, out of loyalty no doubt, he felt it was his duty to support his colleague, the honourable member for Kingsford-Smith (Mr Lionel Bowen). The Labor Party seems to have overlooked the fact that this Bill came into the Parliament as the direct result of a recommendation to the Federal Government by the Schools Commission. I simply draw attention to the fact that nowhere did the Schools Commission seem to indicate that, in its judgment, there was any necessity for an amendment such as this. In reality I ask why on earth the Labor Party thinks it is so necessary for the Parliament to know within three sitting days what schools have been given permission to borrow and by what amount the Federal Government’s guarantee has exceeded the $ 10m limit?

Mr Kevin Cairns:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

– Because it is going to be given the loan.

Mr HODGMAN:

– Of course it has been guaranteed the loan but it wants to have the figures. Why does the Labor Party want them? I hope the Labor Party does not want them for a mischievous purpose. I hope it does not want them to be able to stand up and say in the Parliament that the amount of $10m has been exceeded by a certain amount and that loans were guaranteed in particular schools in particular electorates. I hope it does not want it for that purpose. What really is the need for this amendment? The Commonwealth Government’s record in relation to capital grants or the guaranteeing of loans for non-government schools- and this is brand new legislation- is not as good as it ought to be but it is considerably better than the terrible record of the State governments with respect to capital grants for non-government schools.

In opposing the amendment moved by the Opposition I want to say that the essence of this legislation is to provide a brand new facility to the non-government schools of Australia; that is, that the Commonwealth will guarantee loans to enable them to carry out building and to meet their commitments. It does not seem to worry members of Her Majesty’s Opposition, members of the Labor Party that one out of every five children, of all the boys and girls of Australia, is today being educated at non-government schools. The Opposition does not seem to think that any restraint, any restriction, any bureaucratic red tape which will make the Commonwealth government less able to give guarantee assistance to a much needed sector of the community is bad. In the case of this Bill we are talking about guaranteeing the non-government school sector $10m. That is all. The moment that figure is exceeded the Labor Party wants to know of it within three sitting days.

In my opinion this legislation does three things which are unique and which I believe are commendable. It will give schools which do not have the advantage of institutional backing an opportunity to borrow money. For the first time in this country schools which do not have what I would describe as wealthy institutional backing will be able to borrow. In anybody’s language that is a move towards providing great social justice. Secondly, this Bill will permit more favourable borrowing terms to be negotiated. The honourable member for Hughes said a short time ago that the Commonwealth Government is becoming the lender of last resort. He meant to say that it is becoming the guarantor of last resort. That would have been correct. But it is surprising to me that he said it in such a disparaging way. I do not regard this as disparaging. I think the Commonwealth Government ought to be congratulated for doing so. Thirdly, the loan guarantees will be available for projects which while approved in principle by the Commonwealth may not in fact receive a grant. They may not be entitled to a grant. Even though there may be no entitlement the Commonwealth might be able to assist by guaranteeing the loan. What will be the practical effect of this? It will mean that the $24m which the Commonwealth made available in the financial year 1976-77 in fact will potentially be extended by 33W per cent. The availability of the additional $10m guaranteed loans is tantamount to a 33 Vi per cent availability of capital.

Mr Lionel Bowen:

– You had better sit down. You are spoiling a good debate.

Mr HODGMAN:

– Well, the honourable member for Kingsford-Smith -

Mr Lionel Bowen:

– You are making a farce of it

Mr HODGMAN:

-I beg the honourable member’s pardon. With respect he made a farce of the debate. He was hypocritical enough to come in here and say that he and the Labor Party supported the legislation but then put up an amendment which is going to make its passage difficult. The contribution of the States is only 10 per cent of that of the Commonwealth. That is only $2. 7m. In real terms this legislation will mean that $34.7m will be available from the Commonwealth by grants and guaranteed loans. I say in conclusion that the amendment is bad. It is pet.tyfogging and bureaucratic and it was not moved in good faith. I say further that the States should really honour their obligations to the nongovernment schools. At least they should follow the lead shown by this Government. I hope that by this time next year the States will recognise that if they do not come to the party and really co-operate with the capital costs of nongovernment schools we will reach the crisis which the honourable member for Lilley predicted and within the next few years we will not have the availability of educational facilities in the nongovernment school sector which this country, in my opinion, should be committed to retain. One out of five Australian children is being educated in that system. If the non-government school system collapses the education system of Australia goes down with it.

Mr VINER:
Minister for Aboriginal Affairs · Stirling · LP

– I only wish to reply shortly in respect of the amendment moved by the honourable member for Kingsford-Smith (Mr Lionel Bowen). I point out that, as happened in the Senate, the amendment is not acceptable to the Government notwithstanding the slight change in the wording of the amendment moved by the honourable member. As pointed out in the other place by the Minister for Education (Senator Carrick), the Government shares the concern of the Opposition that it should not be possible for governments to act without the knowledge of the Opposition, indeed not without the knowledge of all members of the Parliament, both in this House and in the other place. Hence what the Government has provided for in the Bill is that if the upper limit of $10m is to be increased, for example by reason of inflation or any other circumstances, so as to allow a higher level of guarantees to be given by the Government, this would be done by regulation. As has already been pointed out by the honourable member for Kingsford-Smith, under the Acts Interpretation Act such a regulation has to be tabled in both Houses of Parliament. On being tabled, as is the common practice, notice is given of the Government ‘s intention. If the Opposition is so minded it can move to disallow the regulation.

In other words, ample notice is given to the Parliament and ample opportunity is given to the Parliament to disallow a regulation introduced by the Government. Therefore, as has been pointed out from this side, and as was really foreshadowed by the honourable member for Hughes (Mr Les Johnson) on behalf of the Opposition, the amendment is both pettyfogging and pedantic. It does not need to be introduced into the legislation in order to afford the protection of parliamentary scrutiny. For that reason the Government does not accept the amendment.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
Smith · Kingsford

– This has been a wide-ranging debate on a matter which is purely technical. The question is whether the Government should have 15 days in which to table what has been prescribed or, in accordance with my amendment, three days. As a result of my moving that amendment it has been suggested that all sorts of dire consequences will happen in regard to this Bill. I emphasised that this was a technical point. I want to place something on the record for the benefit of the honourable member for Maranoa (Mr Corbett). If the Labor Government had adopted the allocation of education funds as provided for in the last McMahon Government in respect of the 1972-75 triennium the result would have been an allocation of one-quarter of the amount that the Labor Parry provided. Yet the honourable member had the audacity to get up here and say that this Government is going to give so much more. It is giving a paltry $400m as against $ 1,800m. Now the Government has the audacity to say that it will give a paltry 20 per cent to children who might need 80 per cent.

Mr Corbett:

– Why did you reduce it by $44m?

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:

-That was a relatively small reduction when compared with what was provided. Our program provided for $ 1,800m as against this Government’s program of $400m. This Government is providing 20 per cent for a child who might need 80 per cent or 100 per cent, yet honourable members opposite stand up here as Australians and talk about education. They are limited to money and could not care less. The point I want to make relates to what was said by the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman). Clause 7(1) of this Bill limits the amount to $10m. He says that that is a paltry amount. The limitation was put in the Bill by the Government, not by me. In the course of my oration I clearly said that non-government schools in New South Wales alone need $42m. They are to get nothing under this Bill except the promise of a mortgage. Nothing else. They will get no money. The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Viner) spoke in all honesty and was the only honourable member on the Government side who spoke to the amendment. The amount prescribed will be tabled.

Mr Kevin Cairns:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

– I spoke to the amendment.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:

-I meant that he spoke to it in technical terms. The honourable member for Lilley spoke in emotional terms. Clause 7 (2) of the Bill refers to the amount to be prescribed and says that after this year the Government will limit it to $ 10m a year. That reduces to ruin all the Government’s arguments about the Opposition being pennypinching. The Bill itself contains that limitation and it was not put in the Bill by me. The Government says that if greater amounts are prescribed it will let the Opposition know. We have no objection to that. But we said that we would like to have that knowledge within a specified time. That is reasonable but apparently the Government objects and says that we are not going to have it.

All we want to know is: What is the prescription? This is dependent upon the budgetary position. We want to know what the Government is prescribing because we might think that it should be prescribing more. If the Government finds it important and valid to say that there shall be a limitation of $ 10m and puts that into the Bill, why will it not give the Parliament the knowledge that, if at a later period the Government thought that the amount should be more, it would tell the Parliament within a reasonable time? The only argument used- the Minister has used it here now- is that the Government will tell the Parliament within 15 sitting days. If it is going to prescribe an amount for guarantee -

Mr Viner:

– That is not technically correct. I think you will find that you have 15 sitting days within which to disallow.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:

-Yes, but you have to table it.

Mr Viner:

– That is right.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:

-Excuse me, Mr Chairman, I am not being discourteous. We want to know what are the Goverment ‘s programs for guarantee. We would like to think that they could be $50m, but the Government will not do what we ask. The position is that the Government will eventually tell us and when the regulation is tabled we can disallow it. Can honourable members imagine anything more ridiculous? The Government will eventually do something by way of regulation, table the regulation and then we can go through the nonsense of disallowing it. That is the Minister’s proposition, not mine. Is it not fair to say that when the Government has made up its mind at Treasury level as to what it is going to guarantee, it should tell the Parliament and do so within three sitting days? That is a normal time. The Government has done it in a Bill in one day. It wrote in $10m and said: ‘No more. There is a limitation. ‘

Mr Hodgman:

– Or such higher amount.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:

-No. So that the honourable member for Denison can absorb this let me read what clause 7(1) says:

Guarantees given after the commencement of this Act and not later than 31 December 1977 shall not guarantee the repayment of amounts exceeding in the aggregate $10,000,000.

Sub-clause (2) refers to guarantees given in any year after that year. So the limitation is $10m but after this year it shall not exceed $10m unless prescribed in respect of a subsequent year- not this year. That is the point.

Mr Hodgman:

– You are in a bad mood.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:

-I am not in a bad mood. The point I want to get through to honourable members opposite is that the Government should table this regulation within three days. All that the Government is saying is that the Opposition can disallow it as and when the Government tables it under the Acts Interpretation Act. It is as simple as that. It is for that reason that the Opposition rejects the argument that we should rely on the Acts Interpretation Act. We want the Government to spell out in the Bill that if it is going to increase the amount, as it is entitled to do and which we would applaud, it should tell us.

Mr Viner:

– But you know immediately the regulation has been passed.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:

– But if we know immediately the regulation has been passed the Government may not tell us when it is going to promulgate that regulation. I will not go into a further debate, but once a decision -

Mr Viner:

– Because you are wrong.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:

-No, we are not wrong. Within three sitting days the Parliament could be informed of the promulgation. A decision could be made and nothing could happen in the Parliament for a long period. For instance, if it were informed the day before the House went into recess or something of that nature we would not be given any chance to talk about the matter for three or four months. That is the position we want to avoid. It is for that reason that we are trying to put a time limit on when the Government would give us the information.

Mr VINER:
Minister for Aboriginal Affairs · Stirling · LP

– For the benefit of the Committee and for the benefit of the honourable member for Kingsford-Smith (Mr Lionel Bowen) I refer to section 48 in Part XII of the Acts Interpretation Act which covers the requirements for notification of regulations. I read it in full. It says:

  1. Where an Act confers power to make regulations, then, unless the contrary intention appears, all regulations made accordingly-

    1. a ) shall be notified in the Gazette;
    2. b) shall, subject to this section, take effect from the date of notification, or, where another date is specified in the regulations, from the date specified; and
    3. shall be laid before each House of the Parliament within fifteen sitting days of that House after the making of the regulations.

The point is that notification is by publication in the Gazette. Disallowance may be effected within 1 S days after tabling in either House.

Amendment negatived.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Third Reading

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

page 1669

APPROPRIATION BILL (No. 1) 1977-78

In Committee

Consideration resumed from 4 October. Second Schedule.

Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet

Proposed expenditure, $93,308,000.

Department of Administrative Services

Proposed Expenditure, $273,583,000.

Mr BRYANT:
Wills

-Mr Deputy Chairman -

Mr Bourchier:

– Not again!

Mr BRYANT:

-Yes. It is the honourable member’s singular good fortune. We have come to the annual flurry in futility, the consideration of the Estimates, after they have been signed, sealed and delivered and there is no possibility of changing the last full stop in the document. I wonder whether we will ever reach the stage when honourable members will be given the opportunity to participate in the Estimates from the beginning. There must be hundreds of public servants of relatively lowly rank in this city who have had an input into this document which is denied to the people who are answerable for it. I suggest that at some stage we should get around to having a real examination by the Committee of Inquiry into the Parliamentary Committee System. Here we are tonight talking about history and not making any of it. Decisions are already made. We are allowed one and a half hours in which to consider the estimates for the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet and the Department of Adminstrative Servicesa proper Irish stew of adminstrative systems if ever there was one.

Mr Martyr:

– Be careful of your syntax.

Mr BRYANT:

-I propose to mention just a few things contained in the estimates. My friend, the honourable member for Swan, is an avid attender in this House. I take it that he is a refugee from his constituents and that it is not safe for him to go outside. The estimates cover the Governor-General’s Office. It is time that the Parliament considered the matter of the Executive Council. During the golden days when the Australian Labor Party was conducting the affairs of this country I gave some consideration to the question of the Executive Council because it fulfils a very important function. I was not happy with the system. That is not a reflection upon anybody in it or upon the people who participate in it. Two Ministers would go out to the Governor-General’s mansion and consider the matters, with proper decorum and proper dedication. They would then come away. Other Ministers might well not know what had happened.

Mr Hodgman:

-As in the loans case.

Mr BRYANT:

-That is not quite the case. Everybody knows what happened then. The honourable member for Denison should listen for a moment because by some aberration he might eventually end up a Minister, although it is unlikely because he will not be here long enough. I asked whether I could have a copy of the minutes of one of the meetings which had been held and which I did not attend. I was told that I could not have them. I did not have time to argue about it because there were other things to do.

Mr Martyr:

– You should have received a piece of paper.

Mr BRYANT:

-This is an important matter I am putting before the Committee. I am one of those who participated in this. I asked whether I could have a copy of the rules of Executive Council. I was told that there were only two. I asked what they were and was told that with the Governor-General present two people constituted a quorum and with the Governor-General absent three were required and the GovernorGeneral would sign the papers later. I asked when those rules were made and was advised that they were made at the first meeting of Executive Council in 1901. As far as I can tell, no one has got around to considering the matter since then. I merely place that on the record because I want to refer to other matters also.

The Government ought to have proceeded with permitting the National Gallery to purchase Grand Nu and items such as that. I do not want to take up the time of the Committee; I just want to place that on the record. I think the Minister at the table, the Minister for the Capital Territory (Mr Staley), had an attitude on that matter. I do not claim to be an expert but Australia must develop an effective collection of modern art. I raise this matter merely to indicate the difficulties we face.

Another matter to which I refer is the Northwest One Stop Welfare Centre in my electorate. I am glad that the Government has seen fit to continue to fund this Centre. I hope it will continue to do so. It is an operation in which the Commonwealth Government, the State Government and the municipal council are involved. I want to raise the matter of the funding of some of the Government’s most important instrumentalities. I have time only to mention them. For instance, the National Library, which falls within the responsibility of the Department of Administrative Services, last year received an allocation of $ 12.76m and this year will receive an allocation of $ 13.1m, a rise of 3 per cent at a time when inflation is running at about 10 per cent. Ceilings are imposed upon the staff of the National Library, which make it impossible for the Library to operate effectively. It is one of the most important cultural institutions in the country. It is carrying out work associated with the collection and dissemination of material and making that material accessible with the aid of computer systems and so on. This work can be performed only by the Library staff.

I refer now to the situation with respect to Norfolk Island. One of the administrative aberrations of which this Government has been guilty was to shift the administration of Norfolk Island from the Department of the Capital Territory. I thought we were in error in continuing the administration of Cocos Island and Christmas Island under the Department of Services and Property, as I think it was called, or the Special Minister of State. As I see it Norfolk Island, Cocos Island and Christmas Island are exercises in government. The Australian Government has only two departments of government, namely, the Department of the Northern Territory and the Department of the Capital Territory. They directly govern people; they have that expertise. None of the other government departments do so in the same way. So Norfolk Island, Cocos Island and Christmas Island ought to come within one of those portfolios, whichever is preferred.

I want to raise with the Parliament the matter of the status of Norfolk Island. The Nimmo report, which was produced as a result of the appointment of Sir John Nimmo as a royal commissioner, laid down a whole pattern of recommendations. I am afraid that the people of Norfolk have been dealt with in a rather heavy handed way.

Mr Haslem:

– That is quite right.

Mr BRYANT:

– I am not accustomed to agreement from honourable members opposite. The Norfolk Island community is a special community. It comprises about 1,700 regular inhabitants, of whom some 400 or 500 are direct descendants of the Pitcairn Islanders. There is a handful of very wealthy people who in many respects are able to carry the day when it comes to creating public opinion. The community lives on a knife’s edge of insecurity as far as its economy is concerned. A simple change in our customs regulations could perhaps put them out of business. But Norfolk Island costs Australia hardly anything. We are spending $288,000 on the restoration of buildings in the national interest. We are doing this on our own account and not for the Norfolk Islanders. It is costing $126,000 for Norfolk Island, $502,000 for Cocos Island and $2.4m for Christmas Island.

Somehow we have to find a formula by which the people of Norfolk Island can be integrated with but not assimilated into the Australian system. They are quite neurotic about the tax system. In fact, most of the Norfolk Islanders would be better off if they were brought under our tax system and had available to them the general services available to the Australian community. I do not think the situation has changed dramatically in the past 12 months but I know that they used to maintain their school and their hospital and were responsible for all capital works.

If the honourable member for Swan wants to see a properly independent school he should look at the Norfolk Island public school because I think it is the only one in the system which makes no demand on the Australian electorate. In fact, that school is totally independent. As far as I know it receives no funds from the Government. It might have done so in the past 12 months but certainly before then it received no funds from the Australian taxation system. Of course, unless the Norfolk Islanders have some special relationship with us they do not receive social security benefits. When the children reach fourth form and can go no further at that school most of them do not qualify for funds made available to isolated children.

I hope that we will start to treat these people with special respect and that the Minister for Administrative Services (Senator Withers) will make himself appear to be a little more sympathetic, although I realise that he does not seem to have sympathetic nerve.

Mr Haslem:

– He has a hard heart.

Mr BRYANT:

– I had not noticed that he had a heart at all but something must make him tick.

Another thing to which he might give some consideration is the total inadequacy of services made available to Federal members. I merely place these matters on record, to fulfil my duty to members and to other people around the place. I hope that honourable members will start to apply themselves to this matter when dealing with the Estimates and will find some machinery by which we can have some input at the beginning of the system rather than when it is signed, sealed and delivered.

Mr HAMER:
Isaacs

– I should like to focus attention on an area which we do not often notice very much except in dramatic cases, that is, what the Federal Government is doing about the arts. I do this with some trepidation because I fear that if I draw attention to what is being done some honourable members opposite will start to oppose it. But I think it is important that we know what is being done and the value of it. If we look at the Estimates we see that we are spending $4.2m on acquisitions for the National Gallery. I should like to make it quite clear that this does not cover the capital cost of the Gallery but only acquisitions for the collection.

There is an allocation of $23. 7m to the Australia Council, which is primarily concerned with the performing arts; $3.4m to the Australian Film and Television School; and $9.7m to the Australian Film Commission. I think these allocations are admirable. What is good about them is that they represent in the performing arts in !>articular about a 10 per cent increase on the allocations in the previous financial year. In the arts this is most important because of all forms of employment the performing arts are the most labour intensive. If government grants do not move roughly in line with the movement in average weekly earnings what we are achieving in the arts will inevitably lag.

In addition to this, in the past year we have achieved important reforms. The restructuring of the Australia Council to make it more efficient and more economical and the establishment of the Community Arts School to involve the community in what is going on in the arts have both been important advances. In a different field, the report by the Myer Foundation on how private enterprise might support the arts is of real importance. It is a great mistake for the arts to be too dependent on single patrons such as the Government. The more they can spread their patrons the better the art form will be and the Myer Foundation’s report is an important step forward in that area.

I have a couple of suggestions to make and I am delighted to see that the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister in the Arts (Mr Staley) is present in the chamber to receive those suggestions. The first is about the Australian National Gallery. The proposed purchase of the painting Grand Nu for something like $lm has been a subject of great criticism in recent months. I can understand why the Government felt obliged to reject its purchase at a time when throughout Government enterprises and activities the Government was imposing restraint. It would have been grossly misrepresented had a government instrumentality, the National Gallery, at that time spent $lm on a single painting. Nevertheless, it is a decision greatly to be regretted. Members of Parliament are not good art critics, nor are they now or will they be good assessors of the value of works of art. I can remember being at a parliamentary luncheon on one occasion surrounded by a group of honourable members who might have what could be described as rural interests. I am sure that honourable members are aware that people with rural interests have three topics of conversation- wheat, sheep and cattle, and on this occasion the topic was cattle. They were discussing the relative merits of various breeds of cattle such as Murray Greys, Poll Herefords and Charolais. It was shortly after the previous Government had spent $2m on a Jackson Pollock painting. Trying to raise the level of conversation I said to one of them: ‘What do you think of the selection of Blue Poles?’ He said: ‘Blue polls? I have heard of red polls but what are blue polls?’ I do not carry it further than that except to say that I doubt whether members of Parliament are great art critics. I would not accept their judgment on the merits of particular paintings but I do accept their judgment on the political consequences of government decisions to buy works of art at certain times.

Surely what we must do is insulate the art purchases from political consequences. There were reasons for the rejection by the Government of the purchase of Grand Nu. The economic consequences and the public were important considerations. Another reason for the rejection which has not been adequately canvassed was the secret commission involved. It has been denied but I have been credibly informed that the agent was not to receive a cash commission but instead 12 Picasso paintings which he could sell in Australia and keep the commission. This was a substantial inducement for a local agent to become involved but it was a deal in which the Government could not be involved. It is important to understand that in art circles they talk about the reasons for the Government’s rejection of Grand Nu. However, that was an important factor in the Government’s decision. In the long term what we must do is take these art decisions out of this forum. Ours is an inappropriate body to decide them. We must establish a system which will ensure that the management of the National Gallery is accepted by this House as efficient. We have appointed a secretary/manager and I am sure that he will achieve that acceptance. We must accept that the artistic judgment of the newly appointed director is of a very high standard.

We must have the policy of the National Gallery approved by the Government. At the moment this policy is being redrafted and has not yet been approved by the Government but when it is approved I think it is important that decisions on the selections which the National Gallery makes for purchase out of its allocation be taken out of the political forum. They are decisions which should be made by the National Gallery without political control or direction.

A second field which I would like to bring to the attention of the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister in the Arts is films. We have had a sensational advance in the last few years and Australian films of great quality are now being produced. A great deal of credit for this lies with the Australian Film Commission and to a much lesser extent the State film commissions. This process has been successful in other countries. What we need to do is to extend this process to theatrical productions. The process has been successful in the United Kingdom. It is based on a revolving fund out of which productions can be financed and, if they are successful and make profits, into which a proportion of the profits can be paid, thereby achieving the revolving nature of the fund. We need such a revolving fund for theatrical productions open both to subsidised companies and to commercial companies provided that the commercial companies meet certain standards of artistic quality and requirements in relation to the areas in which they put on their productions. Both commercial and subsidised companies should have access to this fund. An appropriate level of funding initially would be $500,000, 1 suggest, with the arrangement that a board allocates funds for particular productions. If a production makes a profit then perhaps 50 per cent of the profit can be paid back into the revolving fund.

Obviously it is of great importance that the board deciding these allocations be comprised of people of appropriate quality. What we must not have on the board are people who are potential recipients. The greatest weakness in our arts fund distribution procedure in the past has been that recipients have sat in judgment on what funds should go to themselves and to other bodies. I ignore their practice of withdrawing when their organisations are being considered for an allocation of funds. Their technique is to withdraw then and come back later and knock back all other alternatives. This ensures that they will receive funds. It is a fairly blatant practice. What we must have is a body free of recipients and comprising businessmen and people experienced in theatrical entrepreneuring to manage a fund from which they can promote theatrical productions. In this way Australia can in the next few years achieve as marked an advance in the theatre as it has in films in the last three or four years. We must not underestimate what we have achieved. We are now becoming a significant force in world cultural affairs in that field and we can achieve that recognition in other fields. I put those suggestions to the Minister.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr Giles) - Order! The honourable member’s time has expired.

Mr Antony Whitlam:
GRAYNDLER, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– In speaking to the estimates for the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet and the Department of Administrative Services I begin by referring to something which affects all Government departments but which arises in the sphere of the Public Service Board. I refer to the new system instituted by the Government for the appointment of permanent heads of departments. Some of the worst rhetoric of the campaign trail of 1975 by coalition party members was reserved for individuals who were unable to respond on their own behalf and who had been appointed permanent heads of government departments. The coalition parties set out then to structure a statutory scheme of stigmatising certain persons appointed as permanent heads as established candidates and others who might be appointed as non-established candidates. Last year the Government introduced legislation to give effect to this new system. It affects the administration of the whole Public Service because it affects the confidence which everybody has in the quality of persons appointed as permanent heads of government departments. There have been several significant changes lately not the least of which have affected the department of the Minister at the table, the Department of the Capital Territory.

I raised with the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) earlier this year the statutory scheme which had been instituted for the appointment of permanent heads and how it might best be monitored by the community at large and especially by members of Parliament. I received the quite incredible response that whilst procedures were laid down in a statute for the way in which committees would be established to nominate persons who were suitable candidates for appointment to these offices, no information would be given to members of Parliament or to the Australian public about whether those procedures had been observed. It is quite incredible that on the one hand we have a government saying: ‘The procedures which have existed for 75 years for appointing permanent heads to the Public Service of this country are unsatisfactory. We are going to establish a statutory procedure for the appointment of permanent heads which lays down procedures but then we will give no information about whether those procedures are being observed.’ That is the first thing I want to say.

A couple of other items arise under the estimates for the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. One of the most significant innovations which attracted a good deal of bipartisan support was the appointment of the Federal Ombudsman. I think honourable members on both sides of the chamber hope that this institution will soon take hold and attract real support in the community. But I am afraid that if the example that the Government has pursued in relation to one of the initial and most important reports of the Ombudsman is any indication of the Government’s attitude to this new institution, then it will be rendered nugatory. In the Salemi case the Ombudsman went to great lengths to go behind a supposed ministerial discretion to pursue the administrative decisions which had been made and the advice which had been proffered to the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr MacKellar). The Ombudsman reported most unfavourably both on the decisions of the civil servants and, by inference, on the action of the Minister. Yet the Minister came into the House as recently as three or four weeks ago and said that he was not prepared to canvass here the reasons given by the Ombudsman in his report for that decision. We will completely devalue this new and hopefully worthwhile institution if the Government Ministers persist with that kind of attitude.

In the Senate Estimates Committee proceedings honourable senators were able to establish that the staff given to the Ombudsman would appear to be very meagre at this stage. It is essential in the early stage of any new institution, especially one which has attracted a good deal of bipartisan support, that it get adequate resources to do its job. Otherwise it will fail because it does not have those resources. I do not have the Senate Estimates Hansard with me but offhand I think the Ombudsman has at his disposal only about 12 officers for the whole of Australia. They supervise the whole of the administrative decision-making procedures of the Australian Public Service. That seems to me to be inadequate. In this area too I urge the Government to see that this new institution gets the resources it requires. If it gets those resources honourable members on both sides of the House are prepared to see that the reports of the Ombudsman are given the due consideration which they deserve. I hope, expecially in these early days, that Ministers do not force the Ombudsman into exercising his final sanctions of reporting to the Prime Minister and hence to the Parliament about their intransigence in considering the Ombudsman’s comments on faults in public administration. I believe that those two points which I picked up tonight- the system of appointing permanent heads and the new institution of the Ombudsman- deal with things which go to the very confidence of the whole of the Australian community in our public administration.

I suppose that no greater responsibility rests on the Prime Minister than his setting of the scenario for financial relations with other governments in Australia, that is, State governments and local governments. One of the institutions which has been established by the Fraser Government is the Advisory Council for InterGovernment Relations. I think it is fair to say that this is an institution about which the Opposition expressed many reservations when it was given a statutory basis. If we look at what has happened in the year since that body was established we will see that those reservations were soundly based. The appropriations which we are considering here give about the same amount of money to the Centre for Research on Federal Financial Relations at the Australian National University as was given to the new Advisory Council.

I think everybody in the chamber will admit that there are differences of opinion about how services ought to be delivered. We can characterise them quite easily in the Australian tradition as drawing from attitudes which have been traditionally expressed by persons in the Australian Labor Party and in the conservative parties. We will resolve them in the political forum. We cannot de-sex them, as it were, and resolve them in an advisory council. To this extent I think the Premier of Queensland has shown admirable recognition of political fact. It seems to me that if we are concerned to get new information on this subject we would be better off doubling the allocation for the Centre for Research on Federal Financial Relations at the Australian National University and doing away altogether with the silly institution which is no more than a cosmetic attempt to pretend that there is some way in which questions can be answered about what level of government delivers what services, what resources, and what revenues which are made available. These are nothing but political decisions which we reach here by dispute and discussion among political parties.

The other Department we are discussing here this evening is the Department of Administrative Services. I raise two matters which are interrelated to that Department. The first matter relates to the administration of the Australian Electoral Office and particularly the savage attack which was reported yesterday as being made by the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Anthony) on the new electoral system and the way in which the proposed electoral redistribution has been carried out by the Distribution Commissioners. The suggestion that in some way the representation involved in great areas, particularly rural districts, needs to be offset by damaging the democratic principle of one man, one vote, one value relates to another responsibility of the Department of Administrative Services, and that is the facilities made available to members of parliament. I cannot emphasise too often that Opposition members will never vote against the provision of adequate services to all members who represent electorates of great physical size. Indeed, we seek to have more government information centres, such as the Northwest One-stop Welfare Centre which is covered in the estimates for the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet made available in country areas. These are all ways in which we can help with representation difficulties. I think it is quite inappropriate that we should attack the basic democratic principle because of the inconvenience of spending more money to provide adequate representation to people who live in physically remote areas. They are the main points I wanted to make. The Australian National Gallery deserves the support of all of us. I do not agree with everything which the honourable member for Issacs (Mr Hamer) has said.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr Giles)Order! The honourable member’s time has expired.

Mr KING:
Wimmera

– I am quite happy to follow the honourable member for

Grayndler (Mr Antony Whitlam) this evening because of a lot of what I want to say virtually follows on from where the honourable member left off. We are debating the estimates for the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet and the Department of Administrative Services. It was with great interest that I noted that in relation to the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet there has been an increase of some 12 per cent over last year’s actual expenditure. For the Department of Administrative Services there has been an increase of only 7.8 per cent. I must conclude that comment by congratulating the Minister for Administrative Services (Senator Withers) for the way in which he has been able to hold back his expenditure. If we look at the actual figures we will see that for the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet expenditure last year was $83m-odd and the appropriation for this year is $93m-odd. For the Department of Administrative Services expenditure last year was $254m-odd and the appropriation for this year is $273m-odd. From there I move to a break-up of the Department of Administrative Services. I notice that the amount provided for salaries has increased from $42m to $43m. The amount for rent for office and other accommodation has increased from $48 to $53m. In total that is an increase of about 7.3 per cent, which is in keeping with the general expenditure of the Department.

As I said, I am glad to follow the honourable member for Grayndler in the debate this evening because I want to continue on from where he left off in his remarks about the proposed redistribution. It must be remembered that sometime in the future- be it this year, next year or whenever- there will automatically be a reduction in the expenditure incurred by the Department because after the next Federal election there will be three fewer members in this chamber. I do not say that three individuals will be missing but rather that there will be a reduction by three in the number of members. No doubt many other members will be missing but they will be replaced. However, in three cases they will not be replaced. The seat of Wimmera, which I have represented for some 18 or 19 years, is one of the electorates which it to disappear with the redistribution. Also the electorate represented by you, Mr Deputy Chairman, will be cut up in the redistribution. No doubt you are as disappointed as I am.

The interesting point, of course, is that it will be the first time since 1900 that there will be no seat of Wimmera. It is to be redistributed amongst the electorates of Wannon, Bendigo,

Ballaarat and Mallee. Naturally enough it means that the areas of those electorates will increase quite considerably. I was interested to hear the honourable member for Grayndler say that the Opposition would not oppose any proposal which improved the services provided to members of parliament. All I can say to the honourable member for Grayndler is that perhaps a first move should be to giving a little consideration to the number of voters that a member has to represent in an electorate as well as to the area which he has to cover.

It is bad enough that an electorate is to be lost altogether; that is one problem. But what of the future of the people who live in the western region of Victoria? They will experience great difficulty in contacting their Federal representative, and he will have difficulty in contacting his constituents. That is certainly a major problem. It is all very well for people to say: ‘Yes, but that is not equal representation’. I believe that it is well on the way towards being equal representation. Surely these people are entitled to see their Federal member with as much ease as those people living in the metropolitan areas.

The electorate about which I am most concerned is the proposed new seat of Mallee which at present is held by my colleague, Peter Fisher. He is a mighty good member too. The interesting thing is that the electorate of Mallee will cover an area of some 57,000 square kilometres. It will be the largest electorate in Victoria. At present it covers about 39,000 square kilometres. The enlarged geographical area will represent an increase of 36 per cent. The voting strength of the electorate will increase from 50,000-odd voters to 65,000-odd voters, an increase of 30 per cent.

The electorate is situated geographically at a point which is the most distant in Victoria from Melbourne. In actual fact, it is an area which is one of the most difficult to service. There are few members of the Federal Parliament who would take a longer time to travel to and from Canberra. There are fewer electorates which would contain more centres to service than the proposed new seat of Mallee. It will serve two of the largest cities in Victoria, and they are situated at either end of the electorate. There is a third large city at the eastern end of the electorate.

Horsham, which is virtually the home base or which is centrally located in the Wimmera electorate, has had an electoral office since 1949. Under the present arrangements the Departments of Administrative Services will allow only one electoral office in the Mallee electorate. Of course, the member for Mallee will have to decide on its site having in mind that he has three fairly big centres to service. As I said, he will have to service an electorate which has more towns and centres than any other electorate in Victoria. This means in actual fact that some 80 per cent of the population would not be able to contact their Federal member by telephone at a local service charge; a trunk call fee would have to be paid on each occasion. The people who live in the new Mallee electorate will not have easy access to departmental offices, such as those concerned with health, immigration, housing and repatriation. Admittedly it will have some branch offices of the Department of Social Security as well as Commonwealth Employment Service offices, but they are not located in every centre. So the office of the Federal member will virtually be a substitute for those vital offices at which people have to attend to direct inquiries and the like.

I submit that if and when the redistribution takes place- naturally enough the legislation will be passed through this House at a very early date- the Minister should take immediate steps to see that arrangements are put in hand to have established a second electoral office, which is the current situation in the larger electorates of Kalgoorlie, the Northern Territory and others. At present the Department of Administrative Services has an office in Swan Hill in the Mallee electorate and another in Horsham in the Wimmera electorate. If the latter office is to function satisfactorily and economically, I contend that, for pretty obvious reasons, an early decision must be made. The office currently being used is under lease. If the contract lapses before a decision is made the Department will have to go to a lot of trouble to find a new location- I might add that office space is at a premium in that cityand would have to incur the extra expense involved in refurnishing, having the telephone connected and doing those things which are so terribly important in setting up an office.

I believe it is bad enough to reduce the effect of the voice of people by means of a redistribution, but I think that can be cushioned to some degree at least by giving consideration to establishing sufficient suitable offices from which members of parliament can conduct their business. I believe they have to be provided with adequate staff, but equally importantly I believe that the position of the individual constituent has to be considered. I suppose it could be said that geographically the decision to wipe out the Wimmera electorate was the right one to make. Some people agree with that; some do not agree.

As I said, the old Wimmera electorate will be encompassed in the large electorates of Wannon, Bendigo and Ballaarat. The Ballaarat electorate will be enlarged geographically and the workload of the representative of that electorate will also be increased because he will be moving into a fair portion of the Wimmera electorate. The same situation applies in relation to the Bendigo electorate. I have not worked out the distance involved yet; it could well be that his electorate will extend 100 miles or more into the western portion of Victoria.

I have been speaking about the situation which will arise in the small State of Victoria. If honourable members think of the situation which will arise in other States they will appreciate the great inconvenience created by the redistribution for individual members of parliament as well as for the people they represent. So I suggest to the Minister and to the Government that they give early consideration to altering the formula under which a Federal member can have only one office in his electorate.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr Giles)Order! The honourable member’s time has expired.

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

- Mr Deputy Chairman, I direct the attention of the Committee to the estimates for the Department of Administrative Services which is responsible for the Federal provision of library services in the States and the Territories. Not a cent is provided in the estimates of the Department of Administrative Services for the implementation of the most comprehensive inquiry into the development of library facilities in this nation- the Horton Committee of Inquiry into Public Libraries. Yet a minimal expenditure of public funds would have ensured that all Australians enjoy the prospect of adequate library facilities in every State and Territory and in every city and school. Without these basic amenities much of our present expenditure on schools, high schools, and tertiary and technical education is wasted, for without access to the literature and accumulated knowledge of our society the educational process must be conducted in a vacuum.

The Committee of Inquiry into Public Libraries was appointed by me on 11 March 1975- more than 2Vi years ago. It was set up to inquire into the role and effectiveness of State, regional and municipal libraries in servicing the information and recreation needs of the community. The Committee was chaired by Mr Alan Horton, Librarian at the University of New

South Wales. It presented its report to the Fraser Government on 4 March 1976. Seventeen months later we have still not seen any action by the Government to implement any of the recomendations of the inquiry- recommendations, I might add, that would cost the paltry sum of $20m a year, an amount that pales into insignificance when compared with the $2,37 lm that will be expended on education by the Federal Government in this financial year. The only provisions for public libraries in this year’s Budget are the allocation of funds for the National Library and the Canberra public library service in the estimates for this Department.

The Horton inquiry found that there were serious deficiencies in the distribution and standard of public libraries in Australia. For example, the inquiry found that in Queensland only 44 per cent of the population was served by a free municipal library, and IS per cent of the State’s population had no access to public libraries of any kind. Cities as large as Bundaberg in Queensland, with a population of over 30,000 people, and Lilydale in Victoria, the western Adelaide region and the Shire of Swan in Western Australia have no library services at all. The Melbourne City Council provides no library facilities for the central business district of Melbourne. I cannot think of another capital city council in the world which would have failed to provide so basic a service. Where is its pride? Where is its sense of propriety?

The inquiry estimated that a total of 816,000 people live in areas without any library servicesthe most disadvantaged States being Queensland and South Australia. Those Australians who are fortunate enough to have access to these facilities may still be forced to pay a subscription for this basic amenity. In Queensland, 41 per cent of the population is serviced by subscription libraries. In South Australia 40 per cent of the population is similarly ill-served. The Horton inquiry concluded that attempts to provide library services solely by subscription have been found unsatisfactory in Australia and overseas. Such services have been characterised by the use of unqualified staff and by book stocks which reflect the temporary popularity of titles.

The Committee also discovered that expenditure on public libraries per capita and the burden on ratepayers for the provision of these services varied greatly from State to State. In Queensland $3.17 per caput was spent on public libraries in 1975-76, but in Tasmania $9.94 per caput was expended during the same period. In New South Wales local government had to find 76.5 per cent of the $22.6m spent on public libraries in 1975-76, but local government in Tasmania funded only 14.6 per cent of the cost of municipal public libraries. Clearly a national, coordinated program of development of public libraries is required if these gross regional variations in the distribution and funding of public libraries are to be removed. Accordingly, the Horton inquiry recommended:

The provision of public library and information services should be the collective responsibility of the Commonwealth, State and local levels of government funded in pan by each of these levels of government.

That was its first recommendation. The Committee also recommended that a statutory body to be known as the Public Libraries and Information Council be established to formulate advice to government on national policies for the development of library and information services. It also challenged the Federal Government to assist State and local governments to eliminate the serious inadequacies and inequalities of present services by committing itself to a 10-year program of financial assistance at the rate of 20m a year.

In its own words, the Committee’s proposal represented an integrated solution to the problems of public libraries which should facilitate cost-effective and professionally sound development of these services. The Government’s response to the Committee’s cogent, efficient and cheap recommendations has been silence and inertia. The Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) had to be jolted into action. On 27 May last year I placed a question on notice, No. 708, concerning consultation with the States on the recommendations of the Horton inquiry. I asked him on what date consultations had taken place with State governments on the recommendations of the Committee of Inquiry. He replied on 4 June last year that copies of the report of the Committee were being sent to State governments with an invitation to those governments to comment on the report. In a subsequent question, No. 938, on 26 August last year, I asked the Prime Minister when the copies of the report were sent to the State governments. He replied that they were sent to State Premiers under cover of a letter from him on 3 June. It is apparent from the Prime Minister’s answer to the later question that he wrote to the States six days after I placed the former question on notice. It is legitimate to conclude that he would not have written to them at all if he had not been asked the question.

The Prime Minister, however, was not the only member of the Government to pigeonhole the Horton report. I quote from Senate Hansard of 27 April 1977. Senator Douglas McClelland asked what further action was to be taken by the Government on the Horton inquiry and the interdepartmental committee’s recommendations. The Minister for Administrative Services (Senator Withers) replied:

I suppose the action required most of all is for me to get some time to read the reports

The Minister admitted that he had not read the report of the Committee of Inquiry which he received on 4 March 1976-14 months earlier. On 22 September, last month, in answer to a question I placed on notice for him on 16 August, he was at last able to say that he had read the report. There could be no clearer demonstration of this Government’s cavalier attitude towards the provision of adequate public library facilities for all Australians, no matter whether they live in northern Queensland or the western suburbs of Sydney. The Minister, in his answer to Senator Douglas McClelland, said that it was his intention to put a submission to Cabinet so that government policy on these matters might be made known to the electorate. He went further on 3 1 May last, in response to a question from Senator McLaren. He said:

I suggest that the honourable senator contain his impatience until Budget day.

When the Minister gave that reply he knew that the IDC which he had appointed to examine the recommendations of the Horton committee, on 15 April last year, had not delivered its report. In fact it did not deliver its report until 1 1 August this year, after the Budget was being printed. On Budget day the shelves were bare- not $1 for public libraries in the States or Territories. One could point out that in the Northern Territory, a total Federal responsibility, the public library services, despite the recommendation of the Horton Committee, are worse than they were before Cyclone Tracy. No subsequent action recommended by the Committee has yet been taken.

These estimates and the Budget Papers again demonstrate this Government’s capacity for false economies. Spend $2, 371m on education but not a cent for libraries that ensure that the educational process does not end when our children complete their formal education. It is a decision that denies many handicapped persons, migrants and Aboriginals access to special reading and reference facilities that would ensure them some equality of opportunity- a decision that denies many Australians access to literature and information that would enrich their lives

Mr SHORT:
Ballaarat

-My friend the honourable member for Wimmera (Mr King) made some very telling points tonight about the problems associated with adequately representing large geographical areas. There is no doubt at all that these problems of representation are greater than the problems of representation in a smaller area. I was somewhat surprised, I must say, that the honourable member for Grayndler (Mr Antony Whitlam), who claimed that the Opposition would treat all people in the community as being adequately and equally represented, did not quite appear to recognise this fact in his unwarranted attack, to my mind, on the recent remarks of the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Anthony). I hope the Government will have a good look at the suggestions made by the honourable member for Wimmera because I think they are deserving of close attention.

Tonight I want to touch mainly on two or three matters concerning the Government’s role in relation to the arts. Firstly I would Uke to compliment the Minister for Capital Territory (Mr Staley) who is also Minister Assisting the Prime Minister in the Arts for his handling of this area of Prime Ministerial responsibility. I am delighted to see him in the chamber tonight. I know from first hand experience that those who have had contact with him in this area have been impressed by his approachability and his sound, commonsense approach to the various issues involved. The Minister, I believe, has also played a very creative role in encouraging the development of the arts in Australia. In particular, I welcome the recent decision to establish a community arts board within the Australia Council. The purpose of this decision was to achieve a wider participation in the arts throughout the community at large. The new Board will aim to reach those in the community who are not involved in or do not have association with major and traditional arts organisations. The work of the Community Arts Board will extend to outlying country areas, a very important facet of its work, I hope. It will include special interest areas such as ethnic groups. Some new pilot projects are to be aimed specifically at young people.

I also take the opportunity to compliment my colleague, the honourable member for Isaacs (Mr Hamer), and his Government members’ committee, for the work the committee has put into the examination of new initiatives such as the Community Arts Board. Such initiatives are of great importance. Art in the overall meaning of the word adds an important dimension to the lives of individuals. Those involved with the arts have over the years frequently been regarded as elitist and, I believe, with certain justification. Equally though I think this situation seems to be changing. That is good. Where taxpayers’ funds are concerned, in particular, art should reach as wide a range of people, young and old, in the community as possible.

There is another element here too. That is the extent to which taxpayers’ funds ought to be involved in development of the arts. There is no doubt in my mind that the Government must be involved to some extent otherwise the development of many art forms would wither dramatically at some cost, perhaps large cost, to our overall standard of living. On the other hand, governments must be very careful indeed not to monopolise the funding situation so as to discourage private effort and involvement. The balance to be struck is a delicate one. I am not sure whether we have yet reached the right balance but we are certainly closer to it than we were a few years ago. I compliment the Government for that.

The decision in the Budget to liberalise the conditions under which income tax deductions are allowable for gifts of works of art and comparable property to public art galleries, museums and libraries is a further valuable step in this direction. At present a person who donates a work of art or similar property to a public art gallery, museum or library may be eligible for an income tax deduction in respect of his gift only if he purchased the item within the 12 month period preceding the date of the gift. The amount allowable is restricted at the moment to the lesser of the purchase price or the market value at the time of making the gift. As a result of the provisions of this Budget however, from 1 January next the 12 month test will be abandoned for a trial period of three years. The valuation for taxation purposes will generally be market value. I hope this change in taxation treatment will provide a shot in the arm for the smaller public galleries throughout Australia. It is through these galleries that many Australians acquire their first association with works of art. Between them, these smaller galleries house some of Australia’s great art treasures.

In my own electorate, for example, we are fortunate in having the Ballarat Fine Arts Gallery. It is one of the finest regional galleries in Australia. It has a room specifically set aside for the works of the Lindsay family. It houses the largest collection of Lindsays in Australia. It also houses many other great works of Australian art. Regional galleries throughout Australia are suffering financial hardship. As a result, some of them are having to sell off their treasures. Others have abandoned restoration programs. Still others are having to stand by and see their works deteriorate. The report on museums in Australia, presented to Parliament in, I think, 1975, mentioned some of the difficulties and made various recommendations as to how they might be tackled. Few, if any, of these recommendations have as yet been acted on. Not all of them relate to the Federal Government. However, in my opinion, there is an urgent need for the Government to have another look at that report and to use it as a basis for discussing with both State and local governments, private donors and the galleries themselves, possible ways in which regional galleries can be helped to meet better the difficulties they are now facing.

I shall now say a few words about the policy towards acquisitions by the Australian National Gallery. What I have to say is very similar in thrust to what was said by the honourable member for Isaacs. As I understand the present situation, all works of art proposed to be purchased by the Gallery, and for which the purchase price exceeds $100,000, must be approved by either the Prime Minister or Cabinet. I find this policy difficult to follow. With all due respect to Prime Ministers and other Cabinet Ministers of this or any other day and, in particular, to the present Minister Assisting the Prime Minister in the Arts, it would be rare for them to be experts in the area of assessing the real merits of important works of art. Yet that is the position in which they are placed by the present policy. It does not seem to me to be a valid justification of this policy to argue that it provides a control over costs. It is the function of Budget preparation, Budget formulation and the subsequent Parliamentary debate on the Budget to do this.

The Gallery cannot exceed its budget allocation for acquisitions regardless of whether Cabinet is given the responsibility of taking decisions in respect of individual acquisition pro- posals. The Director of the National Gallery and is senior staff are surely the persons best able to judge the merits of particular acquisitions within a broad acquisitions framework which I fully accept should bear the stamp of Cabinet. But once the framework has been established I believe that we should leave its implementation to the experts. The Government already requires the Gallery to get two independent expert appraisals of each proposed acquisition, together with a list of prices paid for comparable works. Why the Government on top of that safeguard and the others I have mentioned has then to give the final approval or rejection for an individual acquisition escapes me. The present policy runs the real risk of making Gallery acquisitions a political football. We have already had some good demonstrations of this. There is already far too much Government involvement in far too many areas of human activity in Australia. Assessment of works of art should not be one such involvement. I hope that the Minister and through him the Government will have a careful look at this matter. There is little doubt in my own mind that the policy in respect of acquisitions by the Australian National Gallery is not a particularly sensible one.

In the few moments left to me, I shall say a few words about Christmas Island. It seems to be almost an island forgotten in this Parliament. It is of considerable importance to Australia. In particular, it is a major producer of phosphate. It has much strategic significance given its geographic relationship to Indonesia. There has been unrest on Christmas Island at the attitudes of successive Federal governments towards the present problems and the future of the Island. It is a matter of some regret that that unrest is still apparent, I believe with good cause. I find it incredible that the Conciliation and Arbitration Act, as I understand it, has no application on the Island. I find it surprising and disturbing that leading figures on the Island have never been told, as I am advised, why the Government’s new animal health quarantine station is to be located on Cocos Island instead of Christmas Island, despite some apparent clear advantages in favour of Christmas Island and the seemingly bleak economic future for Christmas Island once its phosphate deposits run out. I will not pursue the matter further here other than to urge the Government to pay more attention to the needs and problems of Christmas Island than it and its predecessors have done.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr Giles)Order! The honourable member’s time has expired.

Mr COHEN:
Robertson

-This evening, I will follow some of the comments of the previous speaker concerning the purchases of the Australian National Gallery, particularly the furore that has arisen over the purchase of Grand Nu. I appeal to the Government and the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister in the Arts (Mr Staley) who I think is doing a good job and is sensitive to the problem that has arisen over the purchases of the National Gallery. I hope that we can end the sort of political point scoring which has occurred over the purchases of art masterpieces. When we were in government there was no doubt that when any Liberal Party politician or National Country Party politician wanted to get a laugh or score a point at the expense of the Labor Government he could do so by making a reference to the National Art Gallery’s purchase of the Jackson Pollock painting Blue Poles.

Every time that the Labor Government was unable to accede to a request for money from some section of the community, or whenever it was forced to impose a tax, the aggrieved person or organisation would make a sneering reference to Blue Poles. It was held up as a classic example of the Government’s order of priorities. I would hate to count the number of times that someone abused me over Blue Poles. I do not question that it lost us a lot of votes. Unfortunately we are paying a price for that now and the chickens are coming home to roost. The brou’haha over Blue Poles has reached the point now where the present Government has been forced to veto any purchase of an art masterpiece. The Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) is determined that his Government will never be ridiculed over any purchase in the way that the Labor Government was ridiculed over Blue Poles.

Obviously that was the reason for the veto by the Government of the decision of the Australian National Gallery to purchase the famous painting Grand Nu by the French artist Georges Braque which was painted in 1908. Braque, along with his friend and contemporary Picasso, is recognised as the leader of the modern art era. Grand Nu is recognised as one of the masterpieces of that era. The purchase price of $1.3m was vetoed by the Government with the result that this unique and famous painting, one of the few available for purchase because it is in a private collection and not in a museum collection, now appears to have been lost to this country.

I would like to quote a few points from an article that appeared in the Australian. It is a report of an interview with a gentleman named Mr Alec Maguy, the person who wanted to sell the piece to the National Gallery. The article was written in Nice, France, by Mr Kevin Dowling. Dowling described the painting as ‘a piece of French history, a painting as precious to France as the works of Picasso are to Spain’. Later on in the article he said:

The big, busty nude in sage green and purple is by France’s greatest contemporary painter, who shared the life and times of the turn of the century with that other master of the unexpected, Picasso.

Further on Dowling quoted Maguy as having said: ‘AH posterity will be able to enjoy her for centuries to come. But the politicians who make music-hall with her now will be gone in another six months ‘.

Well, perhaps not six months but none of us will live as long as the works of Georges Braque. Further on bowling said in this article:

The shock he feels has been echoed this week by the French Press and the Paris an establishment, which cannot understand why anybody should not want to admire Braque ‘s idea of the perfect woman- even if she does have angles where most girls have curves. After all, scholars from all over the world nave written more than SO books about this one painting alone . . .

I think it is a great tragedy for Australia that we come down to this level of political debate about what clearly is one of the great masterpieces of the art world. I am not putting myself forward as an expert; I am accepting the words of the people who know, the people who have studied and have become expert in this field.

Probably it is true to say that very few people in Australia were aware that there was a national collection until the purchase of Blue Poles. Most people would have been forgiven for thinking that there was nothing else in the collection but Blue Poles. I want to quote to the Committee now from a book which the National Gallery provided for every member of parliament. It was an excellent production. In it the art critic Robert Hughes, a brother of a former Attorney-General, said:

The collection has been going erratically since 1914 when the painter Tom Roberts proposed to Andrew Fisher, the then Prime Minister, to set up a gallery of portraits of notable Australians. In the 1930s the Government entrusted to the Commonwealth An Advisory Board the task of buying typically Australian paintings for a proposed national gallery. This Australian emphasis remained for another three decades and when Sir Robert Menzies was Prime Minister he personally approved every painting that was bought. So by the mid-1960s there was a fairly solid, but undeniably conservative, collection of Australian an only. Moreover, it had been put together on a shoe string. Under Menzies’ successors Harold Holt and John Gorton the funds got better. In 1 967-68 there was $75,000 available for buying. By October 1 97 1 , when the then Prime Minister Will McMahon announced his Government’s intention of appointing James Mollison as the Gallery’s first director, the budget had risen to $392,000. In Gough Whitlam ‘s 1973-74 budget that had multiplied to $4.8m and in 1974-75 to $5m.

Tragically Australia has missed the opportunity to acquire many great works because of a Philistine attitude towards paying for masterpieces. Over the years opportunities were lost to purchase works by Cezanne, Braque, Gaugin, Matisse, Picasso, Van Gough and Modigliania, most of them for virtually a song. In the National Times of 11 September, in an article entitled ‘Lost Masterpieces’, this was stated:

Braque ‘s ‘Grand Nu’ is the latest casualty of this attitude that an works are too expensive. The importance of the work itself has not been disputed. It, along with Picasso’s ‘Demoiselles d’ Avignon’ launched cubism- the key to understanding much present day an. ‘Grand Nu’ could be more important than Picasso ‘s work painted a year earlier in 1 907.

It is regarded as a turning point in the history of an and that is why it is an appropriate piece for the National Collection.

The problem is that after the political point scoring that went on over Blue Poles, every time the National Gallery Council makes a decision to purchase a major work of art it is going to be subject to the sort of cretinous statement that emanated from Mr Joh Bjelke-Petersen who described Grand Nu as looking like a ‘pregnant Sumo wrestler’. We also had the statement of the Acting Premier of Victoria, Mr Thompson, who said that it looked like a ‘muscle-bound frontrow forward’. Lord save us from the day when Australia’s art purchases are decided by the likes of the Queensland Premier or the Acting Premier of Victoria. A report of what the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister in the Arts, Mr Tony Staley, said, stated:

The Government ‘s eventual aim should be to free the Gallery to make its own artistic decisions and that he did not believe the Government should presume to make artistic judgments when it had a distinguished Council and a Director of world renown.

Amen to that, and I wish the Minister all the best. I only hope that somehow or other this Parliament can stop this. I am sure that we on this side of the chamber are prepared to say: ‘Hands off any political point scoring on this issue’. In 1 98 1 the National Gallery will open in the magnificent new building now being constructed on the shores of Lake Burley Griffin at a cost of $26m. Let the Government set the amount of money for the Council to spend on art purchases and then let the politicians get out of its way and trust in its judgment. The quality of our National Gallery will be measured not by how many paintings it has but by how good are the paintings in it.

Mr HAMER:
Isaacs

-In view of the remarks of the honourable member for Grayndler (Mr Antony Whitlam) and the honourable member for Robertson (Mr Cohen) I want to make it quite clear that my suggestion was that the National Gallery should be divorced from political control provided that the financial management of the Gallery is adequate- and I believe it is now- and provided that the policy of the Gallery has been approved in advance by the Government. The Government is paying $4.2m this year for the Gallery. It has the right to decide the policy, but the expenditure inside that policy is a matter for the Gallery and, in my view, should be a matter for the Gallery alone.

I would like to comment very briefly, as I see that the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister in the Arts (Mr Staley) is getting a bit toey, on a quite different matter-the vote for the Department of Administrative Services. I refer to the subject of cars for heads of mission. I am not talking of people buying cars inside Australia and the ‘Buy Australia’ policy. That is decided by the tariffs to give preference to Australian cars and, inside that, people should choose the cars that most suit their needs. In that way they can exercise an influence on our manufacturers to produce cars that meet their needs. But our ambassadors and heads of mission are quite a different case. They are the representatives of this country and they are provided with cars at public expense. Whenever possible their cars should be Australian cars. There are perfectly adequate Australian cars available. The Statesman Caprice- a right-hand drive car, admittedlyis entirely suitable for any proper ambassadorial purposes.

The most ludicrous case I came across was in Dublin, in Ireland, where the American Ambassador drives an Australian-built Statesman and the Australian Ambassador drives a Germanbuilt Mercedes. What country does the Australian Ambassador think he is representing? We have unfortunately in some of our ambassadors, in addition to a cultural cringe, a weird sort of mechanical cringe. My representations in the past on this matter have to some extent been successful. I am delighted to say that, unlike last year when a high proportion of the cars provided in circumstances where they could have been Australian built were in fact foreign, this year all the cars provided to right-hand drive countries, with one exception, have been Australian built. The one very odd exception is Fiji. In Fiji the representative of the United States of America drives a Kingswood station wagon; the representative of France drives a Holden; the representative of New Zealand has two cars- a Belmont sedan and a Belmont station wagon; the representative of the South Pacific Bureau of Economic Co-operation has a Statesman; the representative of the World Health Organisation has a Kingswood station wagon; and the Australian High Commissioner is being provided with a Toyota. That is very odd indeed.

I must admit that there are slightly extraordinary circumstances in Fiji. The Government of Fiji has imposed a 2500cc limit on cars operating in Fiji but it has given a special exemption to diplomats. All other diplomatic missions take advantage of that and on the whole use Australian cars. The Australian mission does not, and uses a Japanese car. Last year I gave a warning that if any non-Australian cars were provided to a head of mission in circumstances where an

Australian car could reasonably be provided I would move a motion for a reduction of the estimates by the value of the foreign car provided. Because of the special circumstances of Fiji this case is not sufficiently clear cut, so with great reluctance I do not move such a motion. But I hope that the Minister at the table, the Minister assisting the Prime Minister in the Arts, will make clear to the Minister for Administrative Services that for this year and this year alone I let him off with a strong caution on the understanding that he does not do it again.

Mr STALEY:
Minister for the Capital Territory and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister in the Arts · Chisholm · LP

– I thank honourable members for the very helpful and constructive debate we have had tonight on a number of matters and in particular for the debate we have had on the acquisitions procedures of the National Gallery. I share the basic sentiments of people like the honourable member for Robertson (Mr Cohen), the honourable member for Ballaarat (Mr Short), the honourable members for Isaacs (Mr Hamer) and, I take it from the brief remarks that he made at the end of his speech, the honourable member for Grayndler (Mr Antony Whitlam) on the desirability of keeping politicians out of the process of making judgments on the merits of particular works of art. As the honourable member for Robertson said, I have previously made statements along those lines. I think that there is an element of oddity about a situation in which Ministers and Parliaments bow out of decisions on design and quality of materials for roads and bridges because they do not have expertise in those matters but believe that in something like art they suddenly come into a sort of expertise which they do not even pretend to have in hosts of other areas of life

One of the joys of tonight’s debate is that I think it is suggestive of a developing consensus, at least in the Parliament if not in the broader community, and if not necessarily always throughout our parties at least in this Parliament among articulate and interested members, about the desirability of moving our policy with respect to acquisitions in the direction where at the end of the road the Council of the Gallery will make decisions about the purchases of works of art. If those decisions are properly made within the Budget and if, as the honourable member for Isaacs says, all normal and proper procedures followed by significant galleries are adopted we would not find Ministers and Cabinets rejecting them. I would also accept the remarks of the honourable member for Ballaarat who said that it would be expected that they would make decisions in accordance with the policy which had been agreed to by the government of the day. I do not think that one would want to suggest that there is any politics in that either because in these matters I am delighted to say that there is a remarkable degree of bipartisanship in this Parliament at the moment.

Mr Cohen:

– Is the matter closed for all time?

Mr STALEY:

-The matter of the Braque is closed but I would not treat the question of the role of the Government over particular procedures as one which was not capable of review. I believe that the sorts of suggestions which have been made by honourable members on both sides are ones which I would like at a proper time- I will not put a time limit on it- to take to the Government for consideration. There were features of the Braque purchase which made things very difficult. After the Government had decided that it was unable to accept the recommendation of the Gallery Council, the suggestion was made that perhaps the private sector could come into the act and pick up part of the cost. It was true, as the honourable member for Isaacs said, that regrettably we discovered that there was involved in the purchase a payment about which we had not been informed. This clearly had an influence on our thinking. We have again put to the Gallery the sorts of procedures which we believe need to be followed. My hope is that in the future, if they are followed, we will ultimately be able to avoid the sort of situation which recently occurred.

Mr Cohen:

– Would it be possible to get a bipartisan policy to see whether we can get this area removed from political point scoring?

Mr STALEY:

-Everything I have done has been in an effort to do just that. I hope that in the months and years ahead we will be able to achieve that, as I think we have achieved it in a number of areas of the arts. For instance, I did not hear any criticism of the recent appointment of the Community Arts Board from any side of politics. I think that that was one that had the support of all parties on all sides of the Parliament. I note that the time for the adjournment is nigh and there are a number of other things I would have liked to have said. In short I simply thank honourable members for what I think has been an extraordinarily constructive debate tonight.

Proposed expenditures agreed to. Progress reported.

page 1683

ADJOURNMENT

NSW Building Society -Trade Unions-Electoral Redistributions-East Timor-Prime Minister’s Visit to Marconi Club-Royal Commission on Drugs

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-Order! It being 10.30 p.m., in accordance with the order of the House of 10 March 1977 1 propose the question:

That the House do now adjourn.

Mr JAMES:
Hunter

– I want to raise tonight a matter which arouses my personal indignation. Sir John Pagan, a former President of the New South Wales Liberal Party, was New South Wales Agent-General in London between 1970 and 1972. He was fined $500 for a serious breach of the customs laws when he returned from London in 1972 and the goods the subject of the charge were confiscated. He became a director of the New South Wales Permanent Building Society, one of the largest building societies in Australia, with assets of over $600m. He was due to retire as a director in 1977 and therefore had to stand for re-election.

Mr Neil:

– I raise a point of order, Mr Acting Speaker.

Mr JAMES:

– This will throw us into chaos. He did this the other night. He inspired it.

Mr Neil:

- Mr Speaker, the matter of Sir John Pagan and the New South Wales Permanent Building Society is sub judice. A court action was instituted about two weeks ago by Sir John Pagan against the New South Wales Permanent Building Society and Dr Fitzpatrick. Already there has been one hearing before Mr Justice Powell. The judge has asked that the matter be brought before him again this Friday, 7 October, for the further hearing of the matter and for further evidence to be given. It is a matter which has been heard and has been adjourned until Friday for further hearing. It involves the parties named by the honourable member, Sir John Pagan and the New South Wales Permanent Building Society.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-Order! I suggest to the honourable member for Hunter that he not refer to matters in which a decision of the court is pending. If the honourable member mentions other matters he will be in order but if he touches on those matters which are before the court he will be out of order.

Mr JAMES:

– A person, whose name I will not use, was due in 1977 to retire as a director of the New South Wales Permanent Building Society and therefore had to stand for re-election. During his period as a director -

Mr Neil:

– I raise a point of order, Mr Acting Speaker.

Mr JAMES:

-He will not be here after the next general election. This is a deliberate attempt to frustrate me.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-Order! I suggest that the sub judice matter is the timing of the meeting and that the matter of the appeal is whether the meeting held was a correct and legal meeting or otherwise. Until such time as the honourable member for Hunter covers that subject matter he is in order. So far the honourable member for Hunter has not said anything which I would say was related to a sub judice matter.

Mr JAMES:

– I do not intend to touch on matters concerning the court proceedings, Mr Acting Speaker. The honourable member for St George is making a deliberate attempt to frustrate me and to prevent me from disclosing this matter in the public interest.

Mr Neil:

– I raise a point of order, Mr Acting Speaker. I ask that the suggestion that I am breaching the procedures of the House be withdrawn. I take exception to it.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Hunter said that the honourable member for St George was frustrating his speech. It is allowable for him to say that. He has not implied, as I understand it, that there is any underlying motive.

Mr JAMES:

– A prominent member of a major political party in New South Wales who was on the board of the New South Wales Permanent Building Society obtained personal loans amounting to $100,000 contrary to the rules of that society.

Mr Birney:

– I raise a point of order, Mr Acting Speaker. This matter is presently the subject of litigation before the Supreme Court of New South Wales. I understand that at this stage the arguments both for and against have been canvassed. I understand from reliable information that the situation is that the justice of the Supreme Court of New South Wales who is hearing the matter has reserved his decision.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

– It is not easy for the Chair in these matters to decide that a member is breaching the sub judice rule unless the comments can be shown to refer directly to a matter which is sub judice. On a number of occasions Mr Speaker has pointed out that unless a matter raised in this House can be said to be likely to influence a decision of a court that matter must be allowed to be mentioned in debate. Otherwise, debate would be stifled. I listened carefully to the honourable member for Hunter. It is my opinion that when the points of order were taken the honourable member was not covering matters which would influence a decision on the matter before the court. This is not an easy matter for the Chair to decide. Unless this House was very careful the sub judice rule could be used to stifle debate. That would not be desirable. The honourable member’s time has expired.

Mr Peter Johnson:
BRISBANE, QUEENSLAND · LP

– I rise tonight to discuss some of the relevant and pertinent facts about one of Australia’s most disruptive unions, which is filled with officials who have a high degree of expertise in telling lies to the Australian community. Throughout the months leading up to my making this statement in the House tonight this union has caused a great deal of disruption, hardship and unnecessary provocation in areas which are related to its supposed area of control. That union is the Seamen’s Union.

The Utah Company of America, which has been assisting the Australian community by paying huge taxes, has been maliciously criticised and unfairly castigated by a group of people who have as their main concern their own ends and as their last concern the future of Australia. They have no concern for their fellow Australians and they are the scabs of the Australian trade union movement. A pamphlet which has been put out criticising Utah is full of lies and distortions of facts and truth. It is claimed that there is a mere 5c per tonne royalty payment and charge on coal which is exported from Australia from Utah holdings. The truth of the matter is that there is a $1.20 per tonne royalty and the total royalties which were paid to the Queensland Government last year were $ 1 8.94m. The pamphlet which has been put out by this malicious union claims that only $600,000 was given in coal export royalties in 1976 and that in 1977 the total amount which the Queensland Government would receive in royalty payments would be less than Sim. The truth of the matter is that over $25m will be paid in royalties for coal to the Queensland Government in 1977.

Ostensibly the reason for these vicious and unfair accusations against a company which has done a great deal to assist Australia is to ensure that the Spanish seamen who are presently manning the ships which are owned by the Utah company are accorded different wages, terms and conditions. The Seamen’s Union claims:

The low wage Spanish seamen should have their wages increased to accepted international standards.

I say to this House and to those people of Australia who are concerned about the actions of this unfair union that the Utah Co is presently paying International Transport Federation rates of pay and conditions and that the average wage of these seamen is $ A9.000 per annum tax free. That is far more than Australian seamen would be getting if they were working under the awards which they believe are necessary. The people who do not want to go on to Australian wages are the Spanish seamen because in fact they would be getting less money and their terms and conditions of employment would be far less attractive than they are at present Also, under the International Transport Federation rates of pay -

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

– I rise to order. It seems to me that a number of rules are applied in this House in a variety of ways. One is that if somebody takes out a writ in a court, discussion of that matter is stifled in this House.

Mr Baillieu:

-That is right.

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

-‘ That is right’, the honourable member said. The matter which the honourable member for Brisbane is raising tonight is the subject of litigation in a court of this land. That being the case it seems to me that the rule which was applied when the honourable member for Hunter tried to raise a matter tonight- the honourable member for St George and others stifled it by raising the sub judice rule- should be applied in this case. If a matter is before the courts of the land and the decision of the Chair is that the matter is not then open for discussion, that ruling should apply to the subject which the honourable member for Brisbane is raising.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

– I give the same ruling on the point of order raised by the honourable member for Burke as I gave to the point of order raised by the honourable member for St George. The sub judice rule is one which is not easy to apply. At this stage I rule that the honourable member for Brisbane has not transgressed the sub judice rule.

Mr Peter Johnson:
BRISBANE, QUEENSLAND · LP

-Also, under the International Transport Federation rates of pay agreement and the agreement which has been reached with the Spanish seamen, the employer-that is, Utah-pays the tax of the Spanish seamen. The Spanish seamen are way ahead. The Seamen’s Union has been told this but it is refusing to drop this matter. A lot of people do not realise -

Dr Klugman:

-I rise to order, Mr Acting Speaker. I thought that you just ruled that as the matter was sub judice the honourable member for Brisbane was not entitled to refer to it. What was your ruling?

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-My ruling was the same as I gave in reply to the point of order raised by the honourable member for St George- that the honourable member was not transgressing the sub judice rule.

Mr Peter Johnson:
BRISBANE, QUEENSLAND · LP

-In Moranbah, a mining town in Queensland, $5 per family rate is applicable -

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

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

Mr FitzPATRICK (Darling) (10.42)-Ever since I entered this Parliament I have adopted the practice that when I am confronted with an untrue statement I put forward a true statement. I feel that there was never more necessity for me to adopt this practice than this evening because of the radio broadcast by the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Anthony). I refer to the relevant section of that broadcast. The Deputy Prime Minister said:

One example is that of the electorate of Riverina held for the National Country Party by John Sullivan. Under the new proposals, that electorate will increase in size Vh times from 101,000 to 254,000 square kilometres. The member who represents the electorate will have added to his responsibilities the task of representing a huge additional area of country dominated by the big and important mining city of Broken Hill. I would say that both John Sullivan and the Labor Party’s Jack FitzPatrick, member for Darling, both are completely occupied in coping with the massive task of representing their existing electorates. It is beyond me that anyone could reasonably suggest that it will be possible for one man to represent what will virtually be the two existing electorates rolled into one.

I want to point out where this statement is incorrect The Deputy Prime Minister said that the member who represents the new electorate will have the added responsibility of representing a huge additional area. This is not true. At present the Darling electorate is 343,543 square kilometres and the proposed new electorate of Riverina will be only 254,000 square kilometres. Also, it will not be dominated by Broken Hill. If anyone cares to look at my contribution in this Parliament they will see that I have been dominated by nothing but my desire to give good service to the people I represent. The Deputy Prime Minister said:

It is beyond me that anyone could reasonably suggest that it will be possible for one man to represent what will virtually be the two existing electorates rolled into one.

That is another untruth. Sixty-five per cent of the Darling electorate has gone into Gwydir and only 35 per cent into Riverina. So the new electorate is still much less than the electorate I am serving at present. The Deputy Prime Minister has already condemned some of the members of his own National Country Party because he has made the statement that they could not serve an electorate of 254,000 square kilometres. Let me show the areas which some of them are serving. The electorate of Leichhardt is 406,630 square kilometres while the electorate of Maranoa is 503,523 square kilometres. The Kennedy electorate is 641,000 square kilometres, the Grey electorate is 505,000 square kilometres while the Kalgoorlie electorate is 2,271,379 square kilometres.

I believe that this statement was made for a purpose. I would like the people to examine the service which I have given to them by looking at the electoral figures for Bourke, which is miles from Broken Hill. They can look at the figures for Warren and at Coonamble also.

Mr Porter:

– Do you want a bigger electorate?

Mr FitzPATRICK:

– I am going to have a smaller electorate and it is one I will win. I just want to say that the people can be sure of good service there because I have already served a much larger electorate. I want to thank the Deputy Prime Minister for giving me the opportunity of making this statement to the House.

Mr Porter:

– How many electors have you got?

Mr FitzPATRICK:

– The honourable member will not have to look very far to find out. He needs only to read the information which is put out in this Parliament. He does not have to ask me. I do not know how he spends his time in this House. I am very pleased to have had this opportunity to speak because I wanted to guarantee the people in the Riverina electorate that they will get good service from me because I am used to a big electorate. I am not squealing. I would just as soon have held my old electorate. If the distribution commissioners want to set this area for the electorate I accept the challenge. If I go down I will go down fighting.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

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

Mr Kevin Cairns:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

– I am concerned tonight with foreign policy. On 26 August 1975 the former Prime Minister made it quite clear in this House that Australia would refuse to participate in a peace-keeping role in East Timor and would not co-operate with the decolonisation of that territory. What concerns me is that consistently since that statement there has been a continuous deterioration in relations between Australia and Indonesia and the circumstances in which that deterioration has occurred and has been engineered deserve to be exposed. Former Senator Willesee in the Senate affirmed and supported the statement of the then Prime Minister. Australia having rejected a role and having made it quite clear that she had rejected it, some people in this country adopted the role of being stern critics not of East Timor but in an endeavour to allow a serious deterioration to occur in Australia-Indonesia relations. It was done for quite false reasons. The fact was clearly highlighted by the former Prime Minister on the television program Monday Conference on 19 September this year in response to questions asked by the compere, Mr Bob Moore. They spoke about a report in the Australian which was wrongly attributed to the former Prime Minister, the present Leader of the Opposition (Mr E. G. Whitlam). I will read one sentence in relation to that matter. Mr Moore said:

The strength of your reaction to that was understandable -

The Leader of the Opposition said:

No, but the point is this: I am not going to have a newspaper saying that I am advocating war with Indonesia. I am not going to have a newspaper saying that.

The statement had to be corrected. Mr Whitlam was quite correct in what he said and in what he did on that occasion. It is the way in which human rights have been used selectively in order to direct, determine and sour relations between Australia and Indonesia which distresses me. The person who quite obviously has had the power and the authority to determine those relations has been the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Uren). The selectivity of human relations in determining foreign policy is always a dangerous course.

I shall traverse a few years of history in the two minutes left to me. When the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, on behalf of his Party, was determining relations between Australia and Russia the denials of human relations in Russia, such as the pogroms in Russia, were never utilised as a reason to sour relations. The same situation occurred with respect to China. The same situation occurred with respect to Vietnam. The denial of human relations and the persecutions which occurred in that country are obvious and are clearly attested to as a fact of history. In Cambodia pogroms are occurring which are as great as those which occurred under Stalin in Russia. Phnom Penh has deteriorated from a city of several million people to one of less than 500,000 people. That situation has not been utilised to sour and determine Australia’s relations with Cambodia.

In relation to the old India-China conflict of 1962, a passing reference was made to the annexation of part of Indian territory by China. The attitude of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition on that occasion was: ‘A plague upon both your houses’. The principle which has been quite clear in determining the policy of both the Australian Labor Party and of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition with respect to a whole series of countries, such as Russia, China, Vietnam, Cambodia, and India, has not applied in relation to Indonesia. I am sad because I have had to watch that deterioration over recent days. I believe the situation has been engineered for a purpose far beyond any narrow, late or sensitive concern for human relations as they occur in East Timor. Atrocities have occurred in Timor but a nation treads a very serious and dangerous couse when it allows a selective interpretation of those rights to direct its own foreign policy. It is certainly not in the interests of relations between Australia and the largest of the nations of the Association of South East Asian Nations.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

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

Dr KLUGMAN:
Prospect

– I do not want to deal with the matter about which the honourable member for Lilley (Mr Kevin Cairns) has spoken but I think it is important to realise that as far as relations between governments are concerned the honourable member should turn around and have a look at the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) and the honourable member for St George (Mr Neil) who, as alleged supporters of the Government, are taking a significant initiative in regard to our relations with Indonesia. I do not think that their pro-communist statements are of any great benefit.

Mr Neil:

- Mr Acting Speaker, I raise a point of order. The matter of statements by the honourable member for Denison and by me in the communist context have been dealt with in the House before. I object to the statement. I take offence at the allegation that I have made pro-communist statements. I ask that that remark be withdrawn.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-There is no substance in the point of order.

Dr KLUGMAN:

-Tonight I shall deal with a visit by the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) to my electorate on 23 September as part of his election campaign. He was visiting swinging seats around Australia and he decided to visit the electorate of Prospect.

Mr Baume:

– A swinging seat?

Dr KLUGMAN:

– It is indeed a swinging seat. Senator Baume, who is a senator of the Liberal Party allegedly looking after the western suburbs of Sydney, visited the western suburbs for the first time in 1977 and on behalf of the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) approached the Marconi Club which is an Italian-Australian club at Bossley Park, Fairfield. He asked the Club whether the Liberal Party could use the Club premises for a visit by the Prime Minister on Friday, 23 September. Senator Baume told the Club that the Party wanted to charge only $2 per person in order to get the maximum number of people or to give an opportunity to the maximum number of people to meet the Prime Minister. The board of the Marconi Club discussed the request and felt that it was reasonable because, after all, it was the Prime Minister. The Club said that it would provide savouries and drinks for the $2. It was much less than it would normally charge, but it was prepared to do this. The board of the Club also said that it would entertain the Prime Minister and six of his party at dinner for nothing. But what actually happened? Firstly, the Liberal Party charged $4 per person and made money out of the function. It had told the Club that it would charge $2.

Mr Ruddock:

– I suppose nobody turned up.

Dr KLUGMAN:

– I shall come to that. The Liberal Party charged $4 for each ticket and expected the Club to subsidise the cost of the savouries and drinks. Then, instead of the six people who were supposed to turn up for dinner, a party of 60 turned up for a free feed. These were the hangers-on of the Prime Minister. The Liberal Party flogged the tickets everywhere and less than 300 people turned up. But the Club was obviously taken for a ride. It feels rather strongly about the matter. I think that it was ridiculous behaviour for a person who claimed to represent the Prime Minister of this country to go to this club which is not a wealthy club, in an area which is not a particularly wealthy area. We have to realise that the people on the board of that Club are less likely to take a stand against the Prime Minister in public. The board and the members of the Club realise that they were taken for a ride by an organisation which should not descend to that sort of thing. This is an important issue for this House to think about. The function was organised by Senator Baume, by a chap called Byers, an architect who is the Secretary of the Prospect Federal Electorate Conference of the Liberal Party and by a chap called Don McDonald who is the President of” that Electorate Conference of the Liberal Party. They are impressive people. They both stood as candidates for different council elections in the electorate. The would-be alderman Byers stood as an independent Liberal candidate and got 697 votes out of 10,000 votes in the Smithfield ward. Don McDonald also stood as an independent Liberal and got 636 votes out of 1 1,000 votes in the St Marys ward for the Penrith Council. Both of those councils now have a Labor mayor which they did not have before the elections.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

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

Mr NEIL:
St George

– I am sure that all honourable members welcome the statement which was made today on the establishment of a national royal commission into drugs. I record my deep regret that the New South Wales and South Australian governments have not seen fit to join in this inquiry. The drug menace in Australia is one of the most pernicious internal menaces that we face. I am sure that all honourable members will agree with that. We have a serious problem and the Commonwealth Government proposes that there should be an inquiry with wide terms of reference. There is a royal commission in New South Wales with terms of reference which obviously are not as wide as the terms of reference for the Commonwealth inquiry. Sometime ago there was agreement -

Mr James:

- Mr Acting Speaker, the sub judice rule has been raised in the Parliament on numerous occasions. There is about to be a royal commission in connection with the illegal use of drugs in Australia. The honourable member for St George is traversing something into which there will be a judicial inquiry. I suggest that he is infringing the sub judice rule which is what he said I was doing a short time ago.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member will resume his seat.

Mr James:

– My objection is just as sincere as was the objection raised by the honourable member. I hope you will give a ruling.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member will resume his seat. The answer to the honourable member is the same as the answer that I gave to the previous two points of order.

Mr NEIL:

– Why will not Mr Wran agree? What are his reasons for not agreeing? There was agreement in principle between the various Attorneys-General some time ago. There have been meetings of officers of the various departments. The terms of reference do not seem to have been objected to by any of the parties concerned. Mr Justice Williams has agreed to chair the commission. All that is required is that the New South Wales Government should give its concurrent agreement because the terms of reference of the national commission may be wider than some of the ordinarily accepted powers of the Commonwealth unless the matter were tested. Why is it that the New South Wales Government stands in an intransigent position? One hopes that it is close to making a decision. One hopes that it will be prompted to make this decision as soon as possible. What can be the reason?

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-Order! It being 1 1 p.m. the debate is interrupted. The House stands adjourned till 10.30 a.m. tomorrow.

House adjourned at 11 p.m.

page 1689

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS UPON NOTICE

The following answers to questions upon notice

Conciliation and Arbitration: Secret Postal Ballots (Question No. 437)

Mr Brown:
DIAMOND VALLEY, VICTORIA

asked the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 22 March 1977:

  1. How many secret postal ballots of the type referred to in sub-section 133AA( 1 ) of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act have been conducted since 9 June 1976.
  2. On what date was each ballot conducted.
  3. For election to what office within what organisation was each ballot conducted.
Mr Street:
LP

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

  1. Between 9 August 1976, when the Government’s secret postal ballot legislation came into operation, and 17 June 1977, elections for 2,417 offices were conducted pursuant to 198 applications made under section 170 of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act for officially conducted elections.

The number may include some offices which are not required by sub-section 133AA(1) of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act to be conducted by secret postal ballot. Such offices have not been distinguished as the amount of work involved would not be justified.

Information concerning secret postal ballots which were conducted by the organisations themselves is unavailable.

  1. and (3) The dates of the ballots and the offices for which they were conducted are set down in table form and, in accordance with previous practice, have been placed in the House of Representatives Table Office.

Conciliation and Arbitration: Secret Postal Ballot Elections (Question No. 438)

Mr Brown:

asked the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 22 March 1977:

  1. 1 ) How many elections have been conducted pursuant to the regulations referred to in sub-section 133AA(2) of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act since 9 June 1976.
  2. On what date was each such election conducted.
  3. For election to what office within what organisation was each such election conducted.
Mr Street:
LP

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

  1. Between 9 August 1976, when the Government’s secret postal ballot legislation came into operation, and 17 June 1977, elections for 325 offices were conducted under the regulations referred to in sub-section 133AA(2) of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act pursuant to 38 applications made under section 170 of the Act for officially conducted elections.

The number may include some offices which are not required by sub-section 133AA(1) of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act to be conducted by secret postal ballot. Such were circulated: offices have not been distinguished as the amount of work involved would not be justified.

Information on the number of elections conducted by organisations under the regulations is unavailable.

  1. and (3) The dates of the ballots and the offices for which they were conducted are set out in the table referred to in the answer to the honourable member’s parliamentary question No. 437 and, in accordance with previous practice, that table has been placed in the House of Representatives Table Office.

Pig Slaughter Levy (Question No. 1042)

Mr Bungey:
CANNING, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 2 June 1 977:

  1. With reference to his Press release dated 28 March 1977 concerning an increase in the pig slaughter levy, what additional amount will be received under the changed regulations in a full financial year.
  2. What amounts have been dispensed for (a) promotion and (b) research from funds collected under the Pig Slaughter Levy Act in each year since 1971.
Mr Sinclair:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1) and (2) Approximately $1 10,000 additional funds is expected to be received based on current slaughtering levels and the following amounts have been paid or:

    1. Promotion- 1975-76 $23,764; 1976-77 $34,395.
    2. Research- 197 1-72 $5,166; 1972-73 $182,693; 1973-74 $384,770; 1974-75 $433,230; 1975-76 $561,265; 1976-77 $460,893.

Germicidal Product ‘Fiesta’ (Question No. 1084)

Mr Hodges:
PETRIE, QUEENSLAND

asked the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, upon notice, on 16 August 1977:

  1. 1 ) Has his attention been drawn to tests carried out by the Australian Consumers Association on the germicidal product Fiesta, and reported in their magazine Choice in November 1975, which proved that the product’s germ killing capacity was practically nil.
  2. Did the Association write to the Trade Practices Commission in December 1975 informing them of the results of its tests.
  3. If so, and as a result of this correspondence, did the Commission request the manufacturer of Fiesta to change its advertising claim that Fiesta ‘killed germs in the wash’ to ‘kills most germs in the wash ‘.
  4. Has his attention been drawn to recent advertisements for Fiesta which claim that the product kills the bacteria Pseudomonas Aeruginosa, even though the Consumer Association’s initial tests in November 1975 proved that this was one bacteria which was totally unaffected by the use of the bleach and that this finding was stated in their correspondence to the Trade Practices Commission in December 1975.
  5. If so, should further action be taken by the Trade Practices Commission in order to stop the present misrepresentation in the advertisements made for the capabilities of the Fiesta germicidal bleach.
Mr Fife:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) My attention has been drawn to tests carried out by the Australian Consumers’ Association on the germicidal product Fiesta as reported in the Association’s journal Choice in November 1975. As to what was proved by the ACA tests my answer to parts 4 and 5 below is of relevance.
  2. Yes.
  3. The matter was carefully examined by the Commission which sought advice from the manufacturer and from the Australian Government Analyst. In correspondence with the manufacturer the Commission pointed out that certain claims made in relation to the product may be misleading and suggested that the company change the wording of its advertising. After a further correspondence the change to ‘kills most germs in the wash’ (among others) was made and agreed between the manufacturer and the Trade Practices Commission.
  4. and (5) The manufacturer has submitted to the Trade Practices Commission the results of regular tests of the product conducted by an independent laboratory registered with the National Association of Testing Authorities. These results support the claim that the product kills the bacteria, Pseudomonas Aeruginosa. The discrepancy between these results and the result obtained by Australian Consumers ‘ Association is probably due to the use of different test methods. The Commission has again sought the advice of the Australian Government Analyst because of the conflict of the conclusions reached by the independent laboratory and the Australian Consumers’ Association.

Commonwealth Funding of Programs in Federal Electorates (Question No. 1088)

Mr Neil:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 16 August 1977:

  1. 1 ) What major programs were funded by his Department in the electoral divisions of (a) St George, (b) Banks, (c) Barton and (d) Lang during 1976-77, including recurrent and non-recurrent expenditure.
  2. 2 ) What was the expenditure on each program;
Mr Nixon:
LP

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

  1. and (2) I would like to refer the honourable member to the answer given by the Minister assisting the Prime Minister in Federal Affairs to his question No. 1086 (Hansard, 8 September 1977, page 989).

For the reasons given 1 am not prepared to authorise the expenditure of money and effort that would be involved in the major task of collecting and assembling the kind of information that is requested.

Medibank (Question No. 1107)

Dr Klugman:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice on 16 August 1977:

  1. 1 ) Was 100 per cent of the Australian population covered by Medibank on 31 December 1975.
  2. What percentage of the Australian population was covered by Medibank on 3 1 December 1 976.
  3. Were the administrative costs of the Health Insurance Commission $5 1.867m during 1975-76 and over $60m during 1976-77.
  4. If so, is this a sign of the improved efficiency, given as one the reasons for the introduction of the changes in October 1976.
Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. This information will not be available for some time. In order to determine the percentage of the Australian population covered by Medibank Standard at 3 1 December 1 976, it is necessary to obtain membership details from all private funds. This information is still being received and processed by the Health Insurance Commission.
  3. The net administrative expenditure for the Health Insurance Commission for the year 1975-76 was $51,867,000. Net administrative expenditure for Medibank Standard for the year 1976-77 was $54,550,000. Details of expenditure in respect of Medibank Private for 1976-77 will not be available until the Health Insurance Commission’s 1976- 77 annual report has been tabled.
  4. The estimate for the administrative costs of Medibank Standard in 1977-78 is $53.750m to which should be added $0.750m in Bank Funds, a total of $54.5m. However, in order to establish a reasonable basis for comparison an estimate has been made of what the cost of the original scheme would have been had it continued unaltered through to 1977- 78. The estimate is $70.235m or $15.735m more than the current estimate. The principal element in the $ 15.735m is salaries $7.470m) which includes successive salary escalations in respect of the following quarters- June 1975 3.5 per cent, December 6.4 per cent; March 1976 3 per cent (flat rate over certain sum), June 1976 1.5 per cent (flat rate to certain sum ), September 1 976 2.2 per cent, December 1 976, flat rate of $297 per annum, March 1977 1.9 per cent (flat rate over certain sum), June 1977 2 per cent). Payments to agents ($4.205m) and postage ($1.059m) are the other principal items contributing to the $ 15.735m saving. Progressive administrative savings are expected after a period of stability during which outstanding tasks will be resolved.

Tobacco Industry Trust Account (Question No. 1135)

Dr Klugman:

asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice on 16 August 1977:

  1. How is the money in the Tobacco Industry Trust Account for research and extension spent
  2. What percentage is spent on (a) tobacco plant diseases, (b) tobacco marketing, (c) tobacco manufacturing processes and (d) research which could be described as aimed at reducing the harmful effects of smoking.
Mr Sinclair:
NCP/NP

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

  1. In accordance with the provisions of the Tobacco Industry Act 1955 moneys standing to the credit of the Tobacco Industry Trust Account are expended for research and extension activities carried out in connection with tobacco growing problems.

In 1976-77 the principal allocations from the Account were:

These amounts assisted the three producing States in the financing of their tobacco research and extension activities.

  1. The States’ programs are aimed at improving the quality of Australian tobacco leaf and enabling growers to produce better leaf more efficiently by the selection of suitable varieties and by the application of improved techniques and disease and pest control measures.

A limited amount of current research, only partially financed from the Trust Account, is concerned with alkaloid (i.e. nicotine, nornicotine) levels in tobacco leaf and smoke, and the amount of particulate matter (i.e. tars) produced when the leaf is burned. Recent work falls into the following categories:

  1. Development and testing of a method for the micropyrolytic determination of tars and alkaloids in tobacco smoke, and capable of handling large numbers of samples.
  2. Agronomic studies of some factors influencing tars and alkaloids- variety, cultural operations, crop nutrition.
  3. Study of the heritability of tar yield and nicotine in tobacco, with the aim of controlling these factors by breeding.

Because of the long term nature of much of the research and complex inter-relationships between various aspects of research such as plant diseases, insect pest control, plant breeding, cultural methods, harvesting, handling and curing procedures, and because activities are financed partly from the Trust Account and partly from State budgets, it has not been the practice to allocate funds on a project basis. For this reason it is not feasible to determine precisely the amount spent on research into tobacco plant diseases.

Trust Account funds have not been devoted to studies of marketing and manufacturing processes or the effects of smoking.

Export Milk Products: Bacterial Contamination (Question No. 1144)

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

am asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 1 6 August 1 977:

  1. 1 ) When and how did his Department first learn that Salmonella Bredeney had been discovered in Nestle ‘s Tongala plant on or about August 1976.
  2. What was the nature, quantity and destination of exports which came directly or indirectly from this plant after the discovery.
  3. ) What action has been taken against the Company.
Mr Sinclair:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) The Commonwealth Department of Health advised the Department of Primary Industry on 18 July 1977 that there was a problem with Salmonella bredeney in infants food formula and that the source of the trouble seemed to be Nestle ‘s Tongala factory. Later that same day an officer of the Department of Primary Industry attended a meeting of Victorian authorities (Health and Agriculture), Federal authorities (Health and Primary Industry), and trade representatives. At that meeting the representative of the Victorian health authorities announced that an outbreak of gastroenteritis among children in Australia had been traced to milk powder containing Salmonella produced at Nestle ‘s Tongala factory.
  2. ) The powder produced at the Tongala factory was used in the manufacture of certain types of infant food formula in powder form. On discovery of the trouble, the Department of Primary Industry immediately prohibited any further exports of the affected infant milk powder. Details of action taken to prevent any of the affected powder reaching consumers is set out in reply to Question No. 1320 (Hansard, 8 September 1977, page 1013).
  3. Jurisdiction over health aspects of food consumption in Australia is vested in State Government authorities. The Department of Primary Industry has prohibited export of milk powder from the Tongala factory until the trouble has been rectified. Any other action in respect of the Company is a matter for the Victorian authorities.

Members of Parliament: Travel to Southern Rhodesia (Question No. 1151)

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

am asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs upon notice, on 16 August 1977:

  1. 1 ) On what dates did (a) Senator Sheil, (b) the honourable member for Deakin, (c) the honourable member for North Sydney and (d) the honourable member for Tangney enter and leave Southern Rhodesia.
  2. On what dates and by what means did the Government learn that the honourable senator and members would be visiting Southern Rhodesia (Hansard, 1 December 1976, page 3093).
  3. On what type of passport or travel document did each of them travel to Southern Rhodesia.
Mr Peacock:
Minister for Foreign Affairs · KOOYONG, VICTORIA · LP

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

The honourable member might properly seek this information from the honourable senator and members concerned. The honourable member for Tangney, Mr Peter Richardson, has, however already informed me that he has never visited Southern Rhodesia.

I refer the honourable member also to pan ( 1 ) of the reply to his question on notice No. 1 325.

Employment: Professional Actors, Entertainers and Television Performers (Question No. 1180)

Mr Abel:
EVANS, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 16 August 1977:

  1. Is it a fact that professional actors, entertainers and television performers now are no longer able to obtain advice on employment opportunities from the Professional Employment Office within the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations in Sydney.
  2. If so, why.
  3. Who made the decision and when was it made.
  4. If the answer to pan (1) is in the negative, (a) what services are available, and (b) in what way are services available, to these citizens.
  5. Are professional actors, entertainers and television performers denied unemployment benefits even when they produce a membership card identifying them as long standing members of their trade union, Actors Equity.
  6. Can he say whether an officer in the Department of Social Security in Sydney recently indicated to a professional actor of long standing that his profession is not a serious one, nor an established profession, and therefore any permanent members of it would be ineligible for unemployment benefits.
  7. If so, was this just a momentary lapse or is it the view of the Department.
Mr Street:
LP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: ( 1 ), (2), (3) and (4) Professional actors, entertainers and television performers can obtain advice on employment opportunities from the Professional Employment Office in the range of occupations covered by that Office. However, following a departmental review in December 1976, it was evident that such persons could be best assisted by the Commonwealth Employment Service through their local office rather than the Professional Employment Office. Employers of performing artists engage them through the established network of artists’ agents. The Commonwealth Employment Service assistance to unemployed performing artists relates to other alternative employment (including relevant training where appropriate) and, where such employment is not available, access to unemployment benefit. This assistance is best provided by the normal offices of the Commonwealth Employment Service rather than the specialised Professional Employment Office. The changed procedure has already been introduced in Sydney and will shortly be implemented in other capital cities.

  1. No. Eligibility for unemployment benefit is not dependent on union membership. However, a claimant may on occasions use his membership of a union to establish his occupational status, but this only has relevance for an initial period since policy now requires claimants to consider, after a reasonable period, employment outside their normal occupation, even if this means a change in status or remuneration.

    1. No.
    2. Not applicable.

Electoral Division of Sydney: Public Works (Question No. 1235)

Mr Les McMahon:
SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister for Construction, upon notice, on 1 8 August 1 977:

  1. 1 ) What public works projects have commenced in the electoral division of Sydney in 1976-77.
  2. What are (a) the locations, (b) the expected costs and (c) the expected completion dates of these projects.
Mr McLeay:
Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence · BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP

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

  1. 1 ) and (2 ) The following is a list of Commonwealth public works arranged by the Department of Construction in the electoral division of Sydney which were commenced in the financial year 1976-77. Minor works valued at less than $20,000 have not been included.

Radioactive Waste, Maralinga (Question No. 1250)

Mr Wallis:
GREY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 18 August 1977:

  1. 1 ) What investigations have been carried out on the Plutonium known to be buried at Maralinga in South Australia.
  2. What are the results of those investigations.
Mr Killen:
Minister for Defence · MORETON, QUEENSLAND · LP

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

  1. 1 ) and (2) There have been several investigations on the disposal of the debris which resulted from the series of British atomic tests and experiments at the Maralinga area. This debris includes plutonium.

After the series had been concluded, the areas involved were cleaned up in 1967 by the British to comply with standards set by the Atomic Weapons Test Safety Committee (AWTSC) - an Australian body. This debris was disposed of in various ways, including storage in steel and lead boxes, burial in pits, covering with massive concrete slabs, ploughing in, and fencing and area control. Detailed records were kept of all burials.

The AWTSC reported to the Prime Minister of the time that they were ‘satisfied Maralinga was radiologically safe. Permanent and unrestricted access could be made to all but a few small areas and even they could be occupied on a short term basis without risk. ‘

A further inquiry by the Committee in 1972 confirmed the 1967 level of confidence.

Periodic checks continue. My colleague, the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development, announced on 9 August 1 977 that a scientific study under the guidance of the Australian Ionizing Radiation Advisory Council had commenced on the possible dispersal of radioactive material in the Maralinga area.

Darwin Port Facilities (Question No. 1252)

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

am asked the Minister for the Northern Territory, upon notice, on 1 8 August.

When does he expect that decisions will be (a) made and (b) announced on the report which the Bureau of Transport

Economics made in October 1975 on the facilities existing at the Port of Darwin.

Mr Adermann:
Minister Assisting the Minister for National Resources · FISHER, QUEENSLAND · NCP/NP

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

Administrative responsibility for the Northern Territory Port Authority was transferred to an Executive Member of the Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory on 1 January 1977.

The report by the Bureau of Transport Economics will need to be considered by the incoming Territory Executive which will be appointed following the recent Legislative Assembly elections.

I would expect a recommendation from that Executive within two months.

Petrol Price Increase (Question No. 1273)

Mr Cohen:

asked the Minister for National Resources, upon notice, on 24 August 1977:

In view of the proposed 1 lc per gallon increase in the retail price of petrol, will the retail price of diesel motor spirit increase by 8c per gallon; if not, what will be the amount of the increase.

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

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

On Budget night I gave details of the Government’s new crude oil pricing policy, which will begin the movement of Australian crude oil prices towards world parity. The Government is not in a position to directly stipulate the price of petroleum products, nor would it wish to do so. The wholesale prices for petroleum products which, in the view of the Prices Justification Tribunal, are the maximum which can be justified, are suggested by the Tribunal following detailed submissions from the product marketing companies.

The PJT has recommended that the wholesale price of diesel fuel for automotive purposes be increased by a total of 7.8c per gallon to compensate for increases in the excise and indigenous crude oil price announced in the Budget.

The final retail price of diesel for automotive purposes will depend on how retailers adjust their margins following the wholesale price increase. Dealer margins are likely to vary according to the degree of competition, location and storage costs.

Integration of Aboriginals into Australian way of life (Question No. 1305)

Mr Garrick:
BATMAN, VICTORIA

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

  1. Can the Australian community assume that in line with his anti-apartheid speech at the recent Commonwealth Conference examples of segregation of Aborigines in this country will soon be eliminated.
  2. If so, will those Aborigines living on reserves be brought to the cities and integrated into Australian life and will this have the dual benefit of giving the present Administration the appearance of domestic policy being consistent with its international utterances, while simultaneously removing Aborigines from reserves which are located on top of uranium deposits.
Mr Malcolm Fraser:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) and ( 2 ) The Government is committed to the principle that all Aboriginals and Islanders should be as free as other Australians to determine their own varied futures. It is therefore a matter for the Aboriginals themselves to decide whether they wish to move off reserves into cities and become integrated into the Australian way of life.

In reaching its decision on the mining of uranium the Government had as a fundamental concern the welfare of the Aboriginal people in the Ranger Region. Its decision will ensure that Aboriginals themselves can exercise effective control over matters affecting their interests. The Government will also adopt, in consultation with the Aboriginal people, measures to protect and advance their well-being.

Northern Territory: Sewerage Programs (Question No. 1314)

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

am asked the Minister for the Northern Territory, upon notice, on 20 September 1977:

  1. What sums were expended on sewerage programs in urban areas in the Northern Territory in each financial year since 1973-74, and what sum has been allocated for these programs in 1977-78.
  2. What percentage and number of dwellings in urban areas in the Territory are connected to a sewerage service.
  3. Are all dwellings in new sub-divisions in urban areas in the Territory connected to a sewerage service.
Mr Adermann:
NCP/NP

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

(D-

It is proposed that an amount of $5.2m will be expended on similar sewerage works during 1 977-78.

(2)-

  1. New sub-divisions in urban areas are approved on the basis that dwellings will be connected to a sewerage service.

Agricultural Exports: Inspection and Certification (Question No. 1319)

Mr Scholes:
CORIO, VICTORIA

asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 25 August 1977:

  1. What arrangements exist to ensure that exports of agricultural products are free of infection or infestation.
  2. Is product and produce inspection and testing carried out by Commonwealth, State or private organisations.
  3. Where export sales are affected by infection or infestation, who is responsible for payment of compensation.
Mr Sinclair:
NCP/NP

– The answer to the honourable members ‘s question is as follows:

  1. 1 ) Most foodstuffs and some related products exported from Australia are subject to compulsory inspection and certification aimed at ensuring that adequate attention has been paid during their processing and packaging to such matters as hygiene, cleanliness, freedom from disease, and that the products are correctly described. Specific provisions also relate to the construction and hygiene of the premises in which export products are processed. Authority for these controls is provided by Exports Regulations made variously under the Customs Act 1901 and the Commerce (Trade Descriptions) Act 1905.

In addition to the above controls, exports of plants and plant products are, as a result of international treaty obligations, generally subject to phytosanitary inspection and certification aimed at preventing the transmission of plant pests and diseases.

  1. The Commonwealth Department of Primary Industry is responsible for the administration of export inspection and certification activities detailed above. The bulk of inspection activities is carried out by the Department’s inspection staff.

In a number of cases, arrangements exist for other Commonwealth and State instrumentalities to carry out inspection on behalf of the Department of Primary Industry where it is not practicable for Departmental staff to do so. The cases involved include fresh fruit, vegetables and grain. All such arrangements are however subject to the general supervision of senior professional staff of the Department of Primary Industry. Additionally, inspection of flour mills for export purposes is carried out by the Australian Wheat Board.

  1. Ultimate responsibility for ensuring that exported agricultural products meet required standards of quality and hygiene basically rests with industry. Questions of compensation, where export sales are affected by infection or infestation, are predominantly matters for negotiation between parties to particular transactions.

Lethal Dose 50 Per Cent Test (Question No. 1333)

Mr Jacobi:
HAWKER, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 6 September 1977:

  1. Can he say whether in some overseas countries, in what is known as the Lethal Dose SO per cent test, the following substances have been forced down live animals’ throats to ascertain what amounts will kill SO percent of the animals so treated: weed killers, packaging materials, toiletries, detergents, floor polishes and anti-freeze liquids.
  2. If so, have any of these or similar materials been Lethal Dose SO per cent tested in Australia.
  3. Is the Lethal Dose SO per cent test performed in Australia for non-medical research.
  4. If so, are any of the laboratory animals force fed by means of a tube into the stomach, with the substance being tested.
  5. If the Lethal Dose SO per cent test is performed in Australia, is the person conducting the experiment obliged to publish, or otherwise make known, whether the deaths of the 50 per cent of live animals used was due to the toxicity of the substance tested, or due to the rupture of the stomach or other organ malfunction.
  6. What alternatives are there to the use of live animals for toxicological experiments.
  7. Can he say whether in the United Kingdom in 1972, less than one-third of the experiments conducted on live animals were for medical research; if so, what is the corresponding proportion in Australia.
  8. Is Australia amongst the few places on earth where it is Still possible for a person to experiment on live animals held under the influence of curare.
  9. What tests have been carried out in Australia on live animals for the benefit of research in other countries.
  10. 10) Will the Government take steps to control legally Lethal Dose SO per cent testing of non-medical products and ensure that this practice is subject to adequate inspection.
Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1) I am not aware of the substances that may have been tested in this way in overseas countries. However the Lethal Dose 50 per cent test is a test recommended by the World Health Organisation as a standard for measuring the toxicity of substances with which humans may come into contact or may ingest.
  2. and (3) The Lethal Dose SO per cent test is used in Australia in both medical research and in the toxicity testing of chemicals and other preparations.
  3. and (5) The techniques used in administering the Lethal Dose test is required to be gentle and humane so that the resultant data obtained are meaningful. In the case of research, whilst there is no obligation on the research worker to publish his results, it is obviously in his interests to make these known to the scientific community. In the case of substances to be registered, the results would not necessarily be published but would be available to the registering authority. Certainly the technique used requires a tube being placed into the animals stomach via the mouth and the substance administered in measured quantities to determine the dosage limits of toxicity for each substance.
  4. While alternatives do exist for certain types of toxicological work, there is no alternative test to the Lethal Dose 50 per cent test on live animals to obtain the particular toxicity data.
  5. I have no knowledge of the position in the United Kingdom.
  6. No.
  7. All research carried out in Australia including experiments on live animals is for the benefit of every country which wishes to take advantage of the information gained.
  8. 10) The control of research using live animals is already covered by legislation in the States and Territories. This legislation would include control over the use of the Lethal Dose 50 per cent test.

Department of Primary Industry: Libraries (Question No. 1350)

Mr Bungey:

asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 6 September 1 977:

  1. 1 ) How many libraries are in his Department, where is each located and what is the main purpose of each.
  2. How many (a) books, (b) publications and (c) periodicals (i) have been acquired in (A) 1974-75, (B) 1975-76 and (C) 1976-77, (ii) are currently in the library and (iii) will be acquired under budget provisions for 1977-78.
  3. What is the annual cost of running each library.
  4. What staff are employed in each library and what major staffing changes have occurred in the past 3 years, or are contemplated.
  5. When were the provision, number and purpose of libraries in the Department last reviewed by the Department and/or the Public Service Board, and what recommendations were made at that time.
  6. 6) Which libraries are open to the public, and what is the extent of public usage.
Mr Sinclair:
NCP/NP

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

  1. One Central Library located in Barton, Australian Capital Territory with branches located at Braddon, Australian Capital Territory and Civic Centre, Australian Capital Territory.

The main purpose of the library is to provide a specialist information service, in specific subject areas, to departmental staff.

  1. –
  1. 3 ) Identifiable costs for 1 977-78-$236,000.
  2. Total staff- 19 (includes 5 at the Branch Libraries). Two additional staff have been obtained in the past three years; no major variations to starring are contemplated.
  3. A Joint Public Service Board and departmental review was conducted in 1973 resulting in variations to procedures and staffing and the setting up of two Branch Libraries to service the specialist needs of two units of the Department physically located away from the main body of the Department.

A departmental review undertaken in 1975 resulted in recommendations related to organisation and procedures.

  1. Departmental libraries are open to the public; direct public usage occurs about once per month.

Export Finance and Insurance Corporation (Question No. 1375)

Mr Hurford:

asked the Minister for Overseas Trade, upon notice, on 6 September 1 977:

  1. 1 ) Has the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation approved a loan to cover 85 per cent of the cost of a major South African coal handling project.
  2. Is he able to say whether only a quarter of the capital equipment for this project is to be made in Australia.
Mr Anthony:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) No. The Export Finance and Insurance Corporation has not made any loans under its export finance facility in respect of contracts in South Africa. As such loans involve a direct Government subsidy, to do so would be inconsistent with the Government’s policy of not providing official encouragement of trade with South Africa. At the same time, however, EFIC’s normal insurance and guarantee facilities are available to exporters engaged in trade with South Africa.
  2. Not applicable. In any event EFIC’s facilities are limited to exports of goods which are produced or manufactured in whole or in substantial part in Australia. EFIC facilities would thus not be available for any export transactions with only 25 per cent Australian content.

Maritime Resources Zone: Surveillance (Question No. 1383)

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 7 September 1977:

  1. 1 ) Has consideration been given to the use of airships to patrol the 200 mile resources zone to be declared around the Australian coastline; if so, with what result.
  2. Have the claims of Aerospace Developments (London) Ltd been examined to verify claims that airships (a) can be amphibious, (b) can carry radar capable of surveying an area of 500 x 200 miles every 24 hours, (c) could carry a small assault craft and (d) are unlikely to exceed a basic acquisition price of $650,000.
  3. Is it intended to conduct further investigations into the role of airships for Australian defence purposes.
Mr Killen:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Yes, and the problems of surveillance of a 200 nautical mile maritime resources zone, should one be declared, have been the subject of detailed and on-going investigations both within the Department of Defence and in conjunction with other departments.

The Defence Forces do already possess many of the elements necessary for surveillance of a 200 nautical mile zone and any examination of additional defence resources necessary to meet this commitment must await an assessment made in the light of operational experience under the new regime, and of Government policy on the role of the Department of Defence in overall surveillance.

  1. and (3) My Department has recently received a letter from a Mr Reynolds of Aerospace Development (London) Ltd regarding the use of airships for surveillance. Whilst developments in airship technology are being monitored, in the absence of a clearly perceived Australian military requirement for airships, my Department must maintain a watching brief only in this field of technology.

Queensland Water Projects: Federal Expenditure (Question No. 1391)

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

am asked the Minister for National Resources, upon notice, on 7 September 1977:

  1. 1 ) What was, or is expected to be, the completion date of each stage of the works for which Federal expenditure was authorised by the (a) Queensland Grant (Maraboon Dam) Act 1968, (b) Queensland Grant (Bundaberg Irrigation Works) Act 1970-1974, (c) Queensland Grant (Dawson River Weirs) Act 1973, (d) Queensland Grant (Kinchant Dam) Act 1973, (e) Queensland Grant (Clare Weir) Act 1974, (f) Queensland Grant (Prosperpine Flood Mitigation) Act 1974, (g) Queensland Grant (Ross River Dam) Act 1 974 and (h) Julius Dam Agreement Act 1974.
  2. What financial assistance was provided for each of these projects by the Federal and State governments in each financial year since 1968-69.
  3. What legislation relating to water projects, other than in urban areas, has been enacted since November 1975 and what was the amount of Federal expenditure authorised by these Acts.
Mr Anthony:
NCP/NP

– The answer to the honourable members question is as follows:

CD-

(2)-

  1. The Queensland Grant (Proserpine Flood Mitigation) Act 1976 provided for a further grant of $374,000 to Queensland towards the cost of construction of a flood mitigation scheme on the Proserpine River.

The New South Wales Grant (Namoi River Weirs) Act 1976 provides a $2m grant towards the construction of three weirs on the Namoi River.

Australian Wool Corporation: Loan Repayment (Question No. 1406)

Mr Scholes:

asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 8 September 1977:

  1. 1) Is it anticipated that the Australian Wool Corporation will be able to repay to the Treasury $100m as indicated in the Budget Papers.
  2. If so, will this repayment be met by refinancing from private sources.
  3. Will this add to the cost of servicing the loan; if so, by what amount.
Mr Sinclair:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) The present expectation is that the Corporation will be able to repay during the current season loans made available by the Government to the Corporation for the purposes of administering the floor price scheme at wool auctions.
  2. Refinancing would be primarily a matter for the Australian Wool Corporation if the issue emerged.
  3. ) No additional servicing cost would seem to be likely.

National Animal Health Laboratory, Geelong (Question No. 1427)

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

asked the Minister for Construction, upon notice, on 13 September 1977:

  1. What work has been carried out to date on the Australian National Animal Health Laboratory at Geelong, Vic
  2. What funds were allocated to the project for 1977-78.
  3. When is the anticipated completion date.
  4. If the completion date is more than one year away, how much work is intended to be done during 1977-78.
Mr McLeay:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Design work is well advanced, site investigations complete, a prototype animal room constructed and other prototypes of special equipment built to evaluate design solutions.
  2. Expenditure totalling $580,000 has been incurred on construction and testing of prototypes. $15,000 has been allocated for 1977-78 to complete design evaluation.
  3. It is estimated that construction and commissioning of the laboratory would take eight years from the date of commencement of site works.
  4. Completion of design work and testing of prototypes.

Research Trusts (Question No. 14SS)

Mr Scholes:

asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 14 September 1977:

Is he satisfied that unsatisfactory practices in respect of research trusts raised in the reports of the Auditor-General for 1974-75 and 1975-76 have been eliminated.

Mr Sinclair:
NCP/NP

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

Substantial improvement has been achieved in obtaining the compliance of grantees to the prescribed conditions.

Tobacco (Question No. 1458)

Mr Scholes:

asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 14 September 1977:

  1. 1 ) What percentage of Australian grown tobacco offered at auction has been unsold during 1 977.
  2. ) Have real price levels fallen during the last 5 years.
  3. Has his attention been drawn to claims by growers that low priced imported tobacco and tobacco products are to blame for unsold Australian grown tobacco and a fall in real price levels; if so, is there any substance in the claims.
  4. What corrective action does he propose to take.
Mr Sinclair:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) All quota leaf offered at auction during 1977 has been sold.
  2. The average price paid at auction and the average reserve price for leaf sold at auction in each year since 1973 have been:

Reserve prices have been adjusted each year from 1974 onwards with reference to an economic survey of the industry conducted by the Bureau of Agricultural Economics and covering the three years 1970-71 to 1972-73. The Bureau also constructed a cost index, annual movements in which have been made known to the Australian Tobacco Board in January each year for use in its price deliberations.

Since 1974-75 the index cost structure has been revised to take account of information collected in a survey carried out by the Queensland Department of Primary Industries. This supplementary survey was directed towards changes in some cost items which had occurred between the BAE survey period and 1974-75.

In addition to such data the Board has had regard to cost savings which growers could achieve by reason of changes in methods of preparation and presentation of leaf i.e. loose leaf selling and plant position sorting.

In recommending reserve prices for the 1977 and 1978 selling seasons the Board had regard to disadvantages faced by growers because of shortsell arrangements.

Substantial changes which have taken place in the tobacco industry in recent years make it inappropriate to generalise about movements in leaf prices in relation to other indicators of economic activity. The price adjustments have been intended to avoid disadvantage to reasonably efficient growers.

  1. See (1)and (2)above
  2. The current Tobacco Stabilisation Plan will end in 1978. Negotiations are under way for stabilisation arrangements which will be applicable in 1979 and subsequent years. 1 have been taking a close and active interest in discussions about future arrangements and I intend to have further meetings with representatives of growers and manufacturers. I am concerned to ensure that adequate consideration is given to the problems of Australian tobacco growers.

Beet Sugar Plantings, Tasmania (Question No. 1459)

Mr Scholes:

asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 14 September 1977:

  1. Has he had any discussions with the Tasmanian Government, concerning proposals for beet sugar plantings in Tasmania.
  2. Would sugar produced in Tasmania be marketed within existing marketing arrangements; if not, what effect would production have on sugar marketing and exports.
Mr Sinclair:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1) In August 1976 I had discussions with the Premier of Tasmania (The Hon. W. A. Neilson M.H.A.) and representatives of the Tasmanian Beet Sugar Industry Committee on the Tasmanian Government’s proposal to finance a study of the feasibility of establishing a beet sugar industry in Tasmania.

I indicated to the Premier that the Commonwealth Government would raise no objection to the proposal to commission a feasibility study.

I understand that a feasibility study was subsequently conducted by an English consulting firm. The Tasmanian Government was reported in the Press in early August 1977 to have set in train cultivation trials recommended by the consultants.

  1. The arrangements for marketing of Australian sugar on the domestic market are provided by the Commonwealth/Queensland Sugar Agreement. The Queensland Government is responsible for marketing overseas. Export of Australian sugar may also be regulated oy Australian membership of an International Sugar Agreement. Although the current ISA does not regulate exports, negotiations are currently proceeding in Geneva on a new Agreement. If a new ISA is negotiated, it could be expected to regulate Australian exports and possibly other aspects.

The marketing of any sugar produced in Tasmania could therefore have ramifications for these arrangements. It would be appropriate that, if sugar is produced in Tasmania, marketing arrangements be co-ordinated with the marketing of other Australian sugar.

Quarantine Irregularities (Question No. 1460)

Mr Scholes:

asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 14 September 1977:

Has he discussed with the Minister for Health irregularities in quarantine procedures in Western Australia and the issue of a letter of clearance to an infested ship in New South Wales.

Mr Sinclair:
NCP/NP

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

Since quarantine is the responsibility of the Minister for Health, any inquiries regarding alleged irregularities in that regard should be directed to him.

Australian Armed Forces: Red Alert (Question No. 1466)

Mr Scholes:

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

  1. 1 ) On how many occasions have Australian armed forces been placed on red alert during the last 10 years.
  2. ) What was the date in each case.
Mr Killen:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) and (2) No such term as ‘red alert’ is in general use in the Australian Defence Force, although it is possible that some units or individuals use it colloquially to imply a high state of readiness.

In any case there has been no occasion during the last 10 years when the Australian Armed Forces have been brought to the state of readiness implied by the term.

Offshore Animal Quarantine Station, Cocos (Keeling) Islands (Question No. 1471)

Mr Scholes:

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

  1. 1 ) Will Australian labour and materials be used in the construction of the Offshore Animal Quarantine Station at Cocos (Keeling) Islands.
  2. If not, what will be the source.
Mr McLeay:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Australian labour and materials will be used to the maximum extent practicable and consistent with utilisation of local resources (Cocos (Keeling) Islands).
  2. Not applicable see ( 1 ) above.

Radio-Pharmaceuticals and Radio-Isotopes (Question No. 1477)

Dr Klugman:

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

  1. Have radio-pharmaceuticals and radio-isotopes been available free since 1946.
  2. Will there be a charge for them from 1 January 1978.
  3. Are they supplied by the Australian Radiation Laboratory and the Australian Atomic Energy Commission.
  4. Has his attention been drawn to a report in the AMA Gazette of 1 September 1977 that he stated that one of the main reasons for the ending of the free supply policy is that it limits freedom of choice; if so, is there any substance in the report.
  5. What other suppliers ate likely to enter the Australian market after 1 January 1978.
Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. Yes.
  3. At present they are supplied to users by the Australian Atomic Energy Commission following orders placed by the Australian Radiation Laboratory or they are supplied from the Australian Radiation Laboratory following importation of material from overseas.
  4. I refer the honourable member to my press release of 17 August 1977 in which I stated that one of the main reasons for the ending of the free supply policy was that it limits freedom of choice. The other main reasons I included were that other equally lifesaving and diagnostic materials are not supplied free, and free issue prevents effective control and discourages commercial competition.

Currently the Australian Radiation Laboratory is required to provide to users radio-pharmaceuticals and radio-isotopes that are available from the Australian Atomic Energy Commission. Other radio-pharmaceuticals and radio-isotopes are procured by the Australian Radiation Laboratory from overseas following a tendering procedure. Thus for each radiopharmaceutical and radio-isotope there is only one brand available to users under the free supply policy. As from 1 January 1978 users will be able to purchase each radiopharmaceutical or radio-isotope from the supplier of their choice, providing the materials meet adequate standards of quality, safety and efficacy.

  1. The answer to this question is not known. However, currently the Australian Radiation Laboratory procures radio-pharmaceuticals and radio-isotopes from 14 overseas suppliers and for 10 of these, orders are placed on Australian agents. Currently radio-pharmaceuticals and radio-isotopes required in ‘kit’ form or for medical research are purchased by the user from the Australian Atomic Energy Commission or from any of 37 overseas suppliers of which 30 have Australian agents.

Major Airport Needs of Sydney Committee (Question No. 1488)

Mr Neil:

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

What representatives do the airlines have on the Major Airport Needs of Sydney Committee.

Mr Nixon:
LP

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

All members of the Committee are either Commonwealth or State Government officials. There are no airline industry representatives on the Committee. However, under the Committee ‘s terms of reference it is to inform and consult with, as appropriate other Commonwealth and State departments and organisations; the airlines and unions; and local government authorities, community organisations and other interested parties.

Prescriptions Dispensed by Medical Practitioners (Question No. 1495)

Mr Hodges:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 15 September 1977:

  1. How many medical practitioners were authorised to dispense prescriptions under the National Health Act during each of the last 5 financial years.
  2. How many prescriptions did they dispense and what was the value of the dispensed prescriptions for each of those years.
  3. ) By what formula are such prescriptions priced for payment to the authorised medical practitioner.
  4. Has there been any variation in the method of pricing; if so, (a) what changes were made, (b) when did they come into effect and (c) at whose request was the alteration made.
  5. What is the criterion for granting an authority to dispense to a medical practitioner in private practice.
Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

(U-

(2)-

  1. For ready-prepared pharmaceutical benefits supplied, approved medical practitioners are paid the wholesale cost plus a mark-up of 33W per cent plus a dispensing fee of 54c except for a small number of items where no dispensing fee is payable. For some of the items where no dispensing fee is paid the mark-up is 50 per cent.

In respect of each extemporaneously-prepared benefit supplied approved medical practitioners are paid the cost of ingredients and containers plus a mark-up of 50 per cent plus a dispensing fee of $ 1 .29.

  1. (a) and (b) Prior to 1 September 1977 the dispensing fee of 54c for ready-prepared benefits was not payable.

    1. The Australian Medical Association and some of the approved medical practitioners.

  2. A medical practitioner may be approved to supply pharmaceutical benefits in respect of an area where there is no approved pharmaceutical chemist from which a convenient and efficient pharmaceutical service may be supplied. In approving medical practitioners to supply pharmaceutical benefits regard is taken of relevant State legislation.

Service Men and Women: Equal Pay (Question No. 1506)

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 15 September 1977:

  1. 1 ) Do servicemen and service women of equal rank receive equal pay.
  2. If not, what percentage of the male rate is received by female (a) privates, (b) corporals, (c) sergeants, and (d) commissioned officers.
  3. Is the pay of service personnel determined by rank or by task performed.
Mr Killen:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The present method of salary fixation for females in the Defence Force provides for equal pay where it has been established that men and women do perform equal work. Thus equal pay applies in respect of male and female medical and dental officers and nursing officers of equal rank. Male and female members at private level also receive equal pay according to skill category.

  2. The percentages of the male rate received by those members referred to who are not in receipt of equal pay are:

    1. Female non-commissioned officers receive the full private rate plus a margin for rank of about 80 per cent of the male rank margin. This ‘80 per cent’ formula applied to the NCO rank margin and to officers represents a general statement of the situation. It does not mean that this formula is applied rigidly in every case when adjusting salary rates for females in the

Defence Force. For example, equal increases are applied to men and women when national wage case increases are extended to the Defence Force.

  1. Corporal- 99 per cent.
  2. Sergeant-98 per cent.

  3. Commissioned officers- 80 per cent of the male common scale rates for equivalent rank.

    1. Salary is determined by both rank and task performed.

Rank denotes the level of responsibility. As in any hierarchically structured organisation higher rank confers increasing responsibility and consequently higher salary.

Different salary structures, however, have been determined for different groups. This is due to perceived differences in the work performed and its value in relation to broadly similar groups m the community.

The whole question of pay fixation for female members of the Defence Force, including the question of equal pay, is currently under consideration by the Committee of Reference for Defence Force Pay.

Rationalisation of Uneconomic Pharmacies (Question No. 1513)

Mr Lloyd:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 20 September 1 977:

  1. What action is the Government or the Pharmacy Guild taking to encourage the rationalisation of uneconomic pharmacies.
  2. In this rationalisation what safeguards or assistance are being provided for uneconomic pharmacies in otherwise unserviced areas.
Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

  1. The honourable member will recall that when the National Health Act Amendment Bill, to establish the Joint Committee on Pharmaceutical Benefits Pricing Arrangements as a statutory body, was being debated in this place in December 1976, attention was drawn to the large number of retail pharmacies in Australia in relation to the population. The economics of dispensing pharmaceuticals and the need to examine the question of rationalisation of retail pharmacies were also raised. -

At that time, I indicated that the Joint Committee might look at the question of rationalisation of retail pharmacies and provide me with a report, through the Chairman, on possible options by which such rationalisation could be achieved and the possible role for the Commonwealth in relation to such options. Subsequently, I requested the Chairman of the Joint Committee, Mr Justice J. T. Ludeke, to undertake the preparation of a report on guidelines and possible options for the rationalisation of re tau pharmacies.

The Joint Committee, which consists of four members nominated by the Pharmacy Guild of Australia and four officers of the Australian Public Service, in addition to the independent Chairman, has established a sub-committee to examine the question of pharmacy rationalisation. The issues involved are complex and it may be some time before the Chairman of the Joint Committee is in a position to report on this matter.

  1. The current position in relation to the rationalisation of retail pharmacies is set out in ( 1 ) above. However, I recently announced the introduction of a new allowance scheme to support pharmacies providing a dispensing service in isolated and remote locations. Under the new Isolated Pharmacy Allowance Scheme a pharmacist is eligible to receive an allowance of up to $2,520 a year if the pharmacy is situated more than 25 kilometres from another pharmacy and if the owner can demonstrate economic need.

The allowance was introduced following a unanimous recommendation of the Joint Committee on Pharmaceutical Benefits Pricing Arrangements and replaces the previous zone allowance arrangements.

Eight-cylinder Engines: Production Statistics (Question No. 878)

Mr Jacobi:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 24 May 1977:

  1. 1 ) Further to the answer to question No. 162, is it important that statistics should be kept on the import and domestic production of 8-cylinder engines, in view of recent moves in the United States to phase out 8-cylinder engine productions, and in view of Australia’s diminishing petroleum reserves.
  2. Will he take up this matter with the Bureau of Statistics and the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs.
Mr Eric Robinson:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

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

  1. and (2) The Australian Bureau of Statistics is not aware of any great demand for either import or production statistics of 8-cylinder engines. Should such a demand emerge, investigations would be undertaken into the practicability and costs of collecting the data.

The measures announced in the Budget for a transition towards import parity prices for locally produced crude oil and an increase in the excise duty on petroleum products will provide direct incentives for economy in the consumption of such products, including through the use of vehicles with smaller engines. This price-oriented approach to energy conservation avoids the need for less efficient piecemeal policies such as those which appear to be implied by the honourable member’s question:

Sale of Meat to Japan (Question No. 992)

Mr Lloyd:

asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 1 June 1977:

  1. 1 ) Can he say who are the shareholders of the Australian Meat Export Corporation Pry Ltd.
  2. Would it be a suitable vehicle for a single seller arrangement of meat to Japan.
  3. If so, is it being considered for such a role, and what other alternative proposals are being considered by the Government to meet the monopoly power of the Japanese Livestock Industry Promotion Corporation.
Mr Sinclair:
NCP/NP

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

  1. to (3) The 56 shareholders of the Australian Meat Export Corporation Pty Ltd are

Amatil Playfair Branch Anderson Meat Packing Co. Pty Ltd Angliss W. and Co. (Aust) Pty Ltd Agriculture Marketing Pty Ltd Baldie, D. W. & Co. Pty Ltd Balmoral Estates Pty Ltd Barnes, James Pty Ltd

Borthwick, Thomas & Sons (Australasia) Ltd Brooke Bond Monbulk Limited Conkey and Sons Ltd Consolidated Meat Holdings Ltd Corio Meat Packing, Division of Corio Meat Packing (1965) Pty Ltd

Craig, Mostyn and Co. Pty Ltd Darling Downs Co-op Bacon Assn Ltd Dawson, Jack Exports Pty Ltd Dornauf Exports Pty Ltd Field, T. A. Pty Ltd Foster, W.& Co. Pty Ltd Freeze Pak Pty Ltd GBS Meat Industries Pty Ltd Gardner Smith Pty Ltd Gilberston, R. J. Pty Ltd Greenham, H. M. and Sons Pty Ltd Harbour International Pty Ltd Harris, K.N, Pty Ltd Heine Brothers (Australasia) Pty Ltd Hutton, J. C. Pty Ltd International Portion Foods Pty Ltd Jacobs Pty Ltd

Lachlan Valley Exports Pty Ltd Lavery, David & Son Pty Ltd Lawrence, C. R. (Aust) Pty Ltd MacPherson Bros. Meats Ltd Manning Co-operative Meat Society Ltd Metro Meat Ltd Mt Skene Pastoral Co. Newham, Eric Contracts Pty Ltd Norwest Beef Industries Ltd Presto Smallgoods Division Pridham Holdings Ltd Ralph, J. H.& Sons Pty Ltd Richardson’s Meat Industries Ltd Siegel, P. and S. Pty Ltd Sleigh, H.C. Ltd

Smorgon Consolidated Industries Souery Edward and Co. Pty Ltd Springer Australia Pty Ltd Stock Traders Pty Ltd Tancred Brothers Pty Limited Turners Ltd

United Milk (Abattoirs) Ltd

Wales Meat Export Pty Ltd

Walker, F. J. Limited

Western Australian Meat Commission

Westralian Farmers Co-operative Ltd

Wynne’s Pty Ltd. I do not consider that the Australian Meat Export Corporation is a suitable vehicle for a single seller arrangement of meat to Japan. For example, exporters who have built up meat trade in Japan over the years but who are not shareholders in that Corporation would be unfairly excluded. Furthermore, it seems doubtful that such a large group of exporters could reach agreement on higher prices, the benefits of which would flow back to cattle producers. It seems inevitable that steps will have to be taken on the Australian side to counter the depressing effects on beef prices of the Japanese import system and the resulting intense competition between Australian exporters. With this in mind, the Australian Meat Board recently sent a delegation to Japan to discuss import arrangements with the Livestock Industry Promotion Corporation. In the light of these discussions the Board is now considering what steps it might recommend to achieve higher prices.

Museums and National Collections (Question No. 1085)

Mr Lionel Bowen:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 16 August 1977:

  1. 1 ) Does the Government intend to create an Australian Museums Commission; if so, what form will the commission take and what will be its powers and functions.
  2. Does the Government also intend to create a national fund to facilitate emergency acquisitions of Australian historical value; if so, what action is proposed and when.
  3. Does the Government concur with the suggestion that a cultural materials conservation institute be established to prevent deterioration of fragile and perishable museum objects; if so, what action is proposed and when.
  4. Will the Government establish post-graduate courses at appropriate institutions to train professional conservators; if so, when and where.
  5. Does Does the Government intend to establish appropriate courses at colleges of advanced education and technical colleges for the training of technicians and apprentices in conservation techniques and all aspects central to museum collections and displays; if so, when and where will these courses be established.
  6. Does the Government propose to adopt all the recommendations of the report ‘Museums in Australia 1975’ prepared by the Committee of Inquiry on Museums and National Collections.
  7. In particular, does the Government concur with recommendations 2.1 1 to 2.17 inclusive of the committee of inquiry referred to in part (6).
  8. If so, what action (a) has been taken and (b) is proposed, and when.
  9. Will any action be initiated in the 1977 Budget sittings to implement any of the recommendations of the committee of inquiry.
Mr Street:
LP

– The Minister for Administrative Services has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question: (1), (2) and (3) These matters are the subject of recommendations in the Report of the Committee of Inquiry on Museums and National Collections which is under consideration by the Government.

  1. and (5) The Canberra College of Advanced Education proposes to introduce courses in materials conservation in 1978. In its report ‘Recommendations for 1978’, which was tabled in the Parliament in September, the Tertiary Education Commission supported projected student enrolment figures for the Canberra College of Advanced Education which would allow such courses to proceed. (6), (7) and (8) See answer to (1). Legislation has, however, been enacted to protect historic wrecks and relics recovered from those wrecks. This matter was the subject of recommendation 2. 14 of the committee of inquiry.

The Historic Shipwrecks Act 1976 received the royal assent on 15 December 1976. Its provisions may be brought into effect in relation to waters adjacent to the coast of each State separately upon proclamation. On 3 September 1977 the Act was proclaimed for waters off the Western Australian coast primarily to protect the old Dutch shipwrecks in those waters. Historically significant colonial wrecks in those waters are also now protected by the Act.

The States will be consulted prior to a decision being taken to proclaim the Act for waters presently not covered by the Act.

The Government has also decided to introduce further tax incentives to stimulate the flow of gifts to public museums, an galleries and libraries. Recommendation 2. 1 7 of the committee of inquiry recommended arrangements along these lines. New tax provisions will come into operation for a trial period of three years on 1 January 1978. In the past, a person could claim on a gift only if he had acquired the item in the last twelve months or if it were cash. The twelve months test will now be removed and valuations will now generally be based on market values.

  1. Legislation giving effect to the new incentives scheme liberalising tax concessions on gifts to public an galleries, libraries and museums is expected to be introduced in the present session of the Parliament.

Commonwealth Funding of Programs in Federal Electorates (Question No. 1087)

Mr Neil:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Industry and Commerce, upon notice, on 16 August 1977:

  1. 1 ) What major programs were funded by the Department of Industry and Commerce in the electoral divisions of (a) St George, (b) Banks, (c) Barton and (d) Lang during 1976-77, including recurrent and non-recurrent expenditure.
  2. What was the expenditure on each program.
Mr Viner:
LP

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

I refer the honourable member to the answer by the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister in Federal Affairs to question No. 1086 (Hansard, 8 September 1 977, page 989).

Commonwealth Funding of Projects in Federal Electorates (Question No. 1093)

Mr Neil:

asked the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development, upon notice, on 16 August 1977:

  1. 1 ) What major programs were funded by his Department in the electoral divisions of (a) St George, (b) Banks, (c) Barton and (d) Lang during 1976-77, including recurrent and non-recurrent expenditure.
  2. What was the expenditure on each program.
Mr Newman:
Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development · BASS, TASMANIA · LP

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

I refer the honourable member to the answer by the Minister assisting the Prime Minister in Federal Affairs to question No. 1086 (Hansard, 8 September 1977, page 989).

Mr W. F. Toomer: Telephone Calls from Port Hedland (QuestionNo.1127)

Mr Bungey:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 16 August 1977:

  1. 1 ) Has his Department billed Mr Toomer with several telephone calls from Port Hedland to Mr R. Perriman, Department of Veterans’ Affairs, Canberra, a member of the Inquiry appointed by the Public Service Board to inquire into the grievances of Mr W. F. Toomer.
  2. If so, was the Department informed that these calls were made at the request of Mr Perriman.
  3. Will he ensure that the billing of Mr Toomer for these calls is cancelled.
Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

  1. Yes. On 12 July 1977 the Director of Health, Western Australia Division, advised Mr Toomer by letter, that he would not accept two calls made to the Department of Veterans’ Affairs from the departmental official telephone at Fort Hedland as being official calls.
  2. ) Subsequently, yes.
  3. On receipt of this information the Department immediately accepted these calls as being official.

Area Improvement Program: Western Sydney (Question No. 1173)

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

am asked the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development, upon notice, on 16 August 1977:

What projects under the Area Improvement Program for 1976-77 fell within the electoral divisions of Chifley, Macarthur, Macquarie, Mitchell, Parramatta, Prospect and Werriwa (Hansard, 7 December 1976, page 3449 and 24 March 1977, page 639).

Mr Newman:
LP

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

The only project funded under the Area Improvement Program in New South Wales in 1976-77 was the Mount Drum Town Centre project in the electoral division of Chifley. This project received $ 120,000 during 1976-77.

Capital Assistance for Leisure Facilities (Question No. 1176)

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

am asked the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development, upon notice, on 16 August 1977:

  1. For what projects and at what cost were grants made under the program of Capital Assistance for Leisure Facilities in 1976-77 (Hansard, 17 August 1976, page 233, 6 October 1976, page 1611, and 2 December 1976 page 3208).
  2. Will grants be made for any projects under the program in 1 977-78; if so, for what projects and at what cost.
Mr Newman:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) No new grants were made under the program of Capital Assistance for Leisure Facilities in 1 976-77.
  2. No new grants will be made for projects under this program in 1977-78.

Despite no new commitments being entered into expenditure under this program was $6,893,846 in 1976-77 and $3,700,000 has been allocated to meet existing commitments in 1977-78.

InterScan Aircraft Landing Project (Question No. 1192)

Dr Klugman:

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

  1. 1 ) What is the present state of development of the Interscan method of aircraft landing control.
  2. How is the InterScan project presently funded.
  3. Has the Government received a recommendation for further funding of the project; if so, what level of funding has been decided upon.
  4. To what extent will the commercial possibilities of InterScan be affected by decisions of the International Civil Aviation Organisation.
Mr Macphee:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) An experimental model of InterScan is in successful operation at Melbourne airport.

The unique principle on which InterScan is based has been submitted to ICAO for acceptance as the world standard. The Australian submission is supported in ICAO by the United States, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and other countries and the prospects of international acceptance are very good. The ICAO decision is expected in April 1 978.

In view of the large market which is likely to develop in the 1980s for microwave aircraft landing systems, to take maximum advantage of InterScan’s commercial possibilities my Department initiated in 1 976 a program to develop commercial and cost effective versions of InterScan.

The InterScan system can be realised in a number of ways and this gives flexibility in developing cost effective commercial versions. The InterScan antennas at Melbourne Airport are based on an original CSIRO concept specifically to DOT requirements. Since then CSIRO has earned out theoretical studies which have suggested a new and novel approach to antenna design which is considered more likely to meet the wide and varied world requirements and which could reduce the size of the system and offer prospects of considerably reducing product costs.

An experimental sub-system based on the new concept has been made up and test results have confirmed the theoretical predictions.

Other work has been aimed at cost effective packaging based on the integration of electrical and mechanical parts in order to maximise reliability and minimise production costs. Considerable progress has been made in this direction.

Although appreciable further development is required at an estimated cost of about $6m the technological lead gained by Australia through Government sponsored developments has provided Australian industry with the opportunity of entering and successfully participating in the international market for microwave landing systems.

  1. The project to develop commercial versions of Interscan is funded by my Department. Expenditure to 30 June 1978 is expected to be about $Im mainly in industry. This is in addition to the funds of about $5. 5m already expended by the Department of Transport and CSIRO in their continuing program.
  2. At the present time there is no recommendation before the Government relating to further funding of the project. In view of InterScan’s apparent superiority over competing systems and the size of the market likely to develop efforts are being made to develop cost sharing arrangements with industry covering the further development required.
  3. An ICAO Panel of Experts has already recommended that the systems on which InterScan is based should be adopted by ICAO as the world standard. In the most unlikely event that this recommendation is reversed in favour of the competing United Kingdom Doppler system the commercial possibilities of InterScan would be small.

Quarantine Inspector, Port Hedland (Question No. 1197)

Mr Bungey:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 1 7 August 1 977:

  1. Was Mr N. Brogan, Quarantine Inspector, Depart.ment of Health, Western Australia, ordered or requested to assume duties at port Hedland following suspension of Mr F. W. Toomer, Quarantine Inspector, Port Hedland, Western Australia.
  2. If so, did Mr Brogan refuse to go to Port Hedland.
  3. Did the Director of Health, Western Australia, initiate, suggest or recommend that charges under the Public Service Act be laid against Mr Brogan; if so, what action was taken on any suggestion or recommendation, and what were the reasons for the action.
Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. Yes. However, the instructions for Mr Brogan to proceed to Port Hedland were withdrawn because another officer had been found to undertake the duties.
  3. No. As the instruction was withdrawn no further action in respect of Mr Brogan was required.

Australian National Flag: Framed Portraits of Queen (Question No. 1216)

Mr Neil:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 17 August 1977:

Which Government departmental buildings and offices are entitled to (a) and Australian flag and (b) a framed portrait of the Queen.

Mr Street:
LP

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

  1. Paragraph 5 (b) (vii) of the booklet entitled ‘the Australian National Flag’ published by the Department of Administrative Services states in part- ‘There is a standing approval for the Australian National Flag to be flown from the main flagstaff on Government buildings on all working days during normal working hours . . . The flag may be displayed at night, but only where it is properly illuminated’.
  2. All Government offices are entitled to a framed portrait of the Queen.

Insurance Brokers (Question No. 1218)

Mr Jacobi:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 17 August 1977:

  1. 1 ) Does he recall my persistent questions on the need for adequate national legislation for the supervision of insurance brokers.
  2. Did his Assistant Minister announce on 11 March 1977 that following a lengthy investigation it had been resolved to leave this area to self-regulation.
  3. Has his attention been drawn to Press reports in March 1977 indicating that a round-up of five insurance companies produced three who had suffered problems from broker failures and that known losses suffered by these companies, and other companies they were aware of, totalled about $750,000.
  4. If so, did the reports indicate that (a) Company one had suffered a loss of $250,000 through the collapse of a broker, in which a total of seven companies lost $500,000, (b) Company two lost $50,000 through the collapse of a different broker and (c) Company three estimated losses of between $100,000 and $250,000 because of the collapse of various brokers during the last five years.
  5. 5 ) Are there 1 80 general insurers in Australia whose total losses calculated on the same basis would run into millions of dollars.
  6. Has his attention also been drawn to the Insurance Brokers’ Registration Bill which was introduced as a private Member’s Bill in the United Kingdom Parliament, with Government support, early in 1977.
  7. If so, is he able to say whether the Bill has now become law and that, as a consequence, the pattern of activities of the British insurance brokers is now subject to close scrutiny and control.
  8. Can he say whether the British insurance brokers would have preferred self-regulation but that such a course had been found to be both ineffective and deficient by the United Kingdom Parliament.
  9. Can he also say whether the United Kingdom legislation provides (a) for the establishment of an Insurance Brokers’ Registration Council which decides whether or not applicants should be registered, (b) that the Council will consist of 17 members, 12 of whom will be nominated by the insurance broking industry and five, one of whom shall be a lawyer and one an accountant, to be nominated by the Government, (c) that the Council will evaluate applicants’ qualifications, experience, their financial backing and their independence from insurance underwriters and (d) that the Council will require members to submit to a code of ethical behaviour to be set down and to maintain proper accounting and financial reporting standards.
  10. 10) In view of the alarming number of brokerage firms in Australia which have passed into liquidation because of either mismanagement or incompetence or both, and left many members of the public with the burden of financial risk, is it considered proper that anyone is free to set up as an insurance broker without qualifications, without restrictions and with no funds to indemnify clients.
  11. 1 1 ) As the United Kingdom has considered it necessary to introduce legislation and as the general insurance legislation is largely patterned on the United Kingdom Insurance Act, will he initiate an immediate investigation and evaluation of the new United Kingdom brokers legislation with a view to introducing national legislation for the supervision of insurance brokers as speedily as possible.
Mr Eric Robinson:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. No. In my statement of 11 March 1977 in my capacity as Minister Assisting the Treasurer, I announced that the Government would be giving consideration to possible approaches to the question of supervision of insurance brokers, including self-regulation, against the background of views expressed by interested parties. However, I would emphasise that the Government is not committed to regulation or to any particular form of regulation at this stage.
  3. , (4) and (5) I am aware that there have been press reports on the matters referred to. However, there is no authoritative and comprehensive information available on losses incurred in the insurance industry as a result of the failure of insurance brokers and I am therefore unable to comment on the figures referred to by the honourable member.
  4. Yes.
  5. I am informed that the Insurance Brokers (Registration) Act of the United Kingdom received royal assent on 29 July 1977. 1 am arranging for the honourable member to be sent a copy of the Act.
  6. , (9) and (II) The approach adopted in the United Kingdom is being considered along with other proposals for the supervision of insurance brokers in Australia.
  7. 10) These questions are being considered as part of the study referred to under (2) above.

Northern Territory Legislative Assembly: Poll Statistics (Question No. 1223)

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

am asked the Minister representing the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 17 August 1977:

How many votes and what percentage of the total votes were polled by:

Australian Labor Party candidates,

b ) Country-Liberal Party candidates, and

other candidates at the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly election on 13 August 1977.

Mr Street:
LP

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

The votes and percentage of total formal votes polled at the election of members of the Legislative Assembly for the Northern Territory on 13 August 1977 were as follows:

Australian Labor Party, 12,165 votes- 38.23 percent

Country-Liberal Party, 12,769 votes-40. 13 percent

other candidates, 6,883 votes- 2 1 .64 per cent

Alexander Barton Group of Companies (Question No. 1253)

Mr Jacobi:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 18 August 1977:

  1. 1 ) With reference to my question without notice to the Minister representing the Attorney-General on 4 April 1973 (Hansard, page 1041) asking (a) whether the Minister’s attention had been drawn to a reported financial loss totalling $ 1 7m incurred by member companies of the Alexander Barton group, (b) if the money raised to finance the activities of the group drew benefits under the Commonwealth taxation law and (c) if, in view of the Commonwealth’s interest in the matter, the Minister would take immediate steps to have the matter referred for full inquiry by the Senate Select Committee on Securities and Exchange, has his attention been drawn to the statement of Mr Berman, S.M., at the first committal proceedings of Alexander and Thomas Barton on charges of making false and misleading statements, that the question of the liability of the Barton company in question to taxation was relevant to the issue of whether Alexander and Thomas Barton had made a false statement in relation to the profits of the company.
  2. Did the Commissioner of Taxation obtain a sequestration order against the estate of Thomas Barton; if so, what has been the outcome in relation to enforcing it.
  3. As the Minister responsible for foreign exchange control, will he state whether any charge has been laid against Alexander or Thomas Barton or any of their companies involving breaches of the Banking (Foreign Exchange) Regulations; if so, what was the outcome of the charge.
Mr Eric Robinson:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

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

I do not propose to answer this question. It appears to be based substantially on question No. 146 which, on 2 June 1 977, the Treasurer declined to answer on the ground that it had been prepared by an officer of the Attorney-General’s Department.

Uranium: Failure of Government Analyst to give Evidence to Ranger Inquiry (Question No. 1289)

Mr Chipp:
HOTHAM, VICTORIA

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Science the following question, on notice, on 6 September 1977:

  1. 1 ) Is it a fact that the Australian Government Analyst did not present evidence on behalf of the Department of Science to the Ranger Inquiry, as stated on page 11438 of the transcript.
  2. Is it also a fact that the Minister was instructed not to present a submission to the Inquiry; if so, why.
  3. Does the Government envisage a role for the Government Analyst in monitoring the waste disposal from the Ranger site similar to his role in Tasmania in connection with the disposal of jarosite from the E.Z. Industries works.
ADERMANN, Evan:
FISHER, QUEENSLAND · CP; NCP from May 1975; NPA from Oct. 1982

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

  1. Yes.
  2. Examination of the departmental files does not reveal any such instruction but if the honourable member has any evidence to support his claim, I should be pleased to investigate it.
  3. Following the Government’s decision on uranium mining and export the matter of monitoring arrangements in the Alligator Rivers Region will be considered by the Supervising Scientist and the Co-ordinating Committee as part of their responsibilities in the formulation of measures for environmental protection in the Region. The idea of using the Australian Government Analyst as an independent check on the large amount of analysis which will be undertaken in the Northern Territory is a possibility.

The Australian Government Analytical Laboratories are able to analyse a wide range of substances including wastes from mining operations and are available to undertake such work subject to available resources and other commitments. They are not able to measure radioactivity of wastes, that is a matter for the Australian Radiation Laboratory of the Department of Health and/or the Australian Atomic Energy Commission.

Commonwealth Airport Hangars and Buildings: Lease Rentals (Question No. 1301)

Mr Connolly:
BRADFIELD, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 25 August 1977:

  1. 1 ) What is the present basis for determining rentals for lease of Commonwealth owned hangars and buildings at Commonwealth airports.
  2. What is the estimated revenue from hangars and buildings leased by aero clubs throughout Australia.
  3. What is the current written down cost of hangars and buildings leased by aero clubs and what is their replacement value for insurance purposes.
  4. What is the justification for requiring aviation tenants of Commonwealth buildings to insure them for replacement cost when the tenant is given no undertaking that in the event of the building being partially or totally destroyed it will be replaced by the Commonwealth.
  5. Is it a condition of tenancy that Commonwealth owned buildings must be maintained internally and externally at the tenant’s expense other than for structural members; if so, is this condition in keeping with commercial real estate practice.
  6. Is the land on airports leased by the aviation industry clearly distinguishable from land which the industry is entitled to use as a result of paying air navigation charges.
Mr Nixon:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Lease rentals for the airport buildings in question comprise both a site and building rental. The site rental is a common rate approved by the Minister for Transport from time to time, though varying with the particular category of airportprimary, secondary and country. The building rental is assessed on commercial lines at 12 per cent of current replacement value less an allowance for physical depreciation.
  2. Aero clubs have been granted a phasing in period of four years for their new rents. Estimated revenue from their hangars and buildings is some $30,000 per annum in the first year rising to about $ 120,000 in the fourth year.
  3. The Department of Transport does not depreciate its buildings individually but the Taxation Office Valuation Section in December 1976 gave the figure of $1,096,051 as current market value and $1,924,198 for replacement cost for insurance purposes.
  4. The Department of Transport agrees that its policy concerning insurance, although justifiable, warrants review towards giving the tenant the option of replacing the building with the insurance moneys. This review is nearing finalisation.
  5. Generally, under the law, a landlord is under no obligation to carry out repairs of any kind in the absence of an agreement. Where there is an agreement between the landlord and the tenant, a condition is generally included as to who is liable for the maintenance of the demised premises. In this case, a condition is included in the Commonwealth’s tenancy agreement for the particular maintenance of the demised premises. Again, the nature of these conditions is under current review.
  6. Generally, yes.

Tertiary Industry Efficiency: Assessment Procedures (Question No. 1325)

Mr Lloyd:

asked the Minister for Productivity, upon notice, on 6 September 1977:

  1. 1 ) Is his Department establishing any productivity criteria or assessment procedures to measure and monitor the efficiency of tertiary industry in Australia.
  2. Is there a need for this assessment since the Industries Assistance Commission only investigates and reports on manufacturing and primary industries.
Mr Macphee:
LP

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

  1. and (2) The development of productivity criteria or assessment procedures to measure and monitor the efficiency of tertiary industry is a matter of some complexity, given the diverse nature of the tertiary sector.

In all sectors of industry there is a need for meaningful evaluation and assessment of efficiency and productivity. Whether in all cases this can be codified in criteria and procedures is not clear. I am having this matter investigated, along with other potentially useful ways to achieve improvements in productivity.

Department of Environment, Housing and Community Development: Libraries (Question No. 1367)

Mr Bungey:

asked the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development, upon notice, on 25 August 1977:

  1. 1 ) How many libraries are in his Department, where is each located and what is the main purpose of each.
  2. How many (a) books, (b) publications and (c) periodicals (i) have been acquired in (A) 1974-75, (B) 1975-76 and (C) 1976-77, (ii) are currently in the library and (iii) will be acquired under budget provisions for 1977-78.
  3. 3 ) What is the annual cost of running each library.
  4. What staff are employed in each library and what major staffing changes have occurred in the past 3 years, or are contemplated.
  5. When were the provision, number and purpose of libraries in the Department last reviewed by the Department and/or the Public Service Board, and what recommendations were made at that time.
  6. Which libraries are open to the public, and what is the extent of public usage.
Mr Newman:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The Department has one library located in the central office in Canberra. The main purpose of the library is to provide information required by the officers of the Department in the course of their duties.

  2. (a) The Department was formed in December 1975 and the present library did not start acquiring books until 1976.

    1. 1975-76-Books acquired 600, Periodical titles acquired 500.
    2. 1976-77
    3. Books acquired 900; Periodical tides acquired 62 1
    1. 20,000 books, 62 1 periodical titles are currently held in the library
    2. likely acquisition 1977-78; books 1,000; Periodical tides 800.
  3. 3 ) The library has a budget of $50,000.
  4. The library has a staff of six. Staff numbers have been reduced from 18 to 6 in the past two years.
  5. The Department is currently conducting a staff utilization review of the library with the assistance of the Public Service Board. The results of the review are not yet available.
  6. The library is open to the public who may read material there. It is used mainly by students undertaking urban or environmental studies courses.

Life Insurance Companies’ Investments (Question No. 1412)

Mr Jacobi:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 13 September 1977:

As the proportion of life insurance statutory funds total assets invested in equity shares has increased from 1 1.3 per cent in 1966 to 16.5 per cent in 1976 and now amounts to over $ 1,500m, will he provide details of which companies and in which industries these ordinary shares are held.

Mr Eric Robinson:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

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

The statistical information collected under the Life Insurance Act I94S in respect of the investments of life insurance companies does not include details of the companies in which shares are held or the industries in which those companies are engaged. However, it is apparent from the information contained in the annual reports published by individual companies- to which I would refer the honourable member if he requires more detailed data- that life insurance companies invest in a broad cross-section of Australian industries.

Mr W. F. Toomer: Departmental Charges (Question No. 1465)

Mr Scholes:

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

  1. 1 ) Has the Department of Health recommended the dismissal of Mr W. F. Toomer, Quarantine Inspector, because of his public statement criticising quarantine inspection methods as a result of a parcel containing infected meat being passed unopened in Perth.
  2. Is it normal practice for quarantine officers to be disciplined if they detect infection or infestation in goods previously cleared.
Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) The Chief Officer of the Western Australia Division of the Department of Health, on 16 August 1977 sustained eight charges which had been preferred against Mr Toomer. In respect of four of these charges the Chief Officer, by virtue of the powers conferred upon him by section 55 (3) (d) of the Public Service Act 1 922, recommended to the Public Service Board that Mr Toomer be dismissed from the Australian Public Service. These four charges concerned contravention of the provisions of section 55 of the Public Service Act as a result of communicating to the Press information he had received whilst acting in his official capacity. One of the matters communicated by him concerned a parcel said to have contained meat.

Mr Toomer has since appealed against the decision of the Chief Officer in respect of all eight charges.

  1. No. The charges related to contravention of the provisions of section 55 of the Public Service Act.

Community Nursing Progam, Parramatta (Question No. 1475)

Dr Klugman:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 14 September 1 977:

  1. 1 ) Did he state in answer to question No. 95 1 (Hansard, 8 September 1977, page 983) that there had been an expenditure of $1,085,874 in the electoral division of Parramatta for a Community Nursing Program- Parramatta during 1975-76.
  2. If so, how many nurses are employed under this program.
  3. How many of the nurses work in the Electoral Division of Parramatta.
Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. and (3) The Health Commission of New South Wales, which is responsible for the administration of this service, has advised that this project, which is based at Parramatta, employs 168 nurses throughout the Western Metropolitan Region. Sixteen (16) of those nurses are employed in the electoral division of Parramatta

Tobacco Advertising (Question No. 1476)

Dr Klugman:

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

  1. 1 ) Has there been a re-introduction of tobacco advertisements on television via advertisements for cigars and pipe tobacco.
  2. ) If so, has he discussed this matter with the Minister for Post and Telecommunications.
  3. Is there medical evidence suggesting a link between the use of cigars and pipes with cancer of the lung and other pulmonary and cardiac pathology.
Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) The legislation which has prohibited the advertising of cigarettes and cigarette tobacco on television and radio since 1 September 1976 does not preclude advertisements for cigars and pipe tobacco.
  2. See(l).
  3. The Third Report from the Royal College of Physicians of London titled ‘Smoking or Health’ published in 1977 states: ‘The risk of death from lung cancer is related to the number of cigarettes smoked and the age of starting, and is reduced by smoking filter-tipped cigaretes . . . Pipe and cigar smokers suffer much smaller risks than cigarette smokers . . .

Most large surveys have shown little, if any, increased risk of coronary heart disease in smokers of pipes and cigars. They are mostly light smokers, but those who smoke heavily or inhale run an increased risk. Those who change from cigarettes to cigars or pipes may not reduce their risk of coronary heart disease. There is evidence that such smokers may continue to inhale . . . This is most likely to happen in those who smoke small cigars … A switch to pipe and cigar smoking may therefore not result in a corresponding reduction in the risk of coronary heart disease. ‘

Income Tax: Indexation Factor (Question No. 1497)

Mr Hurford:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 15 September 1977:

  1. 1 ) What indexation factor did he assume when he calculated the effect on revenue in 1978-79 of the application of 50 per cent of that factor to the tax schedule from 1 July 1978.
  2. If the expected indexation factor is less than 10 per cent, on what basis has the Government assumed that average male earnings will increase by 10.5 per cent in 1977-78, as stated on page 133 of Budget Paper No. 1.
  3. If the expected indexation factor is more than 10 per cent, is it a fact that more than one million taxpayers on incomes around $7,000 will pay more tax from 1 July 1978 under the new schedule, indexed by one half of indexation factor, than they would have done if the old schedule was fully indexed.
  4. If so, why does his Press Release No. 94 of 25 August 1977 state that the Government would ensure that in 1978-79 all taxpayers would be better off than they would have been under the present system with full indexation.
  5. Is the Government going to introduce yet another tax schedule to honour that undertaking.
Mr Eric Robinson:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

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

  1. 1 ) The assumption made-and I stress that it was not more than an assumption- was 10 percent.
  2. The indexation factor assumed was not less than 10 per cent.
  3. , (4) and (S) Since the indexation factor assumed was not more than 10 per cent, the remaining elements of the question do not arise.

Income Tax: Indexation Factor (Question No. 1498)

Mr Hurford:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 15 September 1977:

  1. 1 ) Is it a fact that the method used for calculating the factor to be used in tax indexation has or will have varied in each of the years 1976-77, 1977-78 and 1978-79.
  2. If so, will he explain what he means by the term ‘full automatic indexation’ as used on page 20 of his Budget speech.
Mr Eric Robinson:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

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

  1. and (2) The method of calculating the annual tax indexation factor is set out in the law and is perfectly straightforward: the factor is the increase in the averages of the consumer price index for two consecutive sets of four quarters, each ending with a March quarter, after removing the effects of certain factors specified in the law. The effects of changes in indirect taxes on the price index are removed, and so also are the effects of the introduction of the health insurance levy and of the devaluation of the Australian dollar last year.

Against that background, I suggest that the honourable member’s postulation of a change of method of indexation between one year and another throws doubt on his grasp of the concept. The principle that underlies all three adjustments is similar in each case; the fact that two of the adjustments concerned did not arise until 1977-78 does not alter that.

As regards 1978-79, the full annual indexation factor will be calculated as described above and applied to dependant rebates, and half that factor to the new simplified personal income tax scale.

Credit Squeeze (Question No. 1499)

Mr Hurford:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 15 September 1977:

  1. 1 ) Does Budget Statement No. 2 assume that the broadly based price deflators will move during 1977-78 by approximately the same amount as they did during 1976-77.
  2. If so, does this mean that, coupled with a real growth forecast of 4 per cent, non-farm product is expected to rise by approximately 1 5 per cent in money terms during 1 977-78.
  3. Will the announced money supply target of 8-10 per cent represent an even more restrictive monetary policy than has operated during 1976-77.
  4. If so, what is the justification for this credit squeeze.
Mr Eric Robinson:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

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

  1. No. In Statement No. 2 certain assumptions relevant to these and other matters are set down which, if realised, would lead to certain outcomes. All such outcomes must be qualified both by the underlying assumptions on which they are based and the range of uncertainties surrounding them.
  2. No. See answer to ( 1 ).
  3. No; see discussion of this matter in the Budget Speech and in Statement No. 2 attached thereto.
  4. See answer to (3). The use by the honourable member of the term ‘credit squeeze’ is of course entirely misleading.

Medical Benefits Schedule Revision Committee (Question No. 1535)

Dr Klugman:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 2 1 September 1977:

  1. 1 ) Who are the members of the Medical Benefits Schedule Revision Committee.
  2. What are the precise terms of his reference to them regarding item 6469.
Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

  1. The members of the Medical Benefits Schedule Revision Committee are:

Dr L. L. Wilson, VicePresident of the AMA. Dr J. E. Lee, Member of the Federal Council of the AMA.

Dr G. D. Repin, SecretaryGeneral, AMA.

Mr E. Wu, Director Fees Bureau, AMA.

Mr L. J. O’Keefe, Principal Medical Officer, Medical

Insurance Services Division, Department of Health. Mr P. R. Griffin, Assistant Director-General, Fees and

Benefits Branch, Department of Health.

Mr P. D. Willems, Director, Schedule Revision Section,

Department of Health.

Dr K. M. Doust Medical Director, Health Insurance

Commission.

  1. The question for consideration by the Schedule Revision Committee is whether the Medical Benefits Schedule should be amended so that medical benefits for abortions are paid only where the abortion has been performed on proper medical grounds and where the medical necessity for the performance of the procedure was determined by two medical practitioners.

Treasury: Foreign Investment Proposal (Question No. 1541)

Mr Keating:
BLAXLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 21 September 1977:

  1. With reference to the answer to question No. 1220, when did the Secretary of the Treasury first learn of the assertion that the foreign investment proposal referred to could have been influenced by certain financial considerations.
  2. When did the Secretary of the Treasury inform the treasurer about the assertion.
  3. Who is the ‘Australian source’ mentioned in the Treasurer’s reply.
  4. What is the name of the Australian firm mentioned in part ( 1 ) of the Treasurer’s reply and who are the principals alleged to have had connections with the former Government.
  5. Was Mr M. A. Besley the then Chairman of the Foreign Investment Advisory Committee of the Treasury when this assertion was passed on by the Department of Overseas Trade.
  6. Did Mr Besley reply on behalf of the Foreign Investment Advisory Committee to the Department of Overseas Trade.
  7. If so, did Mr Besley reply through the Secretary of the Treasury.
  8. Is the Foreign Investment Advisory Committee’s filing system separate from that of the Department of the Treasury.
  9. Was the Foreign Investment Advisory Committee file containing the Department of Overseas Trade’s letter and Mr Besley ‘s reply found to be missing.
  10. Will he table in Parliament his advice from the Treasury referred to in part (3) of his reply that no basis for any relationship between circumstances of the kind referred to and any of the cases that had been dealt with under foreign investment procedures was identified.
  11. Will he also table a copy of the correspondence between the Treasury and the Department of Overseas Trade advising that the Treasury had no knowledge of the kind of practice referred to in the assertion.
  12. In view of the identical nature of part (I) of the Treasurer’s reply and part ( 1 ) of the reply of the Department of Overseas Trade, why did the Treasury and the Department of Overseas Trade need to combine in answering the questions on this matter.
  13. What was the exact date on the letter, setting out the assertions of financial consideration, received by the Department of Overseas Trade and subsequently, Treasury.
Mr Eric Robinson:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

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

  1. Question No. 1220 appeared on the Notice Paper for 17 August. I am informed that the Secretary to the Treasury sighted the assertion referred to in the Treasurer’s answer to that question (that assertion being of course quite different in important respects from the unsubstantiated allegation advanced by the honourable member in his question) on the morning of 18 August 1977. As a result of processes he had put in hand directed towards the preparation of advice to the Treasurer concerning question No. 1220, a registered confidential file containing the letter from the Department of Overseas Trade conveying the assertion to the Treasury (and also a copy of the reply to that letter) was then delivered to him.
  2. On the morning of 18August 1977.
  3. As stated in the answers to questions Nos. 1220 and 1221, the submission to the Minister for Overseas Trade, in which the assertion referred to in those answers was made, was a confidential one.
  4. No name of any Australian firm or any principal thereof was mentioned in the assertion referred to in the submission in question. I am informed that the person who made the submission has recently affirmed that he has no information which would help to identify the company or persons which were the subject of the assertion.
  5. Mr Besley, in his capacity as First Assistant Secretary, Foreign Investment Division of the Treasury was at that time Chairman of the Foreign Investment Advisory Committee (now replaced by the Foreign Investment Review Board). That Committee was however not a Committee of the Treasury, as suggested by the honourable member, but an interdepartmental body.
  6. and (7) No; his reply was on behalf of the Treasury.
  7. The files of the Foreign Investment Division of the Treasury, which include Foreign Investment Advisory Committee papers, are located with the Division in a sub-registry of the Treasury Central Registry.
  8. No.
  9. and ( 1 1 ) In the interests of protecting the confidentiality of the source of the submission to the Minister for Overseas Trade and having regard to normal practice, I do not consider it appropriate to table either the advice or the correspondence referred to in these parts of the honourable member’s question. However, I can say that the reply to the Department of Overseas Trade, a copy of which I have sighted, indicated that checks had been made following receipt of the assertion that had been passed on by the Department of Overseas Trade but that these checks had drawn a blank. It should of course be noted that the assertion in question, unlike the allegation made by the honourable member in Question No. 1220, did not suggest any impropriety on the part of officials, but rather made an allegation that the principals of the Australian firm said to have been involved ad claimed to have connections with the previous Government.
  10. The Minister for Overseas Trade and the Treasurer agreed that as part ( 1 ) of question No. 1220 to the Treasurer and part (1) of question No. 1221 to the Minister were in large measure in identical terms, there should be consultation between the two departments, and between the Minister and the Treasurer, in providing answers to those questions. As the honourable member may recall from his own ministerial experience, this is the normal practice in such cases.
  11. 13) As stated in the answers to questions Nos. 1220 and 122 1 the assertion in question was put forward in a confidential submission to the Minister for Overseas Trade and not in a letter received by the Department of Overseas Trade.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 5 October 1977, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1977/19771005_reps_30_hor106/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant