House of Representatives
22 August 1978

31st Parliament · 1st Session



Mr SPEAKER (Rt Hon. Sir Billy Snedden) took the chair at 2. 15 p.m., and read prayers.

page 519

PETITIONS

The Clerk:

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

Medical Benefits: Abortions

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

  1. As Section 6469 on Health Refunds is the number for curette and abortion, to remove Medical Rebate for No. 6469 would be penalising thousands of women, (particularly those aged SO years and over) who must have a curette for medical reasons having nothing to do with pregnancy.
  2. Furthermore your petitioners desire to draw to the Government’s attention that removal of No. 6469 would trangress a woman ‘s right to the rebate available via medical health insurance.
  3. Furthermore, the removal of No. 6469 would be a discrimination against women, as rebates are paid for vasectomy and prostate operations for males.

Your petitioners strongly oppose the removal of No. 6469 from the Medical Rebate list and your petitioners, in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Malcolm Fraser, Mr Ewen Cameron and Mr Howe.

Petitions received.

Royal Commission on Human Relationships

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

That because the Report of the Royal Commission on Human Relationships and especially its Recommendations:

  1. Have been widely condemned for its support of unAustralian, anti-family, anti-child behaviour and morals such as incest, promiscuity, abortion, pornography, homosexuality, prostitution and brothels, etc. (Note: Refer quotations reverse side)
  2. Have been strongly criticised by the medical profession for the absence of any medical practitioner on the Commission or on its staff of 3 1 persons, and for the Commissioners action in rejecting or ignoring relevant medical evidence.
  3. Have been discredited as irresponsible in adopting a new definition of the family, i.e., “a varying range of people living together in relationships of commitment”, which has effectively confused the real meaning and intentions of the Report where it refers to the ‘ family ‘.

Therefore the Parliament has a responsibility to the families of Australia not to adopt this controversial Report and its Recommendations.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray:

That the Australian Parliament will:

  1. Simply receive the Report and not adopt its Recommendations,
  2. Set up a Select Parliamentary Committee along the lines of the New Zealand Select Committee to conduct a public inquiry into the ways and means of supporting and strengthening family life and providing adequate protection for children from physical and sexual abuse before as well as after binh in accordance with the U.N.O. Declaration of the Rights of the Child as pan of Australia’s support for the Year of the Child.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your honourable House will take no measures concerning the Royal Commission on Human Relationships Report that will further undermine and weaken marriage, child-care or the family which is the basic unit of our society.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray, by Mr Cadman, Mr Connolly and Mr Lucock. Petitions received.

Pensioners: Home Maintenance Loans

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

That it is necessary for the Commonwealth Government to renew for a further term of at least 3 years the States Grants (Dwellings for Pensioners) Act 1974-77, renewed for one year expiring on the 30th June 1978.

The demand for dwellings has not slackened as the waiting list (all States) of 12,060 single and 4,120 couples as at the 30th June 1 977, showeth.

Your petitioners respectfully draw the attention of the Commonwealth Government to the Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Aged Persons ‘ Housing 1975 under the Chairmanship of the Rev. K.. Seaman (now Governor of South Australia) which recommended additional funds to State housing authorities to meet the demand for low rental accommodation in the proportion of $4 for $ 1 with the proviso that the States do not reduce their existing expenditure and

That the Act include married pensioners eligible for supplementary assistance and migrants as specified by the Seaman Report and that particular consideration be paid to the special needs and requirements of the prospective tenants in the location and design of such dwellings.

Furthermore, your petitioners desire to draw the Government’s attention to the hardship of many pensioner home owners caused by the high cost of maintenance.

The Social Security Annual Report 1976-77 shows that 24.6 per cent, or 283,000 home owning pensioners, have a weekly income in excess of the pension of less than $6 per week.

Your petitioners strongly urge the Commonwealth Government to establish a fund whereby loans can be made to means tested pensioners for the purpose of effecting necessary maintenance to their homes. Such a loan to be at minimal interest rates sufficient to cover administrative costs and to be repaid by the estate upon the death of a single pensioner before probate or upon the death of the surviving spouse in the case of married pensioners or where two pensioners jointly own the dwelling. Administration to be carried out by local government bodies.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray, by Mr Malcolm Fraser and Mr Uren. Petitions received.

Citizen Forces: Long Service and Good Conduct Medals

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned members and ex-members of the Citizens Forces of Australia respectfully sheweth:

  1. On 14 February 1973, the then Australian Government deprived the Officers and men of the Australian Citizen Naval Military and Air Forces of the distinctive and historic Decorations and Medals for long service and good conduct, namely the Reserve Decoration, the Efficiency Decoration, the Air Efficiency Award, the Efficiency Medal and Long Service and Good Conduct Medals, awarded for long and meritorious voluntary service in the citizen forces:
  2. The proposed substitution of the National Medal for these Decorations and Medals varies the principle of selective recognition of efficient voluntary service in the citizen forces in that it recognises the period of service only and embraces also full time service as well in the defence forces as in the police, fire brigade and ambulance services:
  3. This deprivation caused and is continuing to cause serious discontent amongst personnel of the Citizens Forces who willingly and cheerfully give of their spare time outside their normal full time civilian careers, to serve Her Majesty and Australia:
  4. The Reserve Forces of Australia have been recognised by the present Government as a valuable- and costeffective component of the Defence Forces. Anomalously, whilst the Government is actually supporting recruiting for these Forces it has imposed and continued this deprivation which as foresaid has depressed the morale of the Citizen Forces:
  5. Her Majesty has not cancelled the said Decorations and Medals.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray:

Your Honourable House take appropriate action to resume the award of the several distinctive Reserve Forces Decorations and Medals for Long Service and Good Conduct to members of the Royal Australian Naval Reserve, Army Reserve (CMF) and the RAAF Citizens Air force. by Mr Howe and Mr Yates.

Petitions received.

Metric System

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

The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth objection to the Metric System and request the Government to restore the Imperial system.

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

Family Allowance

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

  1. It is believed that changes detrimental to mothers and children will be made to Family Allowances and

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that-

  1. . No Family Allowances be abolished or reduced and
  2. That no Family Allowances be means tested.

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

Paternity Leave

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

We deplore the intention of the Federal Government of Australia to abolish paternity leave. We urge the Government to retain paternity leave in its present form.

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

Medical Benefits: Abortions

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

That Item 6469 of the standard Medical Benefits Table is the means by which payment is made for the slaughter of thousands of unborn babies every year.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government should ensure that Item 6469 is removed from the standard Medical Benefits Table.

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

Frequency Modulation Broadcasting

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

That we, citizens of the Commonwealth, earnestly request our government to:

  1. Install an ABC FM Radio transmitter at Beni or Loxton for the Riverland Region of South Australia.

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

Cadet Forces Medal

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

Whereas by administrative order dated the 14th day of February, 1975 the then Australian Government deprived the Officers, Warrant Officers and Other Ranks of the Australian Cadet Forces of their distinctive and traditional award, the Cadet Forces Medal,

And whereas no form of particular recognition for long and meritorious service to the Cadet Forces of Australia was instituted in its stead,

And whereas the qualifications for the award of the National Medal precludes the said Officers, Warrant Officers and Other Ranks from an entitlement thereto,

And whereas the deprivation of an award for recognition of such service aforementioned has caused, and is continuing to cause serious discontent amongst personnel of the Australian Cadet Forces who willingly and cheerfully give up their spare time, outside their normal full time civilian careers, to Her Majesty and the Youth of Australia.

And further, as Her Majesty has not cancelled the said Medal,

Now therefore we, your petitioners humbly pray that,

Your Honourable House will take appropriate action to resume the award of the Cadet Forces Medal for long and meritorious service to members of the Australian Cadet Forces who currently have no entitlement to any form of recognition for such services rendered.

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

Unemployment

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

  1. . we petition that the Australian Government should take urgent action to reduce the level of unemployment.
  2. we request that the Government makes firm and public commitments regarding its policies for the reduction of unemployment.
  3. we request that these commitments include target dates for the progressive reduction of unemployment.

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

Atomic Reactor

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 they oppose the construction of any additional reactor at the Australian Atomic Energy Establishment at Lucas Heights in NSW.

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

Medibank

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

That, contrary to election promises, the Federal Government is progressively dismantling Medibank to the detriment of those most in need and, in the long run, at the expense of national health.

Your Petitioners most humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, should- retain bulk billing; ensure that there be no decrease in refund rates; ensure that long term hospital patients be not penalised; continue refunds on termination of pregnancy; pledge that no further cuts in Medibank be made. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray, by Dr Klugman.

Petition received.

Pensions: Lone Parents

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 say that we are concerned about the discrimination which exists against the children of those parents who are in receipt of the Supporting Parents Benefit in comparison with children of Single Parents who receive the Widows Pension. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that Parliament take immediate steps to ensure that this year’s budget allow for Lone Parents to be given the right to receive a pension with the same benefits as are given with the Widows Pension, and we also request that Parliament take immediate action to instigate one (1) category of Lone Parent Pension to eliminate the discrimination currently experienced.

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

Television Programs

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members in the House of Representatives assembled: We the undersigned, humbly petition the federal government about the standard of programs available to the viewing public from the television stations (ABC 3 and TNT 9) in Tasmania.

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

Launceston: Aircraft Noise

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We the undersigned wish to protest against excessive aircraft noise directly over Launceston.

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

Medical Costs

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

That the changes to Medibank will increase the cost of medical care for all persons;

That the increase in the gap between the amount the patient pays and the amount received from the funds will cause hardship for many patients;

That the restriction on bulk-billing will deter many people, especially low income earners, from seeking medical care.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government will take action to ensure that there is no increase in the cost of medical care for the individual person, by allowing the difference between the amount the patient pays and the amount received from the funds to remain at 15 percent and allowing bulk billing for those who need it.

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

National Family Policy

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 family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the state’.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the government initiate a national family policy and use the concept of family impact statements as a means highlighting family needs.

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

Unemployment Beneficiaries: Identity Cards

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

Your petitioners wish to express concern at the proposal which Mr Anthony has said the Government is considering, that unemployed people should carry identity cards with a photograph and unemployment benefit number;

Whereas we believe this would be discriminatory against a section of the population who are already stigmatized by not being able to find employment; and

Whereas the Myers Enquiry into Unemployment Benefit Policy and Administration recommended against the introduction of a Social Security Identification Card; and

Whereas such a policy would be expensive to establish, your petitioners wish to register disapproval of use of their money in such a way, when it could be better put to use to help alleviate the distress of unemployment.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled should ensure:

That a public statement be issued that such a proposal will be abandoned.

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

page 522

MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
Prime Minister · Wannon · LP

- Mr Speaker, I inform the House that the Minister for Special Trade Representations (Mr Garland) left Australia on 19 August to attend a meeting of Trade Ministers in New Delhi. He is expected to return on 29 August. During his absence the Minister for Trade and Resources (Mr Anthony) will act as Minister for Special Trade Representations.

page 522

INVASION OF CZECHOSLOVAKIA BY WARSAW PACT FORCES: TENTH ANNIVERSARY

Notice of Motion

Mr HODGMAN:
Denison

– I give notice that on the next day of sitting I shall move:

That this House records with profound sadness the tenth anniversary of the invasion of Czechoslavakia by Soviet-led Warsaw Pact forces in the spring of 1968; the tragic loss of life, the continuing violations of basic human rights, including the open persecution of the Charter 77 Movement, and calls for the immediate withdrawal from Czechoslovakia of over 70 000 Soviet troops.

1980 OLYMPIC GAMES: VENUE

Notice of Motion

Mr HODGMAN:
Denison

– I give notice that on the next day of sitting I shall move:

That in the opinion of this House the Soviet Union has by its continuing violations of basic human rights revealed itself to be unfit to be the host nation of the 1980 Olympic Games.

page 522

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

page 522

QUESTION

ELECTORAL REDISTRIBUTION INQUIRY

Mr HAYDEN:
OXLEY, QUEENSLAND

-Did the Minister for Home Affairs attend a meeting of Ministers on or about 8 August at which the evidence of the Minister for Finance to the McGregor Royal Commission was discussed? Was any suggestion made to the Minister for Finance at that meeting that the evidence he gave to the Royal Commission might have been based on an unclear recollection of events in the Prime Minister’s suite on 17 January? Did he give any advice to the Minister for Finance?

Mr ELLICOTT:
Minister for Home Affairs · WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– It is a pity honourable members opposite do not ask me questions relating to my portfolio. I have been sitting there for weeks. However, I was present at a meeting of Ministers on the afternoon on 8 August and I read a statement that the Prime Minister put out yesterday. My recollection of what took place at that meeting is consistent with the Prime Minister’s asking Mr Robinson to write a letter to the effect- as to his recollection- of the draft that was produced yesterday. On that occasion, when the matter was raised, I said to those present that I thought that Mr Robinson would be unwise to sign anything unless he checked it with- unless it was consistent with- his evidence. I suggested that he should read his evidence, and all those present, including the Prime Minister, Mr Lynch, Mr Sinclair and Mr Robinson, agreed.

Subsequently, at a meeting of Ministers, my recollection is that I suggested, when the matter was raised, that Mr Robinson should get advice in relation to the matter and those present, so far as I was aware, agreed; and subsequent to that meeting, when whatever business I had to do with it was completed, I said to Mr Robinson outside the meeting that I thought that he should not sign anything until he got advice from his counsel, Mr Hughes.

page 523

QUESTION

BUDGET: DEMONSTRATION IN SYDNEY

Mr SAINSBURY:
EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Has the Prime Minister seen reports of a violent demonstration in Sydney yesterday? Will he tell the House what the Government’s attitude is towards such demonstrations?

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
LP

– I have seen reports of the violent demonstration in Sydney. It is quite plain that the violence flowed from a meeting held under the auspices of the Leader of the Opposition and of the Premier of New South Wales. I must say that I am rather surprised at the Premier of New South Wales associating in that kind of violent demonstration, which hitherto has been uncharacteristic of him.

Opposition members interjecting-

Mr Scholes:

-Mr Speaker, on a point of order, my understanding is that it is improper to impute motives -

A Government member- Sit down, you big log.

Mr Scholes:

– I hope your heard that interjection, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable member for Corio will resume his seat. I heard an interjection; I do not know whence it came, but I would like the honourable member who used the term to withdrawn.

Mr Bourchier:

– I withdraw, Mr Speaker.

Mr Scholes:

-Mr Speaker, my understanding is that it is improper for a member of this House to -

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable member will resume his seat. I gather from the reaction to the statement by the honourable member for Bendigo who is the Government Whip that there is some doubt in the minds of other honourable members as to whether he in fact used the term. I ask the honourable member: Did you in fact use the term?

Mr Bourchier:

- Mr Speaker, I said that there was no doubt that they had been doing a fair bit of imputing against characters in the past few weeks themselves. Whether that was the remark you meant -

Mr SPEAKER:

-No, that was not the remark I meant. It is not my practice to ask -

Mr Bourchier:

– Do you mean that I do not have to withdraw that, Mr Speaker?

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable gentleman, as Government Whip, ought to give some thought to the dignity of the House.

Mr Scholes:

– My understanding, Mr Speaker, is that it is improper for an honourable member to impute improper motives to another honourable member of this House. In the earlier part of the Prime Minister’s answer he indicated to the House a charge that the Leader of the Opposition was involved in the organisation of violent demonstrations in New South Wales. The Prime Minister made the same charge against the Premier of New South Wales who is a member of another Parliament. I submit that both charges are improper charges to be made by the Prime Minister. Such a charge against the Leader of the Opposition by the Prime Minister should be made in the form of a substantive motion and not in answer to a question, especially as the statements are totally untrue.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable gentleman will resume his seat. There is no point of order.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

-The Opposition seems to be mildly sensitive this afternoon. The violence flowed from a meeting which was organised by the Leader of the Opposition and the Premier of New South Wales. I think the honourable gentleman could deny that for a thousand years and nobody would believe him. But there would be nothing new in that because nobody does believe him. People at the demonstration attacked the Sydney Stock Exchange, injuring several people and causing thousands of dollars of damage, and the Opposition -

Mr Holding:

– It was condemned by the Premier of New South Wales.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

– If it has been condemned by the Premier of New South Wales, has it been condemned by the Leader of the Opposition?

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The right honourable gentleman will resume his seat.

Dr Klugman:

– God, you are a liar, Fraser.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable member for Prospect will withdraw that remark.

Dr Klugman:

-I withdraw it, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I ask honourable members on my left to listen to the answer in silence.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

– We all know that there is an old technique in public speaking- the technique of arousing people to fever pitch and inciting them to do something, then for the speaker to deny that which they do although he had suggested that they should do it. The demonstration caused thousands of dollars of damage and caused injury to many people. This Government is certainly committed to freedom of dissent and demonstration, but it totally rejects violence which is corrosive of fundamental democratic rights. This Government will not have a bar of that. The Leader of the Opposition, by the extremism of his language and by distorting the facts of the Budget, lent legitimacy to the violent minority that he unleashed. He demanded that the mob sustain its anger.

Mr Young:

– On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek to have the speech made yesterday by the Leader of the Opposition incorporated in Hansard.

Mr SPEAKER:

-There is no point of order.

Mr Young:

– I seek leave to have the speech incorporated in Hansard.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Is leave granted?

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable gentleman will resume his seat.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

-The Leader of the Opposition demanded that the mob sustain its anger. If those words are not an incitement to violence I do not know what they are. We need to remember what the predecessor to the Leader of the Opposition said, namely, the words ‘maintain their rage ‘. For months and years he sought to have people maintain their rage against Sir John Kerr in a most disreputable and dishonourable manner. The language of the present Leader of the Opposition is the same. I regret that the present Leader of the Opposition lacks the qualifications that will enable him to retire into academic life in the way his predecessor has. Let us look at what the Leader of the Opposition said about the rally. He said of the rally:

It is a demonstration of the spontaneous feeling of resentment, alienation, disaffection within the community. It first of all serves a very important purpose within our society. It allows people to let off steam and is less harmful than some alternatives that happen in other societies.

He said that it allowed people to let off steam. It allowed people to go to the Stock Exchange, cause a considerable amount of damage and injure a large number of people. Is that letting off steam in the terms of the Leader of the Opposition? Australia will know how to judge that sort of apologia for violence. The business community and all Australians who have hardearned savings invested in productive enterprise will know how to judge the attack on the Sydney Stock Exchange. The Leader of the Opposition should abandon apologias for violence. He should repudiate those of his followers who use violence against people and property as a means of gaining political ends.

page 524

QUESTION

ELECTORAL REDISTRIBUTION INQUIRY

Mr HAYDEN:

– I ask the Minister for Home Affairs a question that is supplementary to that which I asked of him a few minutes ago. It is, of course, in relation to the meeting on or about 8 August which he discussed a few minutes ago.

Mr Martyr:

– How do you spell ‘induced ‘?

Mr HAYDEN:

– I would not mind some silence from the Government side. I think I am entitled to it.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable gentleman will continue with his question.

Mr HAYDEN:

– I ask the Minister for Home Affairs: Did the Minister for Finance volunteer that his recollection of events in the Prime Minister’s suite on 17 January, which he related in evidence to the McGregor Royal Commission, might have been based on an unclear recollection or was this suggested to him as a possibility?

Mr ELLICOTT:
LP

– Not to my knowledge.

page 524

QUESTION

AUGUST LOAN

Mr SHORT:
BALLARAT, VICTORIA

– My question is directed to the Treasurer. I refer to the Government’s August loan, which closed yesterday. Is the Treasurer able to give the House details of the outcome of the loan and the implications it has for the Government’s economic strategy, which is a strategy that is widely accepted by the great majority of the Australian community?

Mr HOWARD:
Treasurer · BENNELONG, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– As it happens, I am able to give the honourable gentleman and the House an indication of the outcome of the loan. I am pleased to inform the House that the loan has gone rather well. The final figures are not available, due in part to the unfortunate state of communications in Australia at present. The loan will have raised in excess of $760m, which is a record for a cash loan in Australia since Federation. It is undoubtedly a magnificent result for both the Government and the Australian community. It represents a resounding endorsement of the strategy of the Budget. It is an illustration of the confidence of a broad spectrum of the investing community of Australia in the objectives of the Government insofar as inflation and interest rates are concerned. It is also an illustration of the improved perceptions overseas of the stability of the Australian economy.

Whilst it is still too early for me to give a precise breakup of the bank and non-bank contributions to the cash loan, the preliminary indications are that the percentage represented by the non-bank take-up was extremely favourable and very much in line with a non-inflationary and most satisfactory funding of the Budget deficit this year. This result confirms in an unambiguous way very strong support for the Government’s current economic strategy. It cannot be other than extremely good news not only for the cause of lower inflation but also the cause of lower interest rates in the Australian community.

page 525

QUESTION

ELECTORAL REDISTRIBUTION INQUIRY

Mr HAYDEN:

-Did the Minister for Finance tell the McGregor Royal Commission that Senator Withers ‘informed the Prime Minister in my presence of his role in the change of name’- of course, referring to the Gold Coast electorate- at the meeting between the Minister, Senator Withers and the Prime Minister on 17 January? Did the Minister tell the Royal Commission that the first time he- that is, the Minister for Finance- ‘was aware precisely of what Senator Withers had done was in fact when Senator Withers mentioned it to the Prime Minister”? I ask also: Did the Minister for Finance confirm the accuracy of this evidence at meetings at which he was present and which were attended by the Prime Minister, on 7 and 8 August?

Mr Eric Robinson:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

-I do not have the transcript of my evidence in front of me now- I have it with me- but, from recollection, the sections of the transcript which the Leader of the Opposition has read out are accurate. I invite the Leader of the Opposition, and anybody else who wants to do so, to look at the totality of the evidence. There are 100 pages of evidence attributed to me and well in excess of 2,000 pages of evidence throughout the Royal Commission. Of course the Leader of the Opposition was away for a considerable part of the time. No doubt he is taking a real interest in it now. I invite him to look at the totality of the evidence. The discussion on the dates mentioned by the Leader of the Opposition did not encompass the totality of the evidence.

page 525

QUESTION

INCOME TAX: STATES’ SHARE

Mr McVEIGH:
DARLING DOWNS, QUEENSLAND · NCP

– Is the Prime Minister aware that a population error revealed by the 1976 Census has resulted in Queensland’s being disadvantaged in the guarantee floor agreement to the extent of $ 14m in relation to all other

States in its share of the personal income tax pool for 1978-79? Has the Prime Minister received an urgent request from the Deputy Premier and Treasurer of Queensland, Mr Knox, urging that swift action be taken by him to ensure that Queensland’s share of the tax pool will be raised accordingly? If so, can the Prime Minister make a statement verifying the error and acknowledging that Queensland is entitled to these moneys forthwith, in time for Queensland ‘s Budget on 2 1 September?

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
LP

-Mr Knox did telex me on 4 August, the date on which heads of Commonwealth and State Treasuries were meeting in Canberra. The question of population floor figures was raised at that meeting and it was agreed that Queensland officers would urgently prepare a draft of a paper for governments to which Commonwealth officers would respond as quickly as possible. The matter was also raised at the recent Premiers Conference and a further report was sought from officers. I am not in a position to make any statements until the reports, particularly the Queensland report, have been received and we are waiting on those reports. I think it is worth noting that the purpose of the guarantee to the States is simply to make sure that in the early transitional years of tax sharing no State gets less than would have been received under the old formula.

To patch up the old system by making adjustments for a 1 976 population error is not consistent with the concept of moving to the new system. I think it is also worth noting that Queensland’s relative position is determined by the Grants Commission when considering special assistance to the States. Queensland will be receiving $2 1.7m in special grants this financial year, of which $ 16m is an advance grant in respect of 1978-79. As to the claim that Queensland has been disadvantaged by $14m, the position, as I am advised, is that the Grants Commission’s recommendation of an advance of $16m for 1978-79 was based on a tax sharing entitlement almost identical with the Budget estimate. If Queensland received more in tax sharing grants, it follows, I am advised, that the amount of special assistance would have been reduced accordingly. Therefore, on that basis I doubt whether an adjustment would have made any difference to the financial position of Queensland. I say that without prejudice and having regard to the fact that we are waiting for reports from Queensland.

page 526

QUESTION

ELECTORAL REDISTRIBUTION INQUIRY

Mr HAYDEN:

– Did the Minister for Finance dictate the draft note to the Prime Minister which was released by the Prime Minister yesterday? Did anyone suggest to him beforehand a possible outline for the note? Did he destroy his copy of the note? Why did he decide against sending the note?

Mr Eric Robinson:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

– The draft note which was released yesterday was the first basis of a possible letter to the Prime Minister. It was dictated to a member of his staff following his request- I might add, a request in good faith. Let us have that quite clearly on the record.

Mr Hayden:

– Who dictated it?

Mr Eric Robinson:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

-Does the Leader of the Opposition want to interject or to know the facts? What is his object? Does he want to know the facts?

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I ask honourable members on my left to permit the Minister to answer in silence.

Mr Eric Robinson:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

– The Minister for Home Affairs has already indicated quite clearly that as I received the draft he tendered advice to me. The advice, as he said, was to check with legal advisers and to re-read the transcript. I reread the transcript and I came to the conclusion that no letter I could write to the Prime Minister would add anything.

Mr Hayden:

– Did you dictate the draft?

Mr Eric Robinson:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

-Yes, I dictated the draft.

Mr Hayden:

– With any help or advice?

Mr Eric Robinson:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

-I do not need help to dictate. I came to the conclusion that no letter I could write to the Prime Minister would add anything to the evidence which I gave the Royal Commission and which I stand by. I also got advice that had I communicated with the Prime Minister there was a risk that such a communication would have the appearance of being contrived and that should be avoided. I thought that was very good advice. I advised the Prime Minister of my decision. He agreed with it and had independently come to the same conclusion himself.

page 526

QUESTION

INTERNATIONAL AIR FARES

Mr BAILLIEU:
LA TROBE, VICTORIA

– Has the attention of the Minister for Transport been drawn to a report in this morning’s Press concerning a new aviation policy announced by the American President which it is claimed will offer cheaper fares to the

American travelling public? Will the Minister tell the House whether similar policies are being proposed for the benefit of the Australian travelling public as a result of the reviews of aviation recently completed and the current negotiations with the British Government on new air fares to London? Will the Minister also inform the House of the latest position regarding the application of Continental Airlines Inc. as it applies to Australia?

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

– I will take the last part of the honourable member’s question first. I said last week that a team was to leave for America, I think next week, to discuss the Continental Airlines question and also the question of air fares on the Australia-America route. Unfortunately we received a message from the Americans today asking that these talks be postponed because of some difficulties that the Americans had run into at their end. That means that the discussions in respect of the proposed entry of Continental Airlines to the Australian route and the air fare arrangements will have to be held over to a date to be fixed. As I have said on earlier occasions, the Australian Government does not mind whether it is Continental Airlines or Timbuktu Airlines that operates to Australia from America. That is not a matter for us. What is a matter for us is the total capacity on the route. The whole question of cheaper air fares bears down pretty heavily on the total capacity on the route. We hold the view that it is impossible to lower the air fares if there are more and more empty seats on flights across the Pacific. The question that we have raised with the Americans is how they can lower the air fare when they want to fly more and more empty seats across the Pacific. That will be one of the substantial matters to be discussed when the Americans finally fix a date for the discussion.

In respect of the proposition in general, what we as a government are seeking to obtain is a range of air fares which is non-discriminatory. In other words, if anybody walks in off the street and wants the lower range of air fares that we are seeking to obtain he should be able to obtain it. That cheaper air fare ought to be applicable on all routes in and out of Australia. I think that that approach is slightly different in concept from the one that President Carter is taking. The Americans have 240 million people in their country. They run nearly half the world’s airlines. I think that President Carter is adopting a let her rip’ policy, believing that American companies can withstand all the competition, and not having much regard for smaller countries such as Australia and many other countries around the world and not taking into account their priorities and the views that they might hold on the matter. Having said that, let me say that when we get to America ultimately we will discuss this matter in a proper, sensible and rational way. I believe that ultimately we will achieve on the American route the same sort of fare structure that we are trying to achieve on other routes throughout the world.

page 527

QUESTION

ELECTORAL REDISTRIBUTION INQUIRY

Mr HAYDEN:

– I ask a question of the Minister for Finance. When he dictated the note, a copy of which was released by the Prime Minister last night, did he have doubts about the accuracy of his evidence concerning events on 17 January in the Prime Minister’s suite? If so, exactly why did he entertain those doubts? Precisely, what subsequently destroyed those doubts? Does he harbour any doubts now?

Mr Eric Robinson:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

-I have made it perfectly clear to the Leader of the Opposition that the evidence I gave that Royal Commission was given on oath and with good faith, and I do not entertain any doubts about that evidence at all, none at all. Could I answer one section of a question of the Leader of the Opposition that I did not answer earlier- did I destroy the letter? Yes, I did, the morning after.

page 527

QUESTION

ELECTORAL DISTRIBUTION PROPOSALS

Mr GRAHAM:
NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Will the Minister representing the Minister for Administrative Services table research papers analysing the distribution proposals of the five States other than Queensland which were sent to the Chairman of the Distribution Commission in each State?

Mr STREET:
Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations · CORANGAMITE, VICTORIA · LP

– Yes, I table those papers. I point out to the House that the Australian Electoral Office over the years has adopted the practice of preparing research papers on a variety of electoral matters including analyses of initial proposals prepared by Distribution Commissioners. Analyses of initial proposals by Distribution Commissioners have been prepared at least since 1973 for the information of the Electoral Office and the Minister responsible for the Commonwealth Electoral Act. Research papers are disseminated to State offices of the Australian Electoral Office in order to keep them abreast of developments which may affect their day to day operations.

The analyses of the 1977 initial proposals of the Distribution Commissioners, which I have just tabled were not circulated to the States, as has been alleged by the Opposition, on 15 August 1978 at the direction of Senator Withers. The Australian Electoral Office has advised that Senator Withers was unaware of the distribution to the State offices, which was done by the central office of the Australian Electoral Office merely as part of the administrative process to which I have referred. The initials on the covering note to the Queensland office to which reference has been made are those of the Director of Research in the Australian Electoral Office, Dr R. P. L. Howie, and not those of Senator Withers, the then Minister.

page 527

QUESTION

ELECTORAL REDISTRIBUTION INQUIRY

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
KINGSFORD-SMITH, NEW SOUTH WALES

-I direct my question to the Prime Minister. I refer him to the sworn evidence of Senator Withers to the McGregor Royal Commission on 7 June last wherein Senator Withers stated that the question of the change of name and other allegations by the honourable member for Fadden were discussed by the Government prior to 27 October last year and that it was decided by the Government that all allegations would be ignored. I ask the Prime Minister whether his memory allows him to confirm whether he was present at that discussion? If so, who else was present?

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
LP

-At the time, there was one allegation running around. The allegation was- I repeat it but I make no charge and give it no support- as I heard it, that the then honourable member for Lang, the honourable member for Grayndler, had got a set of New South Wales electoral maps earlier than he should have. Somebody asked me whether we should do anything about this. I asked whether there was any evidence and I was told no, that there was no evidence. When there are redistributions there are generally allegations that one person gets a map earlier than he should. Indeed, in all my political life there have been allegations in one way or another running around at the time of redistributions. But there was no evidence. The consensus certainly was that there should be no pursuit of an allegation without evidence. That was the only occasion in my recollectionrecords of Cabinet have been checked on this matter- when anything of that kind was discussed.

page 527

QUESTION

TAXATION: STATE ENTITLEMENTS

Mr MILLAR:
WIDE BAY, QUEENSLAND

– Will the Treasurer inform the House whether the Vi per cent increase in the standard taxation rate as announced in the

Budget will be taken into consideration when allocating money to the States and local authorities under formulas that currently apply?

Mr HOWARD:
LP

-The short answer to the honourable gentleman’s question is yes but I think it is necessary to add to that. In practical terms it is very unlikely that it will result in the amount of money to be received by the States under the tax sharing arrangements in 1979-80 being increased. It is anticipated that under the arrangements as they now exist all States in 1979-80 will receive funds on the guaranteed basis. Even if we added the additional $570m to the amount of money against which the formula is applied, the figure would still not be above the guaranteed figure. Under the arrangements the greater of the product of applying the percentage or the guaranteed amount is received.

I should make clear to the House that what is involved is a simple increase in the standard rate of tax. The Government does not propose to invoke the provisions of section 5 of the income tax sharing arrangements with the States which gives to the Treasurer of the day the power to declare that a particular increment in personal income tax represents a special surcharge. We will not be declaring this increase a special surcharge. It is a simple addition. As I am advised at present, and as is my understanding, the practical consequence is the same because of the operation of the financial arrangements. I should add that the effect of the increase in tax will be to increase the amount of the tax sharing base for local government. So when the current percentage- I think it is 1.52 per cent of income tax- is applied to income tax collections local government will receive an increased amount as a result of the increase of 1 Vi per cent.

page 528

QUESTION

ELECTORAL REDISTRIBUTION INQUIRY

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:

-I refer the Prime Minister to the sworn evidence of Senator Withers on 22 May, 6 June and 7 June and the sworn evidence of the Minister for Finance, Mr Eric Robinson, on 6 June which clearly indicates that the Prime Minister knew at least seven months ago, and possibly 10 months ago, that Senator Withers had discussed the electorate name change with the Chief Australian Electoral Officer, Mr Pearson. I also refer the Prime Minister to his own admission- even allowing for any lapse of memory- that he knew on 16 April of Senator Withers’ involvement and that the Attorney-General was concerned about that involvement. Why then were the terms of reference announced on 24 April framed in such a way as to prevent the Royal Commissioner from making any finding in relation to Senator Withers? Which persons were responsible for drafting those terms of reference? Was the National Director of the Liberal Party, Mr Eggleton, consulted in any way or informed prior to 24 April about the terms of reference?

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
LP

– I think the honourable gentleman covers a fair deal in a short compass. It ought to be noted, without in any sense challenging or questioning- as I never have because I accepted it- the evidence of Eric Robinson before the Royal Commission, that in the Statement in the Senate on 4 November, other discussions between Senator Withers and Senator Durack immediately after 17 January, discussions in which Senator Withers and Senator Durack were jointly involved with me and other Ministers on 10 April, and discussions, which were quite lengthy ones, with the honourable member for Griffith- in all of those instances the question of the ‘phone call was not mentioned and I have heard no suggestion that it had been mentioned. I make those points only because there were occasions on which the phone call, its substance and its purpose could have been mentioned. The Attorney-General, when he heard of this matter through the Solicitor-General, who heard of it through the Chief Electoral Officer, Mr Pearson, after consultation with Senator Withers, came to me and was concerned. As he was concerned about the matter, obviously I was concerned.

On 23 and 24 April the matters principally before us were the charges against Eric Robinson, which had been made many times, and also against the electoral commissioners. We were also concerned that all the evidence would come forward before the Royal Commission. I think it is not unnatural, since allegations had been made in relation to Eric Robinson and the electoral commissioners, that, as to findings, Ministers would be concentrating on that particular issue. But, as to substance, the Attorney-General in the name of the Government made it perfectly plain that all the evidence was to come forward. Indeed, the Attorney-General took specific action to make sure that the Royal Commission would have all the evidence available to it, including all the evidence relating to the change of name and Senator Withers’ role in it, because there were letters from Senator Withers in relation to that and from Mr Pearson in relation to that. These matters were all put plainly before the Royal Commission. Therefore- and subsequent events demonstrate this- the Royal Commision, as the original terms were drawn, was fully capable of eliciting all the information, and so it did. Then at a later point in May the full thrust of Mr Pearson’s evidence became available. There was other evidence made available also. There were debates in the Senate which threw into notice the statement on 4 November. It was against that total background that the Government determined that the terms of reference as to findings should be altered to encompass any person- any politician, any public servant- in the Commission’s own judgment.

page 529

QUESTION

HOUSING INDUSTRY: BUDGET IMPACT

Mr CADMAN:
MITCHELL, NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is addressed to the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development. The Minister would be aware of the concern expressed by housing industry representatives at the reduced number of building commencements last financial year. What impact will the Budget have on the housing industry? Will the Budget help and encourage the building industry and home buyers?

Mr GROOM:
Minister Assisting the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations · BRADDON, TASMANIA · LP

-I thank the honourable member for his question. Certainly the Budget will be of great assistance to home buyers and the home building industry in Australia, mainly because the central theme of the Budget, which is to get inflation and interest rates down, is the best way of creating a favourable climate for the home building industry in this country. So the general approach is the right one. I believe the decisions made in the Budget are the right ones. I mention the decisions on welfare housing, pensioner housing and the home savings grant. Under the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement we are providing to the States an amount of $3 16m for welfare housing and of that amount $ 130m will be by way of matching grants. Those funds, together with the surpluses which are created through the sale of houses within the States, will, the Government believes, ensure that the States will have the same capacity as they had in the last financial year to provide rental and purchase accommodation within the States.

In this year ‘s Budget we are providing $ 1 4m to the States by way of a non-repayable grant for pensioner housing, and that figure compares with $10m allocated in the last financial year. So the amount of funds being provided for pensioner housing represents a 40 per cent increase. I think that indicates the real concern on the part of this Government for those in need- for our pensioners. We are providing $20m in this financial year by way of home savings grants. There was some suggestion that that scheme was under threat. It remains, and the eligibility rules remain. The maximum grant will be the same as was indicated previously; that is, from 1 January 1979 people will become eligible for a maximum grant of $2,000. There will be a waiting period, and the Treasurer made a statement in that regard in his Budget Speech.

The main point is that people who are considering the housing situation and the advantages gained from the Budget by the housing industry and by home purchasers should not overlook the enormous benefits to be gained in respect of housing through a lower rate of inflation and through reduced interest rates. By way of example- this is only by way of example- if we look at an average loanMr SPEAKER-Order ! I ask the Minister to draw his answer to a conclusion.

Mr GROOM:

-I will be very brief. A 0.5 per cent reduction in the interest rate on a loan of $25,000 being repaid over 25 years will mean a saving in the order of $9 a month, the total saving over the period of the loan being $2,600. Again by way of example, a one per cent reduction in respect of such a loan would result in a saving of $ 1 8 a month and a total saving over the period of the loan of $5,300. A 1.5 per cent reduction in the interest rate on an average loan taken out over an average period would mean a saving of the order of $26 a month or a total saving over the period of the loan of $7,900. That is real money; no one can dispute that.

There has been a dramatic reduction in the rate of increase in the cost of materials used in home building. For example, in the last financial year the rate of increase was 6.6 per cent, which was about half the rate of increase in the previous financial year. Those results prove that our general economic approach is working and will be of great benefit to home buyers in Australia and to the home building industry. I would like to say much more but I do not have time.

page 529

QUESTION

HOME SAVINGS GRANT SCHEME

Mr UREN:
REID, NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question follows that just asked but it is directed to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to a Cabinet submission dated 31 October 1977 in which the then Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development claimed that, without a period of waiting time, the appropriation for the home savings grant for 1 978-79 would be $76m. Does the cut to $20m this year for this scheme mean that 37,000 of the 50,000 applicants will not receive a grant this year? Is the Prime Minister aware that those applicants who apply now for the grant are being told that they cannot get that payment until 1 July 1979? Does the Prime Minister agree that the statement made on the radio program A.M. on 16 August, namely, that the change will mean a delay of only a few months in the payment of the money, is misleading at the least?

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
LP

-A delay in payment will be involved in the allocation made to the home savings grant scheme. I point out that for many years there has been a delay in the payment of government loans under the war service homes scheme and then the defence service homes scheme. I am not at all sure of the equity of having a system under which the home savings grant would seem to have a preferred position in relation to that of the defence service homes grant. But that is as may be. There has been a delay in that arena for a very long while. There will be a delay in relation to the home savings grant and we have not sought to hide that.

One of the reasons why the honourable gentlemen from the Australian Labor Party, and their violent cohorts in Sydney or elsewhere, fail utterly to understand the general public reaction to this Budget is that overwhelmingly the people of Australia know that there is a job to be done in relation to this economy. They know overwhelmingly that they want interest rates to come down; they want the inflation rate to come down. They have got that 5 per cent target as the light on the hill, as the next step, within about 9, 10 or 1 1 months’ time, and they know quite well that this is establishing the circumstance in which all people will be advantaged. Whether they are pensioners, whether they are people who are going to build or buy a home; whether it is in small business or in large business, people will be advantaged by low rates of inflation and low interest rates within the Australian community. They know quite well that they can respect, and they do respect, a government that has the courage to introduce the policies that are right, the policies that will encourage investment, the policies that will get jobs moving, the policies that will lead to capital inflow into this country, which the Opposition cut off, which the Opposition destroyed through its policies. I believe that overwhelmingly individual groups throughout Australia, whilst they may not like a particular decision in one arena or another, know in total that this Budget is doing what is right for Australia, and that it therefore has overwhelming support and respect.

page 530

QUESTION

FAMILY ALLOWANCE

Mr NEIL:
ST GEORGE, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Has the attention of the Treasurer been directed to criticism of the Budget decision to means-test payment of the family allowance, on the basis of” the child’s income? Will this decision be reviewed?

Mr HOWARD:
LP

-My attention has been directed to that criticism, and I should point out to the House that when taking that decision in Budget Cabinet, the Government did have in mind circumstances where, as the result of trusts and other income-splitting devices, children received separate income while their parents continued to receive the family allowance. The Government is concerned to ensure that the decision does not have any unintended consequences, particularly in cases where children receive small amounts of income as a result of part-time jobs. In the light of comments that have been made on this particular matter not only by honourable gentlemen on, I might say, both sides of the House, but also elsewhere, the Government has decided to review this decision. I will indicate the results of that review very shortly.

page 530

PRIVILEGE: RULING OF SPEAKER

Mr SCHOLES:
Corio

-I wish to raise a matter concerning a ruling you made, Mr Speaker, on privilege.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I will hear it.

Mr SCHOLES:

-Mr Speaker, on Wednesday you made a ruling on a matter of privilege raised by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Hayden) in which you indicated that on the basis of what had been placed before you, there was not a prima facie case for the matter to go to the Privileges Committee. You also indicated that it was not the responsibility of that committee to carry out an investigation, but rather to judge on facts.

On a radio program, and repeated on the television program Four Corners, the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) indicated that your ruling had, in fact, supported the substance of his statements that claims against him had been completely refuted. Mr Speaker, I ask you to take that statement and your ruling into consideration, as my understanding would be that the basis of your ruling was merely that a matter of privilege, in the terms of the Standing Orders, was not established to the extent that precedence would be given. If the basis of such rulings is to be taken outside the House and said to mean that you have, in fact, judged the substance of the matter and given a judicial decision, your position and the position of privilege in general must be undermined. I ask you to take that into consideration with the statement of the Prime Minister, which I table for your information, from a transcript.

Mr SPEAKER:

– What I said is in Hansard The words are clear. People are free to construe them in any way they like. When an issue of privilege comes up, I will rule on that. But I certainly am not going to turn my mind back to a past ruling. What I said is in the Hansard record. I am reminded by the Clerk that the honourable member for Corio purported to table a paper. Does he seek leave to table it?

Mr Scholes:

– Yes, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Is leave granted?

Mr Sinclair:

– No.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Leave is not granted.

page 531

ADVANCE TO THE MINISTER FOR FINANCE 1977-78

Statement of Expenditure

Mr Eric Robinson:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

– I present the following paper:

Advance to the Minister for Finance 1977-78- Statement of Heads of Expenditure and the amounts charged thereto pursuant to section 36a of the Audit Act 1901.

Ordered that the statement be taken into consideration in Committee of the Whole House at the next sitting.

page 531

ROAD SAFETY GUIDELINES FOR TOWN PLANNING

Mr NIXON:
Minister for Transport · Gippsland · LP

– For the information of honourable members I present a Department of Transport manual entitled: Road Safety Guidelines for Town Planning.

page 531

DARWIN CYCLONE TRACY RELIEF TRUST FUND

Mr ADERMANN:
Minister for the Northern Territory · Fisher · NCP/NP

– For the information of honourable members I present the monthly report of the Darwin Cyclone Tracy Relief Trust Fund for July 1978.

page 531

AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL GALLERY

Mr ELLICOTT:
Minister for Home Affairs · Wentworth · LP

– Pursuant to section 42 of the National Gallery Act 1975 I present the annual report of the Australian National Gallery for the year ended 30 June 1977.

page 531

ENVIRONMENT (FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE) ACT 1977

Mr GROOM:
Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development · Braddon · LP

– Pursuant to section 6 of the Environment (Financial Assistance) Act 1977 I present an agreement between the Commonwealth of Australia and Western Australia made under the provisions of that Act.

page 531

QUESTION

CONSTRUCTION OF ANTARCTIC BASE AT KINGSTON, TASMANIA

Mr SPEAKER:

-The Minister for Construction has indicated to me that he would like my indulgence to correct some information given in answer to a question last week.

Mr McLeay:
Minister for Construction · BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP

– Last week in answer to a question from the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) in respect of the construction of the Antarctic base at Kingston, I said, amongst other things, that the Government expected this financial year to spend approximately $3m on that project. The position is that in this financial year we will spend approximately Sim on the project and in the second half of next calendar year we will spend $2m on the project.

page 531

PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS

Mr HAYDEN:
Leader of the Opposition · Oxley

- Mr Speaker, I claim to have been misrepresented.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable gentleman wishes to make a personal explanation. He may proceed.

Mr HAYDEN:

-During Question Time the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) accused me of being the organiser of a violent demonstration in Sydney yesterday. That is untrue. I was associated with, and happy to lend my name to the organisation of what turned out to be a particularly successful and peaceful demonstration protesting against the violence of the present Budget. It is unfortunate, Mr Speaker, that some people did march to the Stock Exchange in Sydney and do damage. I am certainly in no way associated with those people. I think it is significant that they were carrying signs which read: ‘Down with Hawke, Hayden and Wran’. I understand that they are closet members of the Liberal Party of Australia.

Mr SINCLAIR:
Minister for Primary Industry · New England · NCP/NP

– I also seek leave to make a personal explanation, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The right honourable gentleman may proceed.

Mr SINCLAIR:

-On page 370 of Hansard, of 16 August 1978, in response to a motion canvassed by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Hayden), I am reported to have said that the Paris Embassy was not open on the occasion of the last visit of the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser). In fact, it was not offered for use. It was open at the time. My advice is that the flat was not ready for use at the time of the Prime Minister’s visit and that necessary services could not be provided. Certainly the flat could not hold the whole party, nor was there sufficient office space for effective working arrangements. It was desirable not to divide the party as the Prime Minister wished to have continuous access to his staff and advisers and they to him. Hence, the Embassy space was not offered. My advice to the House that the Embassy was not open was incorrect, but it was true that it was not offered.

Mr HAYDEN (Oxley-Leader of the Opposition)- The matter raised by the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair) relates to matters I raised in the Parliament. I am assured that the living accommodation was ready for Sir John Kerr, the old chum of the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser), and was available for the Prime Minister if he wished to use it.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable gentleman will resume his seat.

page 532

APPOINTMENT OF HEAD OF DEPARTMENT OF PARLIAMENTARY LIBRARY

Mr SPEAKER:

-In conjunction with the President of the Senate I wish to announce that His Excellency the Governor-General has appointed Mr Harold Gibson Weir to succeed Mr A. L. Moore as head of the Department of the Parliamentary Library. Mr Weir is aged 57 and has a Bachelor of Arts degree from Adelaide University and professional qualifications in accountancy and psychology. Like the last two Parliamentary Librarians, Mr A. P. Fleming and Mr A. L. Moore, Mr Weir has had considerable administrative experience in Australia and overseas.

Mr Weir was one of the early appointments to the Legislative Research Service where he was in charge of education and welfare research from early 1968 to mid- 1973. Since August 1976 he has been closely associated with the development of the Parliamentary Library as Assistant Parliamentary Librarian and more recently Deputy to the Parliamentary Librarian. In the three years before that he was an Assistant

Director and later Secretary of the Australian Institute of Criminology where he played a significant part in the establishment and development of the J. V. Barry Memorial Library. Mr Weir was an officer of the former Department of Labour and National Service and has worked in State government departments in New South Wales and South Australia. Under the Colombo Plan for two years he was Australian adviser on the Faculty of the United Nations Asia and Far East Crime Prevention Institute in Tokyo.

In response to the increasing and more complex information needs of this Parliament its library has now become an intellectual resource centre with well-qualified professional staff about equally divided between legislative research specialists and librarians. A major task of Mr Weir will be to review this organisation and to improve its effectiveness still further in the interests of continuing services to Parliament and in co-operation with other resource facilities, such as the National Library of Australia.

page 532

COMMITTEES

Mr SPEAKER:

-I have received messages from the Senate relating to changes in the membership of senators on the following joint statutory committees:

Joint Committee on the Broadcasting of Parliamentary Proceedings- the appointment of Senator Hamer.

Joint Committee of Public Accountsdischarge of Senator Colston and Senator Messner, appointment of Senator Keeffe and Senator Watson.

page 532

ANTI-BUDGET RALLIES

Discussion of Matter of Public Importance

Mr SPEAKER:

-I have received letters from both the honourable member for Dundas (Mr Ruddock) and the honourable member for Corio (Mr Scholes) 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 Dundas, namely:

The direct and indirect incitement to violence and public disorder by National and State leaders of the Australian Labor Party arising from organised anti-Budget rallies.

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 places-

Mr Young:

– I take a point of order, Mr Speaker. We on this side of the House are very concerned about your selection of this matter of public importance as the matter for discussion. Two matters were put up. The matter which the Opposition put up has now been justified by the fact that the Government has admitted to an error and is going to overcome it.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable gentleman will state his point of order.

Mr Young:

– Secondly, we see your acceptance of the Government’s matter of public importance as an indication that you, as Speaker, see some link between the demonstration at the Sydney Stock Exchange and the contribution that was made at the rally -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! There is no provision under the Standing Orders for debating the selection by the Speaker of a matter of public importance. The selection is always difficult. I am quite satisfied on this occasion that my selection is correct. I will not allow the matter to be debated.

Mr Young:

– Further to the point of order, Mr Speaker, I agree with you that there is no provision in the Standing Orders for us to debate your selection. However, the Standing Orders state that a matter must be in order. I do not know whether you have read the speeches of Mr Hayden and Mr Wran and whether anyone could conclude -

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable member is debating a matter which I will not permit.

Mr Scholes:

– I take a point of order on this matter. Earlier this year a matter of public importance was ruled out of order- I think it related to the Facom affair- on the grounds that it was in the nature of a censure motion and that the person putting forward the matter would be required to move a substantive motion in order to deal with matters relating to members of the Parliament. Even though this matter of public importance does not name the member, it clearly refers to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Hayden). I suggest that if the motion is in order on a technicality- that is doubtful- the ruling which was given on that occasion must apply to this debate, that is, that any reference to the Leader of the Opposition in a debate of this nature would be out of order unless a substantive motion was moved against him. I am making the point that a previous matter was ruled out of order on those grounds.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Corio has made his point. I looked at the terms of the matters of public importance and concluded that they were in order. Having concluded that they were in order, I then had to exercise a selection. I exercised that selection. The matter raised by the honourable member for Corio relates directly to the Budget and the Budget debate commences this evening. That played a very important part in my selection of this matter. The honourable gentleman said that an attack on the probity of an individual member can be made only by way of a substantive motion. That, of course, is correct. I will be watching that point during the debate.

Mr Hayden:

– I take a point of order. I do so merely for guidance in the future as much as anything else, although, I hope that it will influence you now. Are you implying that if the Opposition wished to move a matter of public importance, say, in these terms: The direct and indirect involvement in corrupt -

Mr SPEAKER:

-There is no point of order.

Mr Hayden:

– I am raising a very serious point.

Mr SPEAKER:

-There is no point of order. I have indicated that I will not permit a debate on this matter. There is no provision in the Standing Orders for it.

Mr Hayden:

– We lose our confidence in your role, Mr Speaker, when you show such obvious prejudice, as you are doing now.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I ask the Leader of the Opposition to withdraw that imputation.

Mr Hayden:

- Mr Speaker, I said that we were losing our confidence in your role. That is true. I regret it. I withdraw the remark.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The Leader of the Opposition has been in this place long enough to know that, as Leader of the Opposition, he receives considerable indulgence from the Chair. I ask him not to take undue advantage of that and to withdraw it unqualifiedly.

Mr Hayden:

– At this stage I withdraw it unqualifiedly.

Mr Martin:

– I wish to speak further to the point of order. During the debate which you have now approved will it be in order for the -

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable member is asking for a hypothetical ruling. He will resume his seat.

Mr Holding:

- Mr Speaker, I am concerned about the implications of your ruling inasmuch -

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable member may be concerned but there is no point of order.

Mr RUDDOCK:
Dundas

-I am surprised at the sensitivity of those who do not wish to hear the arguments that I propose to -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable gentleman will proceed without any reference to the points of order that were raised.

Mr RUDDOCK:

-The point at which I wish to start this debate is the way in which history will judge the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Hayden) in a short time when it is learnt that he has failed his party. The greatest opportunity he has had to be constructive -

Mr Scholes:

– I take a point of order. The honourable member has started his speech on the basis of a censure motion, which, as you have ruled in the past, is out of order.

Mr SPEAKER:

-There is no point of order.

Mr RUDDOCK:

-The greatest opportunity to contribute constructively to the economic debate of this country faces the Leader of the Opposition later this evening. We have noted over the last few days that in a determined way, outside the precincts of this place, which is the established place for the discussion of important national questions, members of this House and leaders of the Australian Labor Party, at both its national and its State level, have taken the opportunity to criticise and undermine in a negative way the confidence that people may have in this Government. I do not mind if people want to criticise the policies that are pursued by the Government and, justly in their view, to offer constructive comments about the nature of the Government of this country, but it is another matter, at a time when there is not an election campaign under way, to undertake the organisation of mass rallies, to harangue crowds and to set about to undermine people ‘s confidence in established institutions and law and order and to undermine their attitude to someone else ‘s property and person.

I believe that, by the very nature of the speeches that were made, by the very nature of the provocative advertising in the Press and by the very nature of the environment which was created, large numbers of people felt compelled to act not in a law abiding way but in an emotive way towards people against whom they had no complaint whatsoever. When we look at the nature of the events leading up to these rallies last weekend we find that they were not something spontaneous, they were not put together without thought or preparation; we find that there was a detailed involvement and planning in a determined way to bring together the largest group of people that was possible and to provide for the Leader of the Opposition a forum at which he could vent his spleen against the Government. In the Sydney Daily Telegraph yesterday the following advertisement appeared:

Protest against the Fraser Budget.

Join Bill Hayden and Neville Wran in the fight -

I emphasise the words ‘the fight’to protect your living standards.

Rally 12.30 p.m., Today.

Sydney Town Hall Square.

This was not something innocent; it was put together deliberately and sponsored by the Australian Labor Party. The advertisement was authorised by J. P. Ducker, the Secretary of the Labor Council of New South Wales and G. F. Richardson, General Secretary of the New South Wales Branch of the Australian Labor Party. People would think that if it were only the advertisements that brought these crowds together there might have been some spontaneity involved, but we find the Premier of New South Wales was associated with the arrangements and the organisation and we find that State officials were deliberately encouraged to leave their employment and to make themselves available.

In the Queensland Press a similar arrangement was undertaken by the trade union movement encouraging people to leave their work and walk off their jobs, and encouraging waterside workers to call strikes and stop work meetings. They were not asked to come in any spontaneous way but they were encouraged to come because this might be the time to have a good rort around town. In Queensland the following advertisement appeared in the Courier-Mail:

The Queensland Branch of Australian Public Service Association requests all Members to attend the Budget Protest Meeting to be held between 3-4 p.m. today in King George Square.

It was authorised by the Secretary. The Queensland Division of the Council of Australian Government Employee Organisations similarly urged all Australian Government employees to attend the protest meeting. So we see the sort of organisation that went into these rallies. They were not of a spontaneous nature. The Labor Party and the trade union movement deliberately set about to organise an environment in which a number of people experienced in haranguing crowds could build people up to feel that they have lost something, that they have to take some further action or, in the words of advertisement, that they have to fight. Do honourable members think that that is the way in which people ought to behave in this country, that it is the way in which the alternative government, as the Opposition holds itself out to be, ought to behave?

People were brought into the streets, and they unleashed violence and caused malicious damage to property. Who are the characters involved in this scenario? Of course, one of them happened to be the Leader of the Opposition. He does not seek to hide and say that he was not associated with the rally. He admitted that in a personal explanation here today. Also present were the National President of the Australian Labor Party, the Deputy Premier of Tasmania; the State President in New South Wales, Mr Ducker; various trade union leaders; and of course the Premier of New South Wales. These were the guilty men. These were the culprits. These were the people who brought together a crowd of people whom they could incite and harangue.

They did not sit down in a dispassionate way, as we do in this House, to examine each other’s arguments and to give weight and credit to them. These people, in language that one could only describe as innuendo, half-truth and exaggeration, set about to undermine the credibility of the Government- I admit that they are entitled to do that-and to create an environment in which people would feel that they had to do something more. This is what happened. Let us look at some of the statements made by Mr Hayden and see whether people would be harangued by them and feel concerned. He said that it was a brutal Budget- not so much a Budget but a catalogue of vindictiveness against Australians. This is the half-truth of which I was speaking. Nobody knows whether this is true, but he said that by 1980 this country will have the unparalleled post-war experience of one million people unemployed and we cannot tolerate that. These are sorts of statements, based upon half-truths and innuendo, are not worthy of the Leader of the Opposition. In an interview on PM last night he said:

It is a demonstration or the spontaneous feeling-

We know about the way in which it was orchestrated- of resentment, alienation, disaffection within the community. It first of all serves a very important purpose in our society- it allows people to let off steam, -

So much for letting off steam when they are encouraged to go out in the streets- and is less harmful than some alternatives that happen in other societies.

I do not know what he was really alluding to there. He went on to say:

But secondly, it looks as though it will be the beginning -

He did not say it would be the end- of a movement that will expand rapidly, a movement of disenchantment

Those are the words of the man who went out into that sort of environment and made those sorts of comments. I think they did him a grave disservice.

The Premier of New South Wales described the Budget as the ‘harshest, most spiteful, meanest economic lesson in living memory’. According to the Daily Telegraph, he told the crowd that their presence reflected the revulsion to the Budget of millions of Australians. He said:

We would be nothing less than Australians were we not here today protesting.

I heard the Deputy Premier of Tasmania this morning speaking on the program AM. I think anybody who heard that radio broadcast would have been personally offended when he said:

I’ll make two prophecies. One, the situation is going to get worse and secondly, because I ‘ve got faith in the people of Australia and I really do. My second prophecy is this, that as soon as the people really learn to understand the impact of this Budget, my prophecy is this- they ‘11 get rid of the (expletive deleted).

Those are the sorts of comments that these people were making. I understand that at another meeting in Adelaide the same sort of haranguing speech was made, with the same sort of incitement, by an honourable member who will follow me later in this debate today. Following that incitement, damage occurred at a number of offices of honourable members of this side of the House. One does not say that the damage was directly related to the incitement. I do not suppose it was in the sense that he said, ‘Go out and throw a brick through their windows ‘. I do not suggest that the honourable member said that, but it did not happen on the night of the Budget, it happened after the haranguing of crowds of people in places like Adelaide, Sydney and Brisbane.

The direct and indirect consequence of these efforts is lost productivity to this country. There were 129 arrests of people in Brisbane and 10 arrests in Sydney. The Stock Exchange was stormed. Innocent people were scared stiff and worried for their personal safety. Doors were kicked in, glass was broken, fittings were torn off the walls, boards were ripped away from their proper places and spray paint was painted over their walls. One would think that they came in a spontaneous way, unprepared, but that was what happened. I want to quote the comments of a Mr Maher as they appeared in the Melbourne Sun Pictorial. The comments give one some feeling for those who were at the butt of this exercise. I admit that the organisers have separated themselves from the exercise. They have said: ‘We do not see ourselves as being responsible. We really did not mean it to happen quite this way. We are in some way innocent’. I have heard all those sorts of comments in court from many guilty men. The fact of the matter is that as a result of this exercise people’s property was damaged and individuals were hurt. Let me read the comments from the Melbourne Sun:

Make the rich pay’ was spray-painted on the Exchange walls. One of the stock operators, Mr Bob Maher, grappled with demonstrators at the entrance and was hit several times on the head with a pole.

I’d have hated to see it if some of them got inside,’ Mr Maher said.

Some of them looked murderous. They were reaching inside with their banners and their fists. The harder they pushed, the harder we pushed back. ‘

One policeman was hit by a garbage can thrown by a demonstrator and another was bitten on a knee.

Is this the sort of catalogue of personal damage and damage to property for which members of the Labor Party wishes to be responsible? Of course they do not wish to be responsible after the event. They disown the exercise. The Premier of New South Wales has said: ‘I am sorry’. Quite clearly, when people set out on a path like this they cannot just say that they were in no way responsible and are terribly sorry for what was done.

As the Australian editorial of today points out, we have a lot to lose as a nation when people are encouraged to give up their work, to not involve themselves in their employment, to lose some of their wages and to go out into the streets. When that happens we lose productivity as a nation; our advance is put behind. It is very hard to understand the reasoning of those who, knowing that this Parliament is the proper place for debate to occur, take the matter outside this forum. I believe that the judgment of the people will leave the Labor Party dispirited and distressed. The people do not like this sort of conduct; they do not like the rule in the streets. They prefer the rule of this nation to take place in this Parliament by way of discussion and reasoned argument. Yet even now members of the Labor Party are preparing for their next onslaught in the streets. They have not learned their lessons. In Melbourne they are planning -

Mr Martin:

– I raise a point of order. Mr Speaker, I refer you to Standing Order 76 which provides:

All imputations of improper motives and all personal reflections on members shall be considered highly disorderly.

I also refer you to pages 36 1 and 4 1 7 of the 1 8th Edition of May’s Parliamentary Practice, which states that during the course of any debate certain matters cannot be debated which reflect upon a member of the House. I claim that it is a reflection on me, as a member of the Labor Party, to impute motives as the honourable member for Dundas is doing. I ask for your ruling, Mr Speaker. I am a member of the Labor Party and I feel that I am affected.

Mr SPEAKER:

-There is no point of order.

Mr RUDDOCK:

-I am sure that after I have finished speaking each member of the Labor Party could dissociate himself by personal explanation. I would hope that each member of the Labor Party would personally dissociate himself from the meeting that is being organised for tomorrow and encourage all those people who are being asked to go out on strike and to give up their time and their wages to go back to work and to carry out their job of employment. I challenge each member of the Labor Party to publicly dissociate himself from those organised rabbles.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member’s time has expired. Before I call the honourable member for Port Adelaide, I point out that the honourable member for Banks was not in his proper place when he took the point of order.

Mr Martin:

– I am in my proper place.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I apologise.

Mr Martin:

– I am sorry, Mr Speaker; I am not in my proper place. You are so right. I will move to my correct seat.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I want the honourable gentleman to understand that he does not have licence to interject simply because he is in his correct place.

Mr YOUNG:
Port Adelaide

-This debate reminds me of the story of the burning of the Reichstag. The extreme right wing, in order to take the attention of the people away from the more serious issues, tries to blame the Opposition for what has occurred in Australia. Last Wednesday, when the impact of the 1978-79 Budget became known to the people of Australia, there was revolt amongst the wage and salary earners of this country and amongst the families of this country and there were celebrations in the stock exchanges and by foreign investors. The Budget clearly was designed to divide the Australian nation. That is exactly what it has done. It is a pity for the Liberal Party and for some of the more outspoken members of the Country Party that we do not always play by their rules. We had a good bellyfull of their rules in 1975, with the conspiracy that went on to block the Budget and with the arrangements that were made so that the Government of that day was forced to go to an election at a time which was most beneficial to the Liberal and Country parties. If the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) thinks the Budget is so beneficial and is being so well received, why does the Government now not go to the people and see whether it can get endorsement? Let me assure honourable members opposite of what will happen when two State governments next go to the polls. As a result of this Budget the Wran Government in New South Wales will be returned with a vast majority and the Hamer Government in Victoria will be defeated.

Members of the Liberal Party talk about violence in the streets. They are absolutely beside themselves. They are absolutely delighted that a few people out of the 10,000 who attended the meeting at the Sydney Town Hall yesterday attacked the Stock Exchange. There is absolutely no connection between the people who went to the Stock Exchange and the people who organised the rally. There is no connection between what happened at the Stock Exchange and anything that was said at the rally. I seek leave, once again, to have the speech made yesterday by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Hayden) incorporated in Hansard.

Leave not granted.

Mr YOUNG:

– All honourable members opposite want to talk about is the 120 or 130 people who went to the Stock Exchange. Violence also occurred at a football match between North Melbourne and Carlton held in Melbourne on Saturday. Do honourable members know what caused that violence? The Prime Minister turned up to watch the game. If he had stayed away from the football no violence at all would have occurred. There was violence in Brisbane. Do honourable members know why violence occurred in Brisbane? It occurred because the people who live in Queensland want the right to be able to march. The Queensland Government takes the attitude that every time an individual in Queensland steps off the footpath he is a criminal and has to be put in gaol. So much for the rights and civil liberties expressed by honourable members opposite.

What will people do about this Budget? Will they say that they have to play by the Liberal and Country Party rules and have to stay at work by the machines and keep doing all the things that this Government wants them to do, when in return for the effort that they put into their work their wages will be reduced by 10 percent? If the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission had the gall to bring in a decision that had the same impact on wages as the Budget brought in by this Government last Tuesday there would be even greater strife than we have seen in Australia already. Obviously, the peaceful rallies that have been held have worked. Today the Treasurer (Mr Howard) had to admit that one of the vilest features of the Budget, an incomes test on children, is to be reviewed. Do honourable members know why that is being reviewed? It is being reviewed because of the rallies and because people went out and frightened the back benchers on the Government side about what was going to happen at the next election. The decision is being reviewed because people came to understand that policemen were to be sent after the local newspaper boys to see how much they were earning. What twisted mind in the Government came up with that idea? What on earth gave substance to the belief that those people who sit on the back benches, spineless as they may be, ought to support a measure that would send public servants, acting as policemen, around this country to see how much money children were earning, so that if they were earning over $6 a week the mother could be fined by way of a reduction in her family allowance? That is the first victory for the rallies. We warned the Government about this last week. There will be more victories.

Do honourable members opposite think that public servants will take a drop in their living standards of 6 or 7 per cent under the threat of dismissal? Are they serious in their belief that that is what will occur in Australia? They would have to have rocks in their heads if they thought that 250,000 workers in the Public Service of this country would bow to the dictates of this Government; that unless they and their families accepted a substantial reduction in their living standards they would be dismissed. That is another one of the smelly features of the 1 978-79 Budget.

Let us have a look at some of the other reasons why people may want to talk about the Budget. The honourable member for Dundas (Mr Ruddock) says that we should just talk about it quietly in this House, that we should not be taking action about it outside this House. Let me remind him that there are no women in the House of Representatives. Fifty per cent of the electorate is constituted of women. Women want some say about what the Government is doing to the incomes that come into their homes. Women, as well as other members of the community, are having their say outside this House in rallies. Yesterday a peaceful rally was held outside the office of the honourable member for Boothby, Mr McLeay. I can tell the House the names of 20 people who were there. They rang me yesterday morning. They were dismissed from the City Brick Works Co. Pty Ltd. They were told, when they were given their week’s notice yesterday morning, that City Bricks was hoping that there would be something in the Budget for the building industry. As there was nothing in the Budget for the building industry the company was going to start laying off its workers as from yesterday morning. Yesterday morning those 20 men from the brickyards went to demonstrate outside John McLeay ‘s office against the Budget.

What does the Government think people will do? It has been warned for so long- since it has been in office for Vh years- that if it keeps building up unemployment there will be more social disorder. The situation has nothing to do with the Australian Labor Party or any other political party; it has something to do with the attitudes of people who are condemned to be unemployed. Some of them will be unemployed perhaps for the rest of their .lives. Others who leave school after 12 to 16 years of intensive education, will be unemployed for a year or more. What sort of an attitude does the Government think these people will take? When handing down the Budget last week the Government discriminated against them again. It says that it is not going to index the unemployment benefit for a single person. People want to know about these things. They want to know how a government can be so twisted as to make a decision like that at the same time as the Prime Minister makes a decision to spend $40 m on new aircraft in which to travel overseas. What is going on in the Government that brings about such results? What about taxation? What does the Government expect people to say? It was only a few months ago that the Liberal Party spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on a newspaper photograph of a person holding a big bundle of $5 notes and saying: ‘If you vote Liberal, this is what you will get in February’. There is nothing in the hand now. Not only is there nothing in the hand but there is less in the hand than there was before the election. The Australian people have to protest about these lies, the deception and the deviousness that is being practised.

This is the sort of thing that the people are rallying about. They do not accept the 1978-79 Budget; they are going to discuss it. Many people do not realise that although they are paying the increased rate of taxation it is not coming out of their pay packets yet. They have yet to understand that they will have to pay 12 months’ extra tax from the first pay period in November- 12 months’ tax in an eight-month period. Workers earning between $ 1 14 and $238 a week- the majority of wage and salary earners in this countrywill be paying 8 per cent more tax from the first pay period in November. The honourable member for Dundas says: ‘Let us discuss it in here. Do not let anybody out in the workshop say anything. You are only talking about the living standards of people in this country. Why should they have any say? They do not elect us to this House so that they cannot touch us or talk to us’. That is not the game at all. They put us in here to represent them. If the honourable member for Dundas goes back to his electorate he will find that there are many people there who are not so terribly happy. Let him go a little distance from his electorate to the harshly hit areas in the western suburbs of Sydney or to the electorate of Werriwa to campaign in the by-election and tell the people there that he does not want them to discuss the Budget. Let him tell them that he is not concerned about unemployment. Let him tell them that he is not concerned about the fact that 50 per cent of unemployed people in Liverpool are under 24 years of age and that Australia has the second highest unemployment rate in the Western world amongst people under 24 years of age. He should tell them that sort of thing and not carry on with the lies that have been told or the distortions that have been made about a few people who went to the Sydney Stock Exchange after a peaceful rally had been addressed by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Hayden) and the Premier of New South Wales. There is a lot more to be said about the situation and about what will happen in Australia. I will read to the House a couple of things that the Leader of the Opposition has been saying in past months. They give warning to what sorts of things will occur as a result of this massive unemployment, particularly amongst young people in Australia. In a speech made to the American Chamber of Commerce on 1 1 August the Leader of the Opposition said:

Furthermore, there are disturbing social costs associated with high, long term unemployment among our young people. These costs have already been identified in some areas by several social surveys in a number of our major cities; drug taking, neurotic behaviour such as attempted suicide, a higher proportion of the young unemployed appearing in the Police courts, and so on.

Fine young people with good educational qualifications are finding there’s no place for them in the work force, the system has failed them. The outer suburbs of the larger capital cities are a stricken wasteland for our young people. Unemployment among the young at Liverpool in Sydney exceeds SO percent.

Further, in a speech that was made to the Sydney Chamber of Commerce the Leader of the Opposition said:

To be quite blunt, I believe the union movement has again been forced into the inevitable confrontation with the Government over unreasonable wage compressions both as a tactic for the Government’s short-term political advantage, and as a diversion for the Government’s mismanagement of the economy.

This debate is a farce. The Liberal Party is delighted that someone went to the Stock Exchange and threw a rock through a window. That is not the tactic or the ploy of the Labor Party. We have logic, right and honesty on our side. We will win this debate. The Liberal Party is delighted with what has happened. It would be delighted if the Prime Minister took action to put some employees of Telecom in gaol. What it does not want, the last thing in the world that it wants, is people throughout Australia being called together to discuss this Budget. It knows that the back down by the Treasurer today in relation to the income test for children is the start; it will snowball. What will be next? Indexation of pensions or, perhaps, the taxation on the long service leave and the annual leave of workers. That hits those workers who do not have any superannuation. The only thing they have to look forward to when they retire after a lifetime of work in industry is their annual and long service leave payment, and some twisted mind in this Government has said: ‘Let us take a third of that off them as well ‘. No wonder people go to rallies, no wonder people get angry, no wonder people will not believe this Government of lies and distortions that we have had in Australia for the last 2Vi years.

Mr NEIL:
St George

-The recent demonstrations, particularly the one held outside the Sydney Stock Exchange, which turned into riots were a national disgrace which brought shame upon those who participated and upon the Australian Labor Party. There is direct evidence that the Labor Party was involved in what occurred at the Stock Exchange. The honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton) was there at the time. He saw what occurred and he was handed by some rabble rouser a document entitled ‘Budget 1978’ which was jointly produced by the Labor Council of New South Wales and the New South Wales Branch of the Australian Labor Party. The members of the Labor Party knew what was happening; they knew that they had called upon the people to come to the fightthe fight that was to be started at the Sydney Town Hall square. The trade union leadership conscripted its members. It dragged them down to the Town Hall square, put many of them in the guise of a Labor front group that nobody had ever heard of, put up a few phony placards criticising Mr Wran, and sent them into the Stock Exchange to destroy and to do as much damage as they possibly could.

The claim that just one brick was thrown through a window is absolute rubbish. The photographs are available; the damage was extremely serious. Persons were barricaded inside. That was preceded by a demonstration at, of all places, the Telecom office where the Telecom employees were harangued before the workers decided to march on the Stock Exchange. What was the purpose of the demonstration? It was not only to attack the Budget; it was to assist the New South Wales Government to retain office. Unfortunately for that Government, the public has now seen the gigantic truth. The New South Wales Labor Premier, a prisoner of the Left, is the same as the rabble rousers that he has been leading in the streets.

The first crack has come and the Labor Party is wriggling on the hook. It knows what is yet to come. The Australian people will not tolerate that type of violence. The Australian Labor Party knows what happened at the Rockdale Town Hall in 1966 and knows what happened on other occasions when Labor-induced riots caused the people to turn against it. This was a blackmail attempt along the same line as the attempts of the honourable member for Reid (Mr Uren) over uranium to turn other countries away from investment in Australia. Members of the Labor Party know that the London Sunday Telegraph reported that this Budget was the envy of every government in the Western World. Australia has been praised as a country in which, according to the leaders of the governments of Germany and other industrial nations, a democratically elected government, with massive majority support at the last election, has been able to invoke an austerity program in the long term interests of this nation. The London Sunday Telegraph said that this Budget was the envy of the Western world. Prices on the stock exchange have gone up and overseas investment will flow back into Australia.

Labor supporters, in a planned way, have embarked on a program designed to scare off investment in Australia. It is direct sabotage of the Australian economy, the Australian people and the living standards of Australian workers. Members of the Labor Party have conscripted Australian workers and dragged them out into the streets. They have forced them to act in a violent way to the detriment of their own standards of living in the future. If they had their way they would destroy Australia. Overseas newspapers, government officials and the leaders of trade unions in other countries have said that they cannot understand how any trade union group would encourage strikes or demonstrations over a budget. They know that the Parliament is the place to debate these matters.

What happened here? The day after the Budget was brought into this House only two questions from the Opposition were directed to the Budget. The rest of” the time was spent in a muck-raking, sleazy endeavour to make a mountain out of a molehill on another issue. There were two questions to the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) and none to the Treasurer (Mr Howard). Some concern for the Budget! Members of the Opposition spent the whole of last week parading themselves on another issue. The Budget debate is yet to come. Have they prepared themselves for it? Not at all. They have decided to unleash war on the stock exchange. Will that create jobs? Will that inspire confidence? Will that bring investment from overseas? No. The aim of members of the Opposition is to attack the economic institutions of this country. The attack has become an attack on our society because violence was unleashed which was beyond their control. There were incidents in Brisbane, Sydney, at Long Bay Gaol, and Adelaide. According to the newspapers in Adelaide a highly emotional speech was delivered by the honourable member for Port Adelaide (Mr Young) whom we have just heard.

Mr Hodgman:

– Gollywog.

Mr NEIL:

– The honourable member’s impassioned words inflamed the crowd.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Denison will cease interjecting and he will return to his own seat.

Mr NEIL:

– The honourable member for Port Adelaide used impassioned words. These types of things happened in Sydney and were followed by people handing out papers. The honourable member for Mackellar saw large bundles of papers being handed out by a person who obviously had authority. People handed out papers directly outside the Sydney Stock Exchange at 2.20 p.m. following the invitation to the fight. And the Labor Party claimed it had no connection with the incident at all! Its Leader then tried to get off the hook by saying that it was a demonstration of spontaneous feeling. The New South Wales Premier tried to disown the people involved. Can there be anything more hypocritical than conscripting 7,000 people, plus others who might have come, dragging them to the City

Square and, when the inevitable result occurs, when the planned program of attack on the Stock Exchange took place, then turning around and saying: ‘I had nothing to do with it’? Members of the Opposition have no arguments; they have nothing to bring to this Parliament. They have unleashed violence.

It is perfectly plain that the chickens of the Premier of New South Wales are coming home to roost. So far the New South Wales people have not been able to see through this show pony. He is is one of the show ponies trotted out by the Labor Party now and again to fool the Australian people. We saw another one a few years ago. He was very popular for a few years. But he has now been completely rejected and has slunk out of this House. The New South Wales people had an inkling last year before the Federal election when the New South Wales Premier came to Hurstville and told the greatest pack of lies about the Sydney airport than anyone could possibly envisage. It did not make one whit of difference to the result of the election because the honourable member for Barton (Mr Bradfield) and I with the assistance of the Minister for Transport (Mr Nixon) had been able to explain the issue to the people.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member will return to the issue.

Mr NEIL:

– He was found out then and he has been found out now as being a prisoner of the Left, a man who has been put up by the steering committee of the Left. If he wants support, either in New South Wales or for his federal ambitions, he has to get the support of these people. His aim is to upstage the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Hayden). That is not hard to do. He wants double billing or at least equal billing. They went together to the town square. The Premier is currying favour for support for the day when he hopes- of course he will not succeed because of what he is doing- to return to office in New South Wales and to get a redistribution that will give him control of both Houses. He has said in the newspapers that after having secured his position in New South Wales he would like to go federal. He will leave New South Wales with the Left under Mr Walker, the man who wants to legalise marihuana, the man who has a whole lot of other socialist aims.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member will return to the subject matter.

Mr NEIL:

- Mr Speaker, I am alluding to a matter of fact which clearly is relevant.

Mr Young:

- Mr Speaker, I thought you asked the honourable member to withdraw the statement about Mr Walker.

Mr SPEAKER:

– No, I asked him to return to the subject.

Mr NEIL:

-I am alluding to the public statements of the Premier of New South Wales. It is perfectly plain that he needs the support of the Left in New South Wales.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I warn the honourable member to be relevant to the matter of public importance before the House.

Mr NEIL:

- Mr Speaker, I have outlined to the House why the Premier of New South Wales took this action. Now we have seen a chink. I pay credit to the honourable member for Banks (Mr Martin) who stood up today and tried to dissociate himself from the statements of the Leader of the Opposition. When he was challenged to dissociate himself from the rally tomorrow, as I now ask all other members of the Opposition to do, he dissociated himself from the statements of the Leader of the Opposition, and well he ought.

Mr Martin:

- Mr Speaker, I refer you again to Standing Order 76. The honourable member for St George is seeking to make imputations about a point of order which I raised. He is seeking to draw his own conclusions and thereby make imputations against me. They are not true. His imputations are entirely false.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Their is no point of order.

Mr NEIL:

– If the honourable member wishes me not to praise him for trying to dissociate himself from the shocking statement that I have referred to I will not attempt to assist him. I turn to the matters raised by the honourable member for Port Adelaide. He claimed no relation with the disorder. That is rubbish. The honourable member for Mackellar saw what occurred. That is clear. The honourable member for Port Adelaide talked about tabling a speech. How about finding the tape so that we can see how much slipped out of the speech? He talked about threats to the future- more blackmail, more of the type of words we have heard from the honourable member for Reid many times. Is the whole of the Labor Party swallowing the Left line? Are there none of the good, solid right wingers left amongst member of the Opposition who will repudiate these actions, who will give the Australian people some hope that there is some sense left in the Labor Party, or are they all hell-bent on their own political destruction. That is what the Australian people will deliver to them.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Mr WEST:
Cunningham

-The mind boggles at the audacity of honourable members on the Government side in charging our Party with instigating violence. This allegation sits ill on their shoulders. They are from a party that sent 5 10 young Australians to their death in Vietnam; a party that perpetrated violence on the Australian Constitution in 1975. Yet they have the utter gall to accuse the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Hayden) and the Premier of New South Wales of inciting people to violence! We do not support the actions of a minority of people who, in their frustration, attacked the property of the Sydney Stock Exchange. But we must protest in the strongest possible terms at the wording of this matter of public importance in which it is implicit that the Premier of New South Wales, the premier State in the Commonwealth, and the Leader of the Opposition are not entitled to address a public meeting of Australians in opposition to these Budget measures.

Of course there would be many Australians who would be opposed to the Budget measures. In every sense it is a bully’s Budget. In virtually all points it can be viewed only as a vicious assault on those Australians who are least able to defend themselves. If I judge correctly the contents of this horror Budget, the Treasurer (Mr Howard) believes that the low and middle income earners, the aged and the unemployed are to be instruments that will be used in a most callous way to reduce inflation in this country. He has an obsession with reducing inflation in this country. He is prepared to increase the number of unemployed in Australia simply to get inflation down by a point or half a point. By asserting barefacedly its intention to screw down real wages the Government is in fact seeking to screw down the living standards of the great mass of Australian workers. Of course they would be upset by the Budget. By refusing to stimulate the Australian economy the Fraser Government seeks to create a vast reserve army of unemployed Australians. While the outmoded reactionary policies of this Government continue to operate hundreds of thousands of young Australians are doomed to remain in the ranks of the unemployed, and that is a fact because the Budget itself admits it.

The Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) had the audacity to say in his electorate last Sunday that this Budget was well received by the Australian people. The Chairman of one of the stock exchanges made a public statement that in his opinion it was a good Budget. Perhaps the most cynical and provocative statement of all was that of the Treasurer, who, in his own words, said ‘in framing our decisions we have been guided by a desire to share fairly the burdens of reducing inflation throughout the Australian community. The whole basis of the massive resentment and opposition to this Budget is that the problems now facing the people are not being shared equally. That is the point. The reason for the massive demonstrations throughout Australia is that the burdens are not being shared equally. That is why 10,000 people protested in Sydney. I ask honourable members to note that 10,000 people were involved. At the moment the Prime Minister could not get 100 people to a meeting to defend the Budget. Such a meeting could be held in a telephone booth. It would be interesting to see how many people the Government could get at a meeting it arranged in support of the Budget. Decent and honest Australian wage and salary earners are entitled to voice their revulsion at the Budget.

The Government has an obsession with pruning the deficit and with reducing government expenditure. In so doing it has brought forward a number of most reprehensible measures, including most reprehensible income raising ventures and ones concerning cuts in government expenditure. The broken promises of the Prime Minister and the Government are legend. The Prime Minister promised to maintain Medibank. Where does it stand? He promised to maintain wage indexation, yet the Government has opposed it at every wage case since its election in 1975. The Prime Minister promised to maintain the value of pensions, yet the Government has reduced the granting of increases based on the consumer price index to once yearly increases. He promised to introduce tax cuts to aid economic recovery and to boost the income of Australian wage and salary earners. Of course we all know what happened to the tax cuts of last February. I will come to that in a moment. It is little wonder that the people of Australia are disillusioned. My illustrious predecessor- the late and great Rex Connor- had a saying which he used often. It was very short and simple. He used to say: ‘The Australian people can be led but never driven’. I suggest that honourable members opposite should remember that saying when they accuse the Premier of New South Wales and the Leader of the Opposition of attempting to incite violence when in fact they were lawfully addressing a public meeting of Australians.

I want to canvass quickly some of the most objectionable features of the policies that incited behaviour such as that which occurred at the Sydney Stock Exchange. I refer firstly to the conglomeration of measures that goes under the name of this Government’s crude oil policies. This Government has sought to achieve the impossible- that is, to maximise profits for oil companies and to maximise returns to the Government- and finished up with a twin policy which will not work and which will be highly inflationary. It will ensure that the oil companies will receive some $350m in profits this year and some $750m by 1980 and this will force up the price of petrol not by 16c a gallon as the Treasurer says- he could not even get that right- but, according to media reports, the more likely sum of 2 lc a gallon.

What nonsense it is when the Treasurer says that the burdens will be shared equally. One must look at the tax surcharge of 1.5c in the dollar in conjunction with the so-called tax cuts of February. When one does that one can see that the vast majority of workers have had their tax cuts wiped out completely. Yet the person on $580 a week or $600 a week who received a $30 a week cut last February will still retain at least $ 1 6 a week of that tax cut. They are the measures which are concerning the Australian people. This Budget has achieved the remarkable feat of alienating every section of the Australian people except the parasites of the stock exchange and their representatives in capital. This Budget will strip the economy of over $700m. It will strip the economy of $ 1 43m in housing funds alone.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Millar:
WIDE BAY, QUEENSLAND

Order! The honourable member for Cunningham is not free to anticipate the debate on the Budget, which is on the Notice Paper. He may refer to the Budget in general terms to demonstrate why a demonstration should or should not have taken place, but he may not anticipate the Budget debate in specifics.

Mr WEST:

– Yes, Mr Deputy Speaker. I ask -

Mr Ruddock:

– Were the people of Sydney upset yesterday?

Mr WEST:

– Of course the people of Sydney were upset yesterday. Where will the 230,000 young people who will leave educational institutions this year find work? The Budget itself estimates that the rate of unemployment will increase by 90,000. Honourable members opposite have the audacity to get up in this place and attack the Leader of the Opposition and the Premier of New South Wales for addressing a public meeting at a time when the people of Australia are faced with all these regressive and recessionary measures. The people who sit opposite are so contemptible in their actions today. This Government has completely lost touch with any vestige of reality if it really believes that the people of Australia will have the slightest interest in this -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

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

page 543

DEFENCE SERVICE HOMES AMENDMENT BILL 1978

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 17 August, on motion by Mr Adermann:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Upon which Mr Uren had moved by way of amendment:

That all words after ‘That’ be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: ‘the Bill be withdrawn and redrafted

to maintain the present eligibility of members of the Defence Services for housing finance from the Defence Service Housing Corporation;

to permit Parliament to maintain adequate scrutiny of the Defence Service Homes Insurance Scheme;

because it introduces a fee for consideration of the application for a loan for the first time, thus increasing the cost to the applicant;

because it introduces a discriminatory preference system between those with eligibility based on war service, and

because increased funds should be made available to restore the decline of 50 per cent, in real terms, over the last 3 years’.

Mr CADMAN:
Mitchell

-The freedom of this country is owed to those people who played a part in a number of contests of a world nature. Many of them are still alive and some of them are still serving in our defence services today. Provisions were made by this nation to reward those people who served in this way. I see the honourable and gallant Minister for National Development (Mr Newman) seated at the table. We know of the part that he, together with many others who have served this House, played. The initial defence service homes measures were introduced in recognition and appreciation in a national sense of those people who paid a sacrifice in regard to their careers or futures by meeting the call that was made on them by the nation. It is interesting to read that when these measures were introduced by Senator Millen on 1 2 December 1 9 1 8 he said: . . we can add another section to the great work of repatriation, by the aid of which we hope to satisfactorily secure the re-instatement to civil life of members of the Australian Imperial Force.

He went on to say:

The purpose of the measure is to enable members of the Australian Imperial Force, and certain of their dependants, to secure homes. I want to stress the word ‘homes’, because the whole of the provisions of the Bill are conditioned by it. Those conditions provide that a man may borrow for the purpose of erecting a home which he will occupy as such.

Since that time some changes have been made to the legislation, and today the House is continuing to debate changes brought forward by this Government. But the changes have been brought about over a period of years. If one compares the present scheme with those existing in other countries, such as the United Kingdom, Canada, the United States of America and New Zealand, for instance, one finds that the Australian scheme is considerably superior in every respect to the schemes adopted in those countries. The present scheme has been providing about 7,000 homes each year for the last six years. It is recognised by servicemen and the community as being an important benefit to those who have served. However, from time to time a number of criticisms of these schemes have been brought forward. The criticism which has been recognised by the Government is the basis for making some of the changes which are currently before us in the Defence Service Homes Amendment Bill 1 978.

Civil servants in Australia, and the community at large, often look with envy on the condition of service that apply to Australian men serving in the forces. They look, for instance, at group rental schemes, at provisions for retirement benefits and at certain allowances and conditions and tend to consider that in times of peace those benefits are rather generous. It is not obvious to people who consider the type of work and the involvement of servicemen in our community that they may be called on to pay the supreme sacrifice of giving their lives in the service of the nation. Few people seem to be aware that, on a constant basis, servicemen are required to move with their families from place to place throughout Australia, often on a two-yearly basis, thereby disrupting home life, family life and the schooling of the children and thereby causing the onflowing effects which appertain in relation to the wellbeing of the children, their development and growth and their capacity to cope with the educational system. The effect of service is notable even in the fact that simple things such as motor vehicle licences can be a great problem for a family moving from place to place. Often the wives have to bear the brunt of these changes. As I have said, at times we fail to recognise that the serviceman may be required to give his life and pay the supreme sacrifice. At any time he is likely to be called to duty, whether it be within Australia or overseas. I think the attitude which is adopted during peacetime can be characterised by a couple of lines from Kipling’s poem Tommy. Kipling says:

O it’s Tommy this, an’ Tommy that, an’ ‘Tommy, go away’;

But it’s ‘Thank you, Mister Atkins,’ when the band begins to play . . .

The defence service homes legislation has not been introduced for the purpose of encouraging people to join the Services. It was introduced originally so that recognition would be paid to the service given to the nation by those who have served. It was meant to be a reward and a way in which the nation could say thank you to those people who had served it. It was only in 1973 that the legislation was changed. The changes effected then are again brought forward by the Opposition in its proposal that the steps outlined in this legislation should not go forward. The changes proposed in 1973 were that the legislation should apply to those members who had served for three years. The legislation brought forward at that time does not, in my view, make a distinction for length of service or for those who have served in a war zone.

It seems to me that the original intention of the scheme is being subverted by that legislation. If the terms and conditions of service are not satisfactory and if the number of men coming forward to play their part in the defence Services is insufficient, other measures should be adopted; we should not be adopting this measure which is a traditional one for assisting those who are being paid a tribute by the nation. Really, how can it be equitable to compare a man who has served for only three years with those who have served for 20 years or more? How can we compare a man who has served for only three years with a man who has served in a place of war? I really do not think we can make those comparisons; nor do I feel that those types of servicemen can really be dealt with equally or thanked in the same way by this Parliament or by the people of the nation. Therefore some distinction should be made if recognition is to be given to men who have served the nation. This Government has made a move to give proper recognition to those who have served the nation, and providing for six years service is one measure which is designed to achieve that end. Other provisions contained in this legislation will give the Defence Service Homes Corporation the capacity to apply a needs test to those who have served. Therefore, those who have served in war zones, those who have served for long periods, I trust will be given some sort of favoured treatment in the application of the measures that are envisaged by this Bill.

Some of the criticism that has come forward over a period of time is to the effect that no differentiation is made between applicants with different levels of need and differences in the periods of service given. That criticism basically is being coped with by this legislation. Another criticism is that there is a cumbrous administration causing delays. The requirements of the scheme are not normally those which apply in the housing field, and that therefore creates some difficulties for servicemen. Second mortgages have become common place and the current limited loan can be said to be going only to those who can afford a second mortgage. I think that is a valid criticism. The administration costs of the scheme compared with those of other housing organisations, and the benefits being provided by the expenditure involved, require close attention. It is interesting to note that the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Expenditure has devoted a report to just those factors. Those criticisms in fact have been proved justified.

A new flexibility is needed in the scheme and a new sense of reward is needed also. I think that the reserving of the 3.75 per cent interest rate for war service or for those who have served for 20 years should always stay. I believe that that sort of recognition should remain in the nation. In that way the country can pay its tribute. But, in my view, there should be a varying interest rate for varying periods of service so that those who have served for the least time receive the least benefit by way of the very generous interest rate concessions. The fact that the Expenditure Committee investigated this area is significant. It came forward with a number of comments. I would like to draw the attention of the House to the comments it made on the large staff used to administer this program, and to the comment that it made about the need for a better definition of what the defence service homes scheme really should be about. I would encourage the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs (Mr Adermann) to take these comments on board and continue to meet some of the criticisms that have been made. The Government has moved in that direction to a considerable degree. We can still move further.

Better information is needed about the payment of benefits and the real cost savings that are applicable to beneficiaries. Alternate schemes, whereby the benefits of low interest rates can be administered far more cheaply, can be proposed. The cost of processing new applicants is another area of which the Committee was critical. It is interesting to note, in regard to the cost features, the role of the Australian Postal Commission. The report states:

In other words for the person whose monthly repayments are $73.82 (the monthly repayment for a $15,000 loan over 32 years) the commission is $1.71 a month. This figure appears to be quite high, and has led the Committee to look for more economical ways of collecting instalments than the APC system.

One sees that something over 2 per cent is being charged by the Australian Postal Commission- an inordinately high fee- for conducting the service in this case. I recommend that different ways of administering repayments be undertaken. In fact, I would encourage the Government to consider whether an agreement could be made with traditional lending bodies so that the repayments normally made by borrowers for second mortgages could include repayments to the Department of Veterans’ Affairs. Such a mechanism is most easily recognised; such a mechanism could be most easily introduced.

The 1973 changes produced a rapid expansion of the program, caused delays and altered the recognition for service. Perhaps, instead of moving in the direction adopted by the previous Government, the approach presently taken could continue and eligible members could be issued with a certificate which would grant them recognition of their service. That would then become an entitlement to purchase a home under the provisions of the Defence Service Homes Act. When a person wished to buy a home it would be quite easy for him to go to a building society, bank or other approved lending organisation, present his defence service homes entitlement and state to the providers of the additional finance: ‘There is my contribution, which has been given to me in recognition of my service to the nation’. Then the lending organisation could take up that certificate, provide the second mortgage and administer a simple and concise scheme with a minimum of cost to the Australian people, as well as provide additional funds for this important area of housing.

The fact that some 80 per cent of loans are for $15,000 or above indicates that maximum funding is required by the majority of users of the defence service homes scheme. In my judgment, that indicates that in nearly 80 per cent of cases a second mortgage would be required. Therefore, a simply administered scheme such as we are tending to move towards would improve efficiency greatly. In my view, the use of computers and modern techniques could reduce administrative costs to something like 1 per cent instead of the 2.31 per cent being charged by the Australian Postal Commission. That high charge represents a substantial loss to the beneficiaries. On referring to the Committee’s report on the scheme, the number of people employed in administering the scheme catches the eye immediately. In New South Wales alone to administer the scheme 304 people are required. Of this number, 79 are employed in the general financing area. Some are concerned with the internal audit and some with welfare and other operations. A total of 1 ,046 people is employed in the administration of the scheme throughout Australia. That is a large number of people to administer a fairly simple scheme. The welfare role adopted by the Department of Veterans’ Affairs and the Defence Service Homes Corporation is notable and one that should continue. However, in my view, insofar as total financing, day-to-day accounting and such matters are concerned, changes for the good of the scheme could easily be made. The changes brought about by the Bill will go only part way, but they are nevertheless highly significant. They include a provision that persons who commence full-time service in the Defence Force on or after 17 August 1977 will become eligible for a loan on completion of six years’ full-time service subject to a commitment to render such service.

Again, the Defence Service Homes Corporation will give a measure of preference in the allocation of loans to those whose eligibility is based on war service and, I understand, need. I do not think any honourable member agrees with the contention of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Hayden) in saying, of the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs:

The fact that the honourable member for Curtin has been able, for six months, to run the Veterans’ Affairs portfolio from the other side of the world emphasises how unnecessary it is for this portfolio to have its own Minister.

I refute completely that attitude and approach to the administration of this most important area, concerned as it is with the recognition of the service of men to this nation over a long period of time, and of service that they will continue to give. They have given time and training, dedicated their lives to important areas of our defence and sacrificed many family pleasures and enjoyments that the average citizen benefits from in order to take part in a fine and proud career in the service of the nation. The Government rejects completely the concepts contained in the Opposition’s proposed amendment. I support the Bill.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-The importance which the Government attributes to this Bill, which affects the homes of servicemen and ex-servicemen, is demonstrated by the fact that it was introduced by the then Minister for Veterans’ Affairs (Mr Garland) as far back as 25 May. Many other Bills of course have superseded this Bill, in the priority that they have been given by the Government. I am not sure that that is a bad thing because this legislation is not designed to vest great benefit in the people who would be applying under the provisions of the Defence Service Homes Act. The Bill is bad news for servicemen and ex-servicemen who seek assistance from the Defence Service Homes Corporation. Instead of introducing improvements to the scheme the Government is making inroads into some of its finest features.

The period of service to be rendered by a serviceman to enable him to qualify under the scheme is to be extended. A new process of classifying applicants is to be introduced to facilitate a discriminatory waiting period for loans. Of course, this implies that waiting periods are to be the order of the day. They are to be built into the system. From here on they are to become a permanent feature. Servicemen can only deplore that fact, as must ex-servicemen, who also will be required to wait for their defence service homes benefits. The conditions of the defence service homes insurance scheme are to be eroded. The estate development scheme, which over the years has brought such enormous benefit to large numbers of ex-servicemen, is to be wound up.

For the first time a substantial application fee is to be applied. The amount of the fee is not to be infinitesimal- $75 is a substantial deterrent to young servicemen and ex-servicemen seeking to raise the deposit for a home. That is the fee associated with applying for an initial loan. An application fee of $50 is to apply in respect of an additional loan. I understand that these fees could be required to be remitted whether or not the application is approved. Those are the general objectives of the legislation which is before us. The Budget also contained bad news about the defence service homes scheme. Whereas in 1977-78 $90m was made available for the purposes of the Defence Service Homes Act, the allocation is reduced by $ 11.2m to $78.8m. That will contribute to the waiting period to which I have referred.

These retrograde steps are in very sharp contrast to the improvements which the Labor

Government introduced between 1972 and 1975. The honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Cadman) who preceded me in this debate, like the Minister for Special Trade Representations (Mr Garland), who introduced this legislation as the then Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, failed to give any recognition to the great innovations which were brought about by the Labor Government to the benefit of servicemen. We on the Opposition side are subjected to incessant disparagement, but any serviceman will tell honourable members that the defence service homes scheme was greatly reformed during the time of the Labor Government. Instead of restricting the scheme the Labor Government extended it. We extended eligibility to the scheme in many ways. I suppose it is significant that our legislation even changed the name of the relevant legislation from its old name of the War Service Homes Act to the Defence Service Homes Act so that the serving members of the forces could derive continuing benefit.

It is not generally understood that all the great benefits of the defence service homes schemethe old war service homes scheme- have been provided without significant cost to the Government. Treasury will engage in using jargon to the effect that there is an opportunity lost factor; that is to say, if the money had not been used for these purposes it might have been used for some profit-making purposes. But even with the application of an exceptionally low interest rate under the defence service homes scheme- the lowest interest rate in the country- these loans have been made available without liability to the Commonwealth.

It is a sensible proposition that the scheme should be expanded. Probably there is merit in looking at the prospect of expanding the scheme and making it available to all Australians; but at least the Labor Party took it one step further than had been the case through the decades. The Labor Party made the scheme available to serving members of the forces by changing the name of the scheme from the war service homes scheme to the defence service homes scheme. National servicemen became eligible for the first time. They were able to qualify if they were serving on 6 December 1972 and if they elected to complete their period of engagement. Many national servicemen took advantage of that Labor Government innovation.

Under Labor’s legislation, which was assented to on 15 May 1973, regular servicemen became eligible for the first time. Regular servicemen were able to qualify if after 7 December 1972 they completed a period of continuous full-time service of not less than 3 years. The Labor Prime Minister of the day and subsequently I, as Minister in charge of the scheme, indicated that this innovation was based on our concept that the scheme could be used to attract volunteers. We were opposed to conscription. Indeed, subsequent events showed that this attraction, together with other attractions, was successful. We also said that we recognised the itinerant nature of a serviceman’s occupation and the difficulty that this caused in respect of the acquisition of a home. We can see no reason for those principles to be regarded today as having degenerated. The principles apply as well today as they ever did.

Under the same legislation of May 1973 the maximum amount of a loan was increased from $9,000, where it had stood from December 1971, to $12,000. From 3 September 1973 entitlement under the scheme was extended to apply to single females without dependants. Honourable members who have been in this place for some time will know that year after year the issue of eligibility for single females without dependants raised its ugly head. These people were unable to qualify under the legislation. Labor put a stop to that; the legislation was amended appropriately.

Another progressive reform that was undertaken by the Labor Government related to people within ancillary service categories. Again, for some decades, year after year, this was the subject of amendments to the legislation. I first came here as a member in 1955 and I think that such an amendment was moved during the first war service homes debate I ever heard. We put a stop to that procedure by extending eligibility to the scheme to ancillary service categories. Those categories included the personnel of the Australian Comforts Fund, the Australian Red Cross Society, the Salvation Army and similar welfare organisations whose personnel served after 3 September 1939. In legislation assented to on 6 December 1974 Labor extended the scheme to include single males without dependants, which had been another one of the old perennial issues. In December 1974 the amount of the maximum loan allowable was raised under Labor once again, this time to $15,000 at a 3% per cent interest rate on the first $12,000 and at Vh per cent interest rate on the amount in excess of $12,000. That interest rate of 7V4 per cent represented a preferential interest rate as against the ruling bank interest rate of the day.

Then new guidelines were set out for additional loans for essential purposes, for second assistance and for the transfer of the balance of loans in cases where mobility in employment or health considerations necessitated the sale of a home and the transfer of people from one place to another. These are matters of compassion on which, over the years, honourable members have received representations. We built into the legislation a discretionary power to enable the Minister to exercise compassion in respect of such cases. We did this recognising that these days mobility is a characteristic of employment, particularly in view of the fact that the Commonwealth especially, but also other employers, should retain the opportunity to deploy personnel, and recognising that ex-servicemen should not be disadvantaged when, as public servants, they are compelled to move from one city to another.

The three years of office of the Labor Administration were undoubtedly the most eventful for the war service homes scheme since its inception in 1918. Because of widened eligibility, the number of applications rapidly increased from 1 1,687 in 1972-73 to 15,494 in 1973-74. Despite this no waiting period was introduced for some time, certainly not for loans to build new homes. I acknowledge that in the latter stage a delay resulted in respect of applications for loans for existing homes. As honourable gentlemen will recall, on 24 June 1975 responsibility for the defence service homes scheme was transferred to the Australian Housing Corporation. That was the subject of another great saga which time will not permit me to discuss at this stage.

In the Labor Government’s first full financial year- 1973-74- capital expenditure on defence service homes was $102m, compared with $74.3m for 1972-73 and $65m for 1971-72. Honourable members should compare those figures. The Liberal Budget in 1971-72 gave $65m to the defence service homes scheme. The Labor Government gave $102m in its first full financial year, 1973-74. In 1974-75 this figure rose to $130m and the number of homes built under the Act reached 1,244, which was the highest figure for 10 years. In 1968-69, 767 homes were built. In 1969-70, 796 homes were built. In 1972-73, 919 homes were built. Under the Labor Government that figure rose to 1,244 in 1974-75. Under this Bill the period of continuous service which a serviceman enlisting after 1 7 August 1977 must complete is 6 years. Those whose service commenced prior to 17 August 1 977 need to complete only three years. The justification for this retrograde step of extending the qualifying period was given in the speech of the then Minister for Veterans ‘ Affairs, who said:

  1. . it will be consistent with, and will strengthen, the prevailing conditions of service for the Defence Forces that are designed to encourage longer service.

I think that this is a queer way of doing it. I do not think that the servicemen of this country will rub their hands with glee at the fact that the Government wants to strengthen the prevailing conditions of service by doubling the time they will have to serve before they can qualify for a war service home. No wonder the present Minister for Veterans’ Affairs (Mr Adermann), who is sitting at the table, is looking a little bewildered. I am sure he did not know that that provision was in the legislation. He can read it for himself. I assure him that it is a fact. Why can the concept of qualifying after three years of service not be retained? That was a virtue under Labor. Why is it such a virtue for the Liberals to be doubling the time these servicemen must wait? I represent thousands of servicemen from Army camps in the Liverpool and Holsworthy areas.

Mr Uren:

– They will have to wait nine years.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-Now these people will be subjected to a nine-year wait, as the honourable member for Reid has pointed out. In recent debates I have been able to illustrate that these servicemen, like those in many other Army communities throughout Australia, including the ones represented by the honourable member for Bendigo (Mr Bourchier), about whom the honourable member for Wills (Mr Bryant) knows so much, live in the most appalling housing conditions. Many of the houses in which they reside are condemned. The Commonwealth has been required to get rid of them because the local government authorities regard them as substandard. Regrettably, these people now will be forced to wait much longer. It is considered that a regular serviceman is at a disadvantage compared to other members of the community. I fail to see why this step is being taken.

There are other provisions about which I should like to speak but time is running out. The Opposition is very concerned about clause 27 (b) of the Bill, which will provide a discriminatory waiting period for defence service home loans. Preference in allocation to those with war service is provided for under this legislation. There will be a division of applicants into classes. There will be different minimum waiting periods between the time of making an application and receiving an advance. The provisions about the defence service homes insurance scheme give concern. We note the intention of the legislation to provide operational flexibility to maintain insurance cover and conditions that are no less attractive than those available elsewhere and to provide cover as set out in the statement of conditions. I note that the statement of conditions can be amended under this legislation without an enactment of the Parliament.

We are not terribly interested in the fact that the Government wants to maintain insurance cover and conditions that are no less attractive than those available elsewhere. From time immemorial it has been the case that ex-servicemen and servicemen who have been insuring their defence service homes have been able to get coverage on better terms and conditions than were available elsewhere. We understand that the Government believes that it is a bad thing that it should run a service which has superior qualities to those run by its opposition in the private sector. Ex-servicemen and servicemen who have insured their homes under this insurance scheme have enjoyed such conditions for a long time, but under this legislation there is every indication that the defence service homes insurance scheme will be watered down so that it is no better than any other. It will be simply on a par with the terms and conditions in existence under the competing insurance schemes. We oppose that provision. We would like to see ex-servicemen assisted in the same preferential way in the future as they have been in the past.

I am very concerned about the Government’s stated intention to phase out the housing estate scheme. I remind the House that a stock of approximately 12,000 hectares of land with a value of $39.4m was conscientiously built up by the Labor Government to ensure that houses could be made available in decently planned estates at the lowest possible prices to exservicemen and servicemen who were benefiting under the defence service homes scheme. There is no doubt that substantial benefit has been derived. We are anxious to know why in this Budget the Government has announced its intention to sell off that estate, probably to some exploitative developers who will require the same servicemen and ex-servicemen to pay a lot more than they would have had to pay under the defence service homes legislation.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Millar:

Order! The honourable member’s time has expired.

Mr GRAHAM:
North Sydney

-I support the Government in this legislation. I will vote against the amendment that has been moved by the honourable member for Reid (Mr Uren). Some of the comments made by the previous speaker, the honourable member for Hughes (Mr Les Johnson), ought to be answered. I have taken part in most of the debates on these subjects during the period of over 20 years in which I have been in this place. Whilst there might have been criticism of the Australian Labor Party’s period in government, it would be fair to say that when the honourable member for Hughes was the Minister for Housing and Construction he was never accused of lacking sincerity or dedication in the job he was trying to do. I cannot recall his ever being accused of lacking in compassion and interest for the welfare of ex-servicemen.

However, during the period in which he was privileged to be in the Government an incredible inflationary process began in this country which produced a cost problem for the building industry without parallel in the history of this nation. There is no doubt that during the period in which Labor was in power the costs of production in housing rose enormously. One of the reasons for the malaise from which the building industry now suffers is that it is unable to produce at a reasonable costing level by comparison with the rest of the Australian community. I believe that my colleague the honourable member for Hughes made it clear that he would have liked to pursue this matter for the whole of Australia. That of course is just a bland way of saying that he would like to nationalise the entire building industry. If one were to control the whole of the building industry and the banking industry in this country one would be able to provide, at a certain level of cost, homes for all people who needed them. This is the sort of pie in the sky that the honourable gentleman would like to adopt as national policy. The problem is that it cannot be done at a cost consistent with the ability of the nation to pay.

Now we have our friends from the Labor Party complaining bitterly about the Budget which has been recently introduced because it recognises that there has to be a rationalisation of costs in an economy like the Australian economy. As my colleague the honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Cadman) told the House, this program began many years ago and in an environment within which the circumstances were utterly different from those that exist in 1978. In 1918, when people were returning from the World War of 1 9 14- 1 8, the situation was that the Australian economy had boomed throughout the period of that war. In the years before 1 920 it faced a period of prosperity compared with the period that had existed before the outbreak of the war. It was decided that the servicemen, most of whom had suffered economically as the result of their period in the armed forces, because they had been in the battle in the Middle East or in France, would be entitled to an amount of money to assist in the provision of a home. These were men who would marry and raise the families of the future. They were loaned money and they had to pay it back. One might wonder whether the Labor Party ever expressed the view that it ought to have been a gift from a grateful nation and not simply a loan to assist them in the process of establishing a home.

It is interesting to note, as the Minister told us, that since the inception of the scheme, some 340,000 people have been assisted with these loans, the great majority of them having been granted in the period after World War II. Eighty per cent of the loans have been at the $15,000 level. The honourable member for Hughes pointed out, quite rightly, that it was during the period in office of the Whitlam Government that these loans were increased in size enormously. He neglected to say that there was an absolute necessity for this to occur because people would not have been able to provide homes for their families on the previous level of loan.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– There still is a necessity to increase it.

Mr GRAHAM:

– I can well understand the honourable gentleman feeling frustrated about these things. After all, he was the Minister at that time and he understands that there has to be a limit to what is available in the public purse. The national tragedy for this country and for this Parliament is that that was a lesson which between 1 972 and 1 975 was ignored. Members of the previous Government behaved like the bunch of profligate people who believed that Pandora’s box contained unlimited sums of money and that the taxpayers of this country could provide production levels which would allow the Government to increase deficits, and spend $6,000m that it did not have.

Mr Bryant:

– They are not as big as yours.

Mr GRAHAM:

– It is a great pity that the honourable member did not spend more time in Damascus when he was there. However, let me continue. In the period, which I can well remember, when the Labor Party was in government after the Second World War had ended, there was such a tremendous demand for loans for servicemen. Because of the shortage of funds and because of government economic policy at the time there was an enormous waiting list for loans, and that continued through the period after 1949 when the Menzies Government started and the Chifley Government went into opposition. The truth of the matter is that the waiting period at that time was in direct ratio to the demand. The reason why there was a waiting period for the servicemen is that if you expand the area from within which the demand can come, you will increase the demand, and the sums of money that are available in the budgetary process will run out. Those sums of money will be used during the period of the financial year and consequently some sort of priority list will have to be established.

I take the view that in the original concept the scheme was intended for people who had had, in practical terms, operational experience. In those days operational experience was a very real thing. Many of the ex-servicemen applying for loans were sailors. The vast majority of them were soldiers who had fought in the Middle East or on the battlefields of France. The great majority of these people had come from an environment, prior to 1914, which generally speaking would certainly not have equipped them to purchase, almost ad lib, homes for their families when they returned to Australia. Now the whole concept has altered altogether and people are assuming that such an entitlement should exist for people who served, whether or not they had any bullets fired at them. That is a remarkable change from the outlook which had existed in the first place. It seems to me that if people are entitled to a loan under the original concept in relation to war service, that entitlement ought to be protected against competition for the existing funds by those with lesser service or nonoperational service. That is the reason why I have taken the view that when the Government made its decision some years ago to extend loans to members of the regular forces it did the wrong thing.

I also take the view that in the War itself, when the Labor Party was in government- I remind my honourable friend of this- the people who were in the regular forces were covered by the repatriation and war service homes schemes only after 7 December 1941 or if they had gone from Australia as regular soldiers to serve in the 6th Division in the Middle East in the fighting against the Germans at that time or to serve in the Navy at sea. It was not applicable to regular servicemen engaged on home service here in Australia or in the Darwin area, for example. As we have been told, 80 per cent of the loans are now for $15,000 or more. The rates of interest applying are 3% per cent on $ 12,000 and 7.5 per cent on $3,000. Those are eminently fair and reasonable figures and they are of substantial value. In fact, from my knowledge of the exservicemen’s organisations I believe that if the

Government were to interfere with those figures there would be the most sensitive reaction indeed. That simply makes it clear that members of ex-servicemen’s organisations, like the rest of the community, have, in the words of the old Labor Party chieftain, a highly sensitive hip pocket nerve and therefore will react.

I hold the view that it is a fair and reasonable judgment that the people serving in the professional services ought to serve for at least six years before being entitled to a loan. It is also my view that there ought to be two lists and that those who have an entitlement under the original concept of this scheme ought to be recognised as having such an entitlement and ought not to be pushed off on to a waiting list by people who do not have a comparable degree of entitlement. In my judgment, that is a fair and reasonable proposition. Certainly I recognise and admit the point that was made by my friend, the honourable member for Hughes, and after the National Service Act was abolished by the Labor Government that Government sought to encourage people to render service in the armed forces in every possible way it could. One of the incentives offered was the entitlement to the defence service homes loan.

The cost of insurance cover has increased, as has almost every other cost in this country. That is the real reason why legal fees for loans and insurance are being introduced. It is all part of the costing program. These costs were relatively small between 1920 and 1940 and in the period soon after the Second World War. In recent years the costs have assumed a considerable level of impact upon the Government. In any parliamentary debate it is always easier to say that one would rather not see a fee installed than to say that one would rather see a fee installed. I lament the fact that there is a need for the $75 fee to be paid. I have no doubt that the Corporation takes the view that these costs are rising to such a degree that the rise ought to be recognised and that therefore there are reasonable grounds for this fee to be introduced.

As I said earlier, quite a number of people in the Regular Army are reaching the end of their period of service. These people certainly would have served in Vietnam. Some of them would have served in Malaya. Some of the very senior ones would have served in Korea. I think very few people who served in the Second World War would still be in the Army; most would have passed retiring age. I think it is important that the Government bear in mind that the people who have an established entitlement in the original sense of the legislation ought to be recognised as being in a category different from but not necessarily superior to those who have no comparable or similar service. I repeat that that is my view. I support the Government on this measure. I hope that I have answered in some degree the complaint that my colleague on the other side of the Parliament lodged. I think in all fairness that most ex-servicemen would compliment him upon his period as a Minister. In my judgment very few were as highly critical as he seems to suspect they may have been.

Mr STEWART:
Grayndler

-The Opposition has been forced to move an amendment in respect of this Bill to show that the Government again has failed to fulfil its promises to our ex-servicemen. This Bill is another example of the Government paying only lip service to its oftrepeated assertion about the great debt of gratitude we owe our ex-service men and women and the serving members of our defence forces. In this Bill, for the first time, a fee is levied on applications for loans under the defence service homes scheme. The total funds again have been reduced and the qualifying period for a loan for serving members of the forces has been extended by over 100 per cent. The defence service homes scheme, which was known previously as the war service homes scheme, has always been a politically administered scheme rather than an efficiently and economically administered scheme. Governments of all complexions have always placed value on the votes of our serving personnel and our ex-servicemen rather than seek value for taxpayers’ money spent on the requirements of eligible ex-service men and women. An examination of the scheme clearly shows this.

The scheme came into operation in March 1919, as part of the system of repatriation benefits, with the aim of satisfactorily securing the reinstatement to civilian life of members of the Australian Imperial Force. The Defence Service Homes Act now covers veterans from World War II and from other designated campaigns, for example, the Korean War. From 1973 exservice men or women who had three years continuous regular or national service in the defence forces were covered. One purpose of this Bill is to extend the period of qualifying service to six years for full time service subject to a commitment to render further full time service.

This Bill introduces a fee for obtaining a loan. It extends from three years to six years, subject to a commitment to render further full time service, the eligibility provisions for serving members of the armed forces. Continual changes have been made to the defence service homes scheme since 1919. The scheme now has become a hotchpotch. The policy objectives have been changed on a number of occasions. The repatriation concept of 1919 gave way to a reward for war service. Recently it was extended to retain and attract regular serving personnel. The present aims and objectives of the scheme appear to be to reward those who served their country in time of war, to attract and retain regular servicemen in peacetime, to recognise the significant contribution made to national defence by servicemen who undertake full time service of a substantial duration and to compensate regular service men and women for the considerable disadvantages they suffer in acquiring a permanent home when compared with other members of the community.

I am absolutely certain that nobody in this House would quarrel with the reward for service concept for our ex-service men and women and the serving members of our regular forces. Originally, the loan granted to returned servicemen was more or less sufficient to purchase a home at an interest rate slightly less than the long term housing interest rates of the day. Today the maximum loan of $15,000 is hardly sufficient to meet 50 per cent of the purchase price of a threebedroom home. The present interest rates are 3.75 per cent on the first $12,000, over a period of 32 years, and 7.25 per cent on the additional $3,000, again over a period of 32 years. That means that the average loan is being repaid at an interest rate of 4.5 per cent, which is significantly below long term interest rates. There have been three changes. There has been a change to the concept of why war service homes were introduced. There has been an extension of the scheme to various serving personnel and now to the regular serving personnel. There has been a change to the concept of interest rates and the value of the loan that was made available.

I suggest that it is being done by this Government, and that it was done by the Labor Government when it was in office, in order not to touch one of the holy cows.

I believe that because of our economic situation at the moment there is a need to look at all schemes that have been operating to make certain that they have not just grown like Topsy and that they have not just been added to or subtracted from without taking into account the value for money concept of the scheme itself. There has also been very wide variation over the years in the amount of money made available for fulfilling the policy objectives of the defence service homes scheme. Comparisons over recent years- I have taken these from the Budget

Papers for the last few years- show that in 1975- 76 the net payment for defence service homes was $47. 9m with an additional interest subsidy of $24.5m, making a total of $72.4m. In 1976- 77 the net payment was $31m and the interest subsidy was $23. lm, making a total of $54. lm. The total amount dropped from $72m to $54m. In 1977-78 the net payment was $20.7m. and the interest subsidy was $24.6m, making a total of $45.3m. The total amount dropped from $54m to $45m. In 1978-79 the estimated net payment to the Defence Service Homes Corporation is $ 10m and the interest subsidy is $25.6m, making a total of $35.6m. The figure has dropped from $45m in 1977-78 to $35m for this year. That is a decrease of $9.7m on the 1977-78 allocation and a decrease of $36.8m on the allocation for 1975-76.

There is no need for me to remind the House that 1975-76 was the year in which the last Labor Budget was handed down. Under the Labor Government the Defence Service Homes Corporation was getting $70.24m, and under this Government- the Government that says that defence is paramount and that its gratitude to our ex-servicemen is unbounded- the figure this year has been reduced to $35.6m. That represents a decrease of $36.8m over the last three years. The capital advance to the defence service homes scheme this year is $10m. In 1975-76 under the Labor Government the capital advance was $47.9m. In other words, this Government has decreased by $37.9m the capital advance to the Defence Service Homes Corporation. Again, so much for this Government’s concern to keep its promise to our ex-servicemen and women and the regular members of our armed forces.

Let me take the Budget allocation for the Defence Service Homes Corporation a little further. This year, $68. 8m from repayments of principal by borrowers will be retained in the trust fund. If one adds the $10m capital advance granted in the Budget that makes a total for lending purposes of $78.8m. That figure of $78.8m, when compared with the figure of $90m for 1977-78, represents a decrease of $1 1.2m. In addition, the Defence Service Homes Corporation is expected to pay to the Consolidated Revenue Fund $6m, estimated to be the proceeds from the sale of surplus building blocks and land, and further repayments of $7.8m for other reasons. The end result is that whilst the capital advance and the interest subsidy is shown to be $35.6m, the repayments to Consolidated Revenue of $13. 8m reduce the effective amount to $2 1.8m and even less if one or two other transactions are taken into account.

There is no doubt in my mind nor in the collective minds of the members of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Expenditure that the defence service homes scheme is due for a thorough overhaul. I draw the attention of the House to the Committee’s report on the scheme which was tabled in this House in May of this year. The Committee is chaired by the honourable member for Lilley (Mr Kevin Cairns) and is an all-party Committee. The Committee worked very hard in preparing this report. In the opening paragraph of the report the Committee says:

This report represents the first in-depth and searching examination of the Defence Service Homes Scheme (DSHS ) which came into operation in 1 9 1 9, almost 60 years ago.

The Committee’s major recommendations are as follows:

  1. the Government appoint a suitably qualified person from outside the Public Service to assess the relative effectiveness of programs designed to attract persons into and retain them in the Services and to devise methods to enable continuing measurement or assessment of the effectiveness of these programs . . .
  2. the Minister for Veterans ‘ Affairs define and explain the objectives of the Defence Service Homes Scheme to the Parliament . . .
  3. the long title of the Defence Services Homes Act 1918 be amended to read as follows: An Act to assist eligible persons to acquire a residential dwelling . . .
  4. the Defence Service Homes Act 1918 be amended to allow eligible persons to choose to receive either a housing loan or a cash grant which would also be used to acquire a residential dwelling . . .

The Committee made 13 recommendations in all. I seek leave of the House to incorporate in Hansard the remaining nine recommendations which appear on page 6 of the report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Expenditure into the defence service homes scheme.

Leave granted.

The document read as follows-

  1. the size of the grant to be determined in the legislation and reviewed periodically. (Paragraph 107 (c) ).
  2. there be no application fee for those who receive grants. (Paragraph 107(d) ).
  3. the Government prepare for distribution a pamphlet on the new options available to eligible persons. (Paragraph 107(e) ).
  4. that the Minister for Finance determine that the interest rate payable by the Defence Service Homes Corporation on its total accumulated capital be the current long-term bond rate, so that the Interest Subsidy item in Appropriation Bill No. 1 will in future reflect the full economic cost of the concessional interest rates applied to DSHS loans. (Paragraph 110).
  5. the numbers of staff used in the processing of new applications in the Defence Service Homes Corporation State Officers of Victoria, South Australia and Tasmania be reduced by 8 staff, 4 staff and 2 staff respectively. (Paragraph 127).
  6. the Defence Service Homes Corporation undertake a cost-effectiveness study to determine whether magnetic tape units should be used- to obtain cost savings by sharing the computer facility with departments; and as an alternative to microfiche in registry work. (Paragraph 138).
    1. the Department of Veterans’ Affairs, the Department of Finance and the Public Service Board undertake a costeffectiveness study of alternative methods of collecting repayments from borrowers. (Paragraph 148).
  7. annual reports of the Defence Service Homes Corporation include information on unit costs of processing new applications and maintaining securities in each State Office and information on the number of man-days taken to process new applications in each State Office. ( Paragraph 1 6 1 ).
  8. appropriate changes be made to relevant legislation to allow persons who obtain loans under the Defence Service Homes Scheme to insure their properties with the company of their choice. (Paragraph 163).
Mr STEWART:

– I thank the House. Recommendation 4 is an absolutely new approach to the defence service homes scheme and deserves serious and urgent consideration by the Government. The cost savings are emphasised by the Committee throughout the report. In paragraph 108 on page 23 of the report the Committee says:

The Committee has reached these conclusions after a most careful and comprehensive evaluation of the DSHS program. Some of the figuring is based on broad judgments and this could lead some to question the validity of the conclusions. What should be emphasised and what should not be lost sight of, however, is that the optional grant provides governments and the Parliament with the opportunity of converting significant administration costs into benefits for recipients and savings for taxpayers. It is surely axiomatic that such an opportunity, when accepted, would make public sector spending more productive and therefore result in a better allocation of resources.

The case presented by the Committee is set out fully in its report. The figures are there for all honourable members and all ex-service organisations to study. The Committee has found that a number of persons who are eligible under the scheme have not taken up their loans for one reason or another. Many people cannot see their way clear to finding the gap between the $ 1 5,000 available by way of the loan and the price of a house.

Mr Kevin Cairns:

– This would help those very much.

Mr STEWART:

– It would certainly help those people in many directions. They would still have to find the differences from some other source. Perhaps the cash grant would enable them to bridge the deposit gap. The Committee was thinking about ex-servicemen and exservicewomen and the regular members of our armed forces when it made its recommendation.

I ask this House, and the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs (Mr Adermann) in particular, to make certain that this report is given full and thorough investigation and consideration and that immediate action be taken to implement some, if not all, of the recommendations. The implementation of the recommendations will save taxpayers’ money, ensure more efficient use of resources and establish a better scheme for assisting eligible persons to acquire a residential dwelling.

Mr McVEIGH:
Darling Downs

-The National Country Party desires to be associated with this important piece of legislation. At the outset I state that we fully support the Defence Service Homes Amendment Bill as introduced by the Government and we are totally opposed to the amendments moved by the honourable member for Reid (Mr Uren). It is appropriate to say that the three speeches from the Opposition in essence have been good contributions, particularly the speech of the honourable member for Grayndler (Mr Stewart) who has just resumed his seat, and the speech of the former Minister for Housing and Construction in the Labor administration, the honourable member for Hughes (Mr Les Johnson). I take issue with some of the views expressed by the honourable member for Reid, who led for the Opposition in the debate, not only as to their accuracy but as to their general thrust. I do not include his total contribution as deserving that criticism but he made certain statements which should not go unchallenged.

Early in his speech he criticised the charging of an application fee of the order of $75. It is appropriate to point out that this initiative of the Government is aimed at bringing loan applications under this legislation in line with applications for housing loans generally. The honourable member for Reid did not say that there is power under the legislation to refund the application fee if that is deemed appropriate. An analysis of the statistics would indicate that there is good reason for the introduction of an application fee. Last year some 2,000 applications were declined or refused. The vast majority of them were declined because the people concerned were not eligible to participate in the scheme. They did not fulfil one or other of the various requirements relating to eligibility. In a day when administration costs a considerable sum- the honourable member for Grayndler touched on administration costs in the latter part of his speech- it is appropriate that some restriction by way of an application fee should be placed on people who file applications for the sheer fun of it.

The honourable member for Reid, when eulogising the achievement of his Government, stated that the availability of manpower, material and resources under his Government did not lead to an increase in inflation. When a member of the Labor Government stands in this national forum and says publicly, without blinking an eye, that his Government did not increase inflation, I believe his credibility must be questioned. The facts are there. I do not want to belabour the point at all.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Your Government did the same thing.

Mr McVEIGH:

– I say to the honourable member for Hughes that it is wrong, that it is inaccurate, that it borders on the dishonest, for a colleague of his in this place to infer that his Government did not preside over the most staggering increase in inflation in this nation’s history. The facts are there. The Labor administration left the Treasury benches of Australia with inflation running at about 20 per cent. At present, under our Government, it is of the order of 6 per cent. An independent observer, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, has stated that at the end of this year the rate will be down to 5 per cent. I want to talk about facts, not fiction. It ill behoves anyone to say that the Australian Labor Party did not preside over the greatest increase in inflation in our history. It is also appropriate to remind members of the Opposition that when they came to power loans under this legislation were available immediately. They introduced a nine months’ waiting period.

I support the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Graham) in drawing to the attention of the House the argument that in justice those who actually engaged in war service, those who served in a theatre of war, are entitled to greater consideration in the allocation of finance than those who did not. The honourable member for North Sydney advanced that argument immaculately. In speaking on behalf of the National Country Party I want to be associated with the view expressed by him. The present Minister for Veterans’ Affairs (Mr Adermann) spelt out the situation quite clearly. At present it is not the intention of the Government to put into effect the area of the legislation which would allow this to be done. I know that the Minister will comment on that point in his reply.

Previous speakers, as is their right, advanced criticisms of the Government’s activity in the area of defence force housing. It is appropriate for me to refer to what is recorded on page 3 192 of Hansard, which always is a true and accurate record of what transpires in this House. We pay tribute to those excellent Hansard reporters for accurately recording what is said in this House. On 7 June 1978 the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Hayden) stated:

  1. . how unnecessary it is for this portfolio to have its own Minister. It can be comfortably handled as a secondary responsibility by some other Minister.
Mr Corbett:
Mr McVEIGH:

– I can easily understand the reaction of the honourable member for Maranoa in saying that it was dreadful for the Leader of the Opposition to say that the Department of Veteran’s Affairs should be abolished and that responsibility for its functions should be handled by another Minister in a secondary role. So we have Opposition speakers in this House loud in defence of the ex-servicemen of Australia but the Leader of the Opposition wants to abolish the portfolio of Veterans’ Affairs. To give true balance to the situation I would like to put on record what the Fraser-Anthony Government feels about veterans’ affairs. We have given a pledge that the portfolio and the Department will continue. The Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) has appointed to this portfolio an experienced Minister who has great administrative ability, the man who guided the Northern Territory into self-government in a very short period of time. On the one hand we have the Labor Party which wants to abolish the portfolio and to make Veterans’ Affairs a secondary department; on the other hand, on our side of the House we have a very experienced and senior Minister appointed to the special responsibility of administering veterans’ affairs. We believe that this portfolio should be placed in the hands of an experienced Minister, a man of proven ability, because there is a specialist role to be fulfilled and statistics indicate that the maximum peak load in this area has not been reached.

Mr Cadman:

– Hear, hear!

Mr McVEIGH:

– I appreciate the sentiments of the honourable member for Mitchell that there is a need to have a specialist Minister because it is a specialist role and there is an on-going commitment in a highly technical and difficult arena. We are pledged to continue the scheme. Previous speakers have detailed the wonderful achievements in the general area of defence service home loans. I have no intention of playing on words. One would admit quite readily the point made by the honourable member for Grayndler that fewer funds are available this year compared with last year. We would not want to camouflage that issue, nor should we. However, I think it is appropriate to remind the House and the people of Australia that because of the fact that we have encouraged home ownership in this country as against the policy and platform of the Australian Labor Party of encouraging home rental- it even has the temerity to suggest that we should have an imputed value on home ownership as far as rental is concerned- many of the people who are at present in the defence forces have, on account of security, cost containment and a deliberate emphasis in the area of home ownership, already obtained their own homes. Whilst less finance is available this year compared with last year, it is appropriate to remind the House that on account of the emphasis on home ownership many people in the defence forces who do not meet the eligibility requirements under the present legislation have purchased their own homes and will not be waiting until the completion of their service to take advantage of the generous allowances under this scheme.

It is also appropriate to remind the House that this legislation does not interfere with the provisions which applied to people who were members of the Services prior to 17 August. The rules are exactly the same for them. They have been altered only as far as the extension of service is concerned for people who join any of the defence forces after 17 August. I believe that point has been glossed over in the comments made by the members of the Opposition. Previous speakers have detailed in chapter and verse the history of the development of the scheme and I will not harrow the same ground, except to say that initially the scheme was designed for volunteers who served in the First World War and the Second World War. Afterwards it was extended to volunteers who served in the Malayan, Korean and Vietnam campaigns. With the advent of the Australian Labor Party to the treasury bench in 1972 we witnessed the abolition of national service training, which is something that always will be a matter for debate, particularly as far as the chiselling and hammering into shape of the character of the people of this nation is concerned. The Labor Government wanted to encourage conscripts to stay in and it extended the eligibility criteria to cover national servicemen.

I ask the Minister to give special consideration to a couple of aspects in the general area of defence service home loans. Many elderly people who have put up with the hardships of the west, such as the electorate of Maranoa, for a lifetime without any complaint- people who are good Australians and who have made Australia a great country- are now settling in areas closer to the metropolitan areas. Because of ignorance on their part and because they were able to get a good deal by paying cash for their homes they have been unaware that finance is available to them as people who have participated in any of the conflicts to which I have referred. It is only after they have had time to settle in that they have become aware of the fact that they are eligible on account of their war service for assistance to purchase a home through the financial arrangements of this legislation. I hope that the Minister will give consideration to allowing an allocation of finance to these people who purchase homes in good faith without knowledge that the assistance is available to them under this scheme. They are disadvantaged because they have purchased a home without the prior approval of the Department. I appreciate the very great difficulty in which many of these people find themselves. I hope that the Minister, in his consideration of this matter, eventually will give approval for these people who did not have that knowledge to participate in this scheme.

I compliment the Department as far as the inspection services carried out by it is concerned. Too often and in too many cases right across the broad spectrum of political responsibility in Australia we find that people are taken for what is literally termed a ride. The Department, through its inspection services, is able to advise people as to the condition of a home. This has saved much hardship, much personal trauma and much suffering. However, I hope that the Minister, again in his consideration of this general area, will be able to water down a little in specific circumstances the durability component of the provisions of the legislation as far as inspection is concerned. It may be that for certain reasons someone who has lived in the country all his life and who has enjoyed the fresh country air wishes to buy a home in a specific locality, although it has a few problems. I would think that, as a matter of justice in endeavouring to allow every person the right to own a home of his choosing in the locality in which he would like to reside, some watering down of the durability component could be allowed. I would not want to see a watering down of the durability component lead to people being taken for a ride, but provided the Department inspects and advises the person that there is a problem and makes him fully aware of it I would think that the person, as a matter of freedom of choice, should have the right to decide whether he or she wants to purchase a particular home.

An area that was not commented on accurately by Opposition speakers is that of insurance. I realise that they may not have had sufficient time to cover all aspects fully but some very constructive comments were made. On 29 June it was stated that, due to savings in administration by virtue of the fact that we have a specialist Minister in charge of a specialist role, there would be a reduction of 12 per cent in insurance premiums. I think it meant a saving of the order of $5 per annum. The significant thing about this is that savings in insurance premiums were also to be allowed in respect of people who were still living in the same home even though they had paid back the original loan. I should have thought that one of the Opposition speakers would have taken note of that point and would have commented that insurance premiums generally for defence service home loans have been reduced.

There has been some rigidity in regard to the insurance proposals. This legislation does bring a bit of housekeeping into the whole area. In effect the Minister can more or less adopt the same rules on insurance as, say, the Commonwealth Bank. This will allow things to be attended to quickly. It is appropriate for me at this stage to pay tribute to the officers of the Department who were involved in the disaster which occurred at Toowoomba. Many of the homes which suffered damage were covered by defence service home loans insurance. The ready response and the great personal charity, as it were, of these officers in dealing with all these cases are things which the people of Toowoomba shall always remember and for which they will be extremely grateful. The Minister now has the opportunity to update the legislation more in Une with modern practice. I notice in the amendment which has been moved by the Opposition the inference that insufficient information was being given to the Parliament. Under the legislation the Minister has to advise the Parliament of any decisions he makes on these matters.

I also want to comment on the provisions relating to de facto relationships. I come from a party which, quite wrongly, is branded as being ultra conservative and as not moving with the time. We do want to be associated with this very humane initiative.

Mr Bryant:

– But what times?

Mr McVEIGH:

– The Labor Party had three long years, as far as the Australian population was concerned- they may have been three short years as far as honourable members opposite were concerned- in which to do this very thing, but it did not see fit to alter the situation. The Labor Government took the attitude that a woman in a de facto relationship should be considered differently from a woman in a legal relationship. It has been left to us to change this and to prove that we are concerned about and interested in people, that we pass no moral judgment, but that we believe that people in such circumstances are people with human dignity.

I make a special request to the Minister. I know that the hour is late as far as this legislation is concerned, but I ask the Minister to see whether some retrospectivity can be applied to people in a de facto relationship. I know that the legislation provides that the date on which the Bill becomes an Act will be the cut-off date. I hope that the legislation can be backdated to accommodate those people who have fulfilled the conditions of living with a partner for the required amount of time and other regulations, rather than the legislation having a cut-off date. Surely retrospectivity can be considered as part and parcel of the provisions of the legislation which deal with de facto relationships. That is a move which would be very much appreciated by those people who find themselves in that unfortunate position.

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

Debate (on motion by Mr Bryant) adjourned. Sitting suspended from 5.46 to 8 p.m.

page 556

APPROPRIATION BILL (No. 1) 1978-79

Second Reading (Budget Debate)

Debate resumed from 15 August, on motion by Mr Howard:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr HAYDEN:
Leader of the Opposition · Oxley

- Mr Speaker, one thing must be said at the outset in any reply to this 1978-79 Budget Speech: It leaves the Fraser Government totally discredited. A Government which piled deceit upon deceit to perpetuate itself in office less than a year ago is doing it again. Horrendous as this Budget is, the Government is still trying to hide the full impact. There are extraordinary discrepancies in the Budget Speech and the Budget Papers, and I will deal with those later. But even taken at face value, it is a Budget designed to penalise the poor and reward the rich. It is a Budget totally inappropriate in concept for the situation this nation faces today. In implementation, who can tell how much worse it may be?

The simple fact about this Government and its pronouncements is that they can no longer be believed. Less than a year ago, the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) was saying:

This Government has brought in the largest and fairest reforms ever made in Australia ‘s tax system.

He said:

We have reduced taxes, revived incentive and restored fair reward for achievement.

Tell that to the mother who has just lost her family allowance because one of the kids earns $20 a week for baby-sitting or selling newspapers. Where is the incentive for the Billy Sneddens of tomorrow? The Prime Minister said:

The Australian people will not accept a return to high taxes. The Government will bring taxes down further, not increase them.

Try telling that to any taxpayer in Australia today, especially the 55 per cent who have lost all benefit of the February tax cuts. Try explaining the justice of tax increases which represent less than 5 per cent for someone like the Prime Minister, earning $1,500 a week, but 8 per cent for people earning only $250 a week. This Government has had the effrontery to talk about this Budget as ‘fair, honest and responsible’. In every respect, it is the very opposite. It is unfair, it is dishonest, and it is irresponsible. It is unfair because it strikes most savagely against the people least able to defend themselves, while it is easiest on those with the capacity to look after themselves. It is dishonest in almost every way: In the way it dismisses solemn promises made earlier, in the way it is presented, and in terms of what it claims to achieve. It is irresponsible because it refuses to recognise the real problems our economy and our people face, and the way in which those problems can be met.

For the typical worker earning about $200 a week, this Budget imposes a series of measures which will take away about $12 a week- an average $1.80 for petrol; an average $2.00 for cigarettes and drinks; an average $ 1 .50 for clothing and footwear; an extra $3.20 for tax; and, for home-buyers, an extra $3.50 for mortgage repayments. In an election campaign last year, this Government and this Prime Minister were promising fistfuls of money. ‘We have ended the big tax rip-off’, said the Prime Minister in his policy speech. Now, he has forgotten. The creeping amnesia of this Government has affected even its most basic promises to the people. What will we see next? Perhaps a request to the Treasurer (Mr

Howard) from the Prime Minister that he think again about what was in last week’s Budget? Or will the Minister for Finance (Mr Eric Robinson) be expected to carry the can again? How can anyone believe this Government when it talks about responsibility and expertise in running the economy? There have been more false starts in policy by this Administration than there have been sackings. The Cabinet is mesmerised by the flashing of stilleto blades.

This third Fraser Budget is even more perfidious than its predecessors- no mean feat. We have been regaled in recent weeks by the accounts- courtesy of a former Minister- of how the Prime Minister tabled his view of the Budget presentation to a former Treasurer last year; of how the former Treasurer replied:

I couldn’t live with myself if I had to defend that sort of presentation in the Parliament.

I suppose it is some credit to the former Treasurer that he was prepared to describe the Budget figures, only one day after he had presented them to Parliament, as ‘rubbery’. But unfortunately for the former Treasurer, he did not live on in that portfolio. It will be fascinating to hear- as I am certain we soon will- the inside story of this year’s Budget. Truth seems to ooze from this Administration in direct proportion to the knife-wielding it goes through. This third Fraser Budget may look different from its predecessors, but it continues the steady process of redistributing Australia’s wealth and resources away from the great bulk of the people to the rich and to big business. Like its predecessors, it ignores the brutal social costs imposed by the Prime Minister’s obsessions. The Henderson Inquiry demonstrated the extent of an intolerable poverty problem, even in the buoyant days of 1974. How much worse must that problem be today, after the traumas to which this Government has subjected the economy? How much worse will be the long-term problems arising from chronic unemployment? You can be quite certain that this Government will not attempt to find out.

But we do see evidence in many other directions. There are disturbing social costs associated with high, long-term unemployment among our young people. These costs have already been identified in some areas by several social surveys in a number of our major cities: Drug taking, neurotic behaviour such as attempted suicide, a higher proportion of the unemployed appearing in the police courts. Fine young people with educational qualifications are finding there is no place for them in the work force. The system, under the Liberals, has failed them. The outer suburbs of the larger capital cities are a stricken wasteland for our young people. Unemployment among the young at Liverpool, in Sydney, exceeds 50 per cent. Overseas, it is often said that the less well-educated young who suffer longterm unemployment resort to crime in the streets, the better educated to terrorism in the suburbs. We are experiencing the first symptom already. This is what Liberal Party expertise and National Country Party manipulation have done to the Australian people. The Government has locked itself into a vicious spiral. It refuses to acknowledge that it has social, as well as economic, responsibilities to the Australian community. The Government has locked the entire nation into a crippling pattern of ever-more severe contraction. It has made a monster of deficit financing. So it closes the deficit gap through increased revenue from personal tax. That reduces consumer demand, which in turn reduces the general level of economic activity. Unemployment rises, less income tax is collected and more has to be paid out in unemployment benefits. The need for increased Government spending becomes greater at the same time as revenue falls away, because of the decrease in the rate of earnings. As we saw last financial year, the deficit swells rather than contracts. And the Government’s response is to apply the same counter-productive medicine all over again.

Kenneth Davidson, the economics editor of The Age, said of this Budget last week that it would appear to be more appropriate to a boom than to a recession. Describing it as ‘viciously deflationary’, Davidson said:

Such a Budget would be appropriate to an economy where private sector spending is about to go into an inflationary spiral or where the economy must be brought to a full stop to avert a balance of payments crisis.

Does that sound like a Budget for our real needs?

There are more sensible and more appropriate approaches available. Labor has an alternative mix of Budget proposals which would be more deflationary than the Government’s proposals, which would give the economy a mild, controlled stimulus and which would start to reduce unemployment. I shall outline our proposals a little later. Unlike the Budget before us, they represent a genuine effort to find honest, fair and responsible answers to the problems we face. Let me offer this quotation:

The last three years have hurt many people. Those who are worse off are: The weak and unorganised, the poor, the retired, the small businessman and the farmer, the school leaver, the family man who is paying more of his wages in tax than ever before in our history.

How appropriate a comment for today’s circumstances! In fact, that was our current Prime Minister talking about the three years to the end of 1975. What blatant deceit and hypocrisy those words represent today. In the period of nearly three years since this Government assumed office measured unemployment has risen from 280,000 to about 400,000 people. There are about 250,000- one quarter of a million- more people who would be seeking work if there was any chance of getting it. They have just disappeared from the figures.

The Government is much given to talking about ‘dole bludgers’, quite ignoring the fact that its own policies created the great majority of the people it chooses to brand in this unfair way. Of course, there always will be a small percentage which imposes on a social welfare benefit. That always has been true. It is one of those facets of human behaviour we have to live with- like tax avoidance, or doctors milking the health insurance scheme.

Suddenly, this Government is claiming that so-called ‘dole bludgers’ are imposing to the extent of $50m a year- an incredible figure; an unbelievable figure. What possible basis in fact can the Government have for so precise an estimate? There can be no real basis at all. This is just another example of the Government’s ‘rubbery’ figures; another example of how fact and fiction are treated as wholly interchangeable in this rigged and distorted Budget.

Let us look further at this issue. Last year, the Budget allocation for unemployment benefit was $640m. The Government has assumed an increase in the number of recipients of 10 per cent, with an inflation adjustment for those with dependants. That should have produced an allocation for the current year of more than $900m. Instead, we find a figure of $786m- $120m below reasonable expectations.

Less than half of that figure can be accounted for in the Government’s latest changes to the benefit system. But, on the most charitable reckoning, there is about $70m not accounted for. This, let me stress, is in the Budget allocation. Actual spending last financial year was 20 per cent above the Budget estimate, and the year before that it was 28 per cent above the Budget estimate. The system is being changed to try to starve single people back into the work force- to jobs which are disappearing at an ever faster rate because of government economic policy. What an appalling travesty of a so-called honest and fair Budget.

The Government continues to talk about ‘dole bludgers’ as if nobody else is receiving government assistance. Yet government assistance to industry pre-empts ten times more of our gross domestic product than unemployment payments. In other words, for every $ 1 that goes to someone out of work $10 is transferred by one means or another to industry.

Apart from the unemployed, the Government has lashed out against pensioners and the sick. The change from twice a year to once a year indexation of pensions will cost pensioners $100m a year. Labor opposes the change and would reverse it.

On Medibank, this Goverment is running around in circles. At the outset it opposed the use of a levy, so Medibank had to be financed out of general revenue. Then the Liberal Party of Australia and the National Country Party decided that people should, after all, pay directly for Medibank through a levy. Now, it is decided once again that there should not be a levy. We are back, near enough, to Medibank Mark I, the Labor scheme.

Our argument with the Government is not on doctrine but on the practical mechanisms that might make this scheme work. The Government has no idea what these mechanisms will be. The Treasurer simply dismisses them with the phrase that they are ‘yet to be negotiated’. The Minister for Health (Mr Hunt) refuses to give an undertaking that the level of subsidy payments in this Budget will be maintained beyond the end of the financial year.

We cannot believe that the Government has suddenly found this long-term commitment to the spirit of Medibank Mark I. The motive for this year’s change is simply to fiddle the consumer price index- nothing more. A levy, earmarked specifically for Medibank, raises the consumer price index. Funding the health scheme out of general revenue reduces the index. The Government is desperate to have a decrease to offset the effects of its new taxes and excise measures.

On the other side of the health field, the Government is plainly seeking to force a larger share of the cost of hospitals onto the States. Negotiations in prospect with the States point ominously towards the imposition of a means test for public ward treatment. Despite the fact that it is doctors who dictate the extent of what the Government sees as ‘over-use’ of the health system, the Government is shaping up to dump more responsibility onto the States, on the pretext that patients are the exploiters. I defy anyone to explain how that attitude demonstrates a commitment to universal health care. The Medibank changes are a fraud, dictated by the other spurious priorities this Government has set itself.

As the State governments have now discovered, the Fraser federalism is a similar fraud. It yields nothing for the States. They have received a 5.1 per cent increase in funds through the Budget while other areas of spending have grown by 9.3 per cent. Federalism has not worked. In two of the three years since its introduction all States except Queensland have had to fall back on the Whitlam formula for tax-sharing to guarantee their position. Tasmania has had to rely on the formula in all three years.

The Treasurer said today that all States will have to fall back on the guarantee in 1979-80. The Commonwealth has cut back savagely on capital funds from the Budget and has forced the States to raise more of their capital funds on the open market at higher rates of interest. This has added about $100m to the interest costs of the authorities concerned over these three years. The States are left no alternative but to raise charges to meet these increasing debt servicing costs. The end result, of course, can only be inflationary, despite the declared objectives of the Fraser Government.

The frauds perpetrated by this Budget go on and on. The Government’s refusal to increase or even index the unemployment benefit for single people without dependants continues its war of attrition against those people out of work. A mere 13 months ago, the Prime Minister had this to say:

Unemployment is a dispiriting experience that not only undermines self-respect but creates social problems. Its effects are not just confined to the person unemployed, but they are felt throughout the whole structure of family life.

Today, the Prime Minister takes a different view, based on the barbaric philosophy that the jobless should be punished for their unemployment, the more so if they have no family ties to sustain them.

Once-a-year indexation of pensions and benefits- where it applies- will mean lags of up to 16 months behind actual cost-of-living increases under the Government’s arrangements. In the Prime Minister ‘s policy speech last year he declared:

We have taken politics out of pension increases by linking them automatically with the consumer price index.

Look at the reality. The family allowance is not indexed, although the rebate scheme it replaced would have been. The result is that thousands of people are worse off already under what the Prime Minister described as the greatest social reform in decades.

Moreover, the family allowance is to be reduced to offset a child’s income from such sources as the tertiary education allowance scheme. If the parents are fortunate enough not to need TEAS, they retain the full allowance; otherwise they lose. Thousands of unemployed are to be denied indexation for themselves; thousands more are denied it in the allowance for their children. The single rate unemployment benefit remains below the Henderson poverty line. The domiciliary nursing care benefit is not indexed. In fact, it has not been changed from the rate of $2 a day since its introduction.

Last year, in his election policy speech, the Prime Minister promised that the daily rate would be increased and the age limit reduced from 65 to 16. Now, apparently, he again has been stricken by amnesia. The domiciliary nursing care benefit was introduced specifically to relieve the pressure on institutional care. The steady run-down in its value must renew pressure on the institutions. But what has happened there? Two years ago, the Government announced a three-year program to provide $225m for aged persons housing. At the end of three years, it will have spent, in fact, $154m, and the program is being extended to four years with no extra allocation of funds.

The basis of grants to the States for home care services is being cut back from $2 for $ 1 to $ 1 for $ 1 . The whole general trend of these changes can only be to force the sick and aged out of their homes into expensive institutional accommodation. So much for the new deal in health and welfare.

The Prime Minister’s obsession with inflation is mirrored by matching obsessions with deficit figures and the size of the public sector. Like all obsessions, they represent a blinkered view of reality. Deficit figures have become almost meaningless by themselves. We saw last year that the projected deficit blew out by 50 per cent, or $ 1 , 100m. Honestly presented, the Budget outcome would have shown the deficit considerably higher- around $4,000m. With it, we have lower employment and deeper recession.

The point is this: the Government misconceives the problem. Irrespective of the size of the deficit, it is using the wrong mix of policy instruments. If the Government had actually budgeted for a deficit of $4,000m in the year just ended, the results for the economy would have been no different, because the strategy of the Budget was wrong. The mix of measures to be employed is the crucial factor and I shall shortly be offering our alternative.

We have been offered an investment-led recovery, an export-led recovery, a consumer-led recovery. Now, apparently, we are expected to believe in a depression-led recovery. So far as the size of the public sector is concerned, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development has shown conclusively that the situation in Australia is that our public sector is one of the smallest in the Western world.

What is tending to make the public sector here look relatively larger- that is, relative to more normal times domestically- is the steady contraction of the private sector. The private sector is being crushed into the ground by the policies of the Fraser Government and now it is expected to find salvation through further suffering. Ever since it came to power, this Government has been proclaiming economic recovery to be just around the corner. It has regularly used the official estimates of growth to support its claims. Yet most of those estimates have turned out to be mirages.

The first estimate of non-farm growth for the March quarter of 1976 was 3.1 per cent. It was revised downward over seven successive quarters to a figure of 0.8 per cent. The estimate for the March quarter of this year started at an estimated 2.6 per cent growth and has now dropped to 0.8 per cent. I must say, frankly, that the Opposition cannot believe the Government’s estimate of a 4 per cent rate of non-farm growth in the current financial year. We believe that even with great optimism the best that can be conceived will be nearer 3 percent.

The Budget estimate is offered in the face of a virtual freeze in government spending in real terms. This can only mean that the Government expects the private sector, representing 75 per cent of the total, to provide all the expected growth. In other words, it must grow by 6 per cent. Last year, real non-farm growth was about 1.8 per cent. Government spending contributed about half of that figure by growing 3.8 per cent. The private sector grew by only 1 . 1 per cent to contribute its half to the total.

Under this Budget, it is impossible to see where the private sector can increase its growth rate from 1.1 per cent to 6 per cent. Equally, one cannot see the growth coming from the public sector. Cuts in the public sector will depress private sector activity. Government policy is sharply contractionary. The Budget assumes real growth of 4 per cent and, after taking the gross domestic product deflator into account, an 1 1 per cent increase in money terms. Yet the money supply increase is targeted at 6 to 8 per cent, which is somewhere between 3 per cent and 5 per cent below needs. The Government assumes that increased household savings and greater velocity of money movement will help to cover some of the shortfall. But the contraction of disposable income due to tax increases makes it impossible to see this effect bringing the final result up to the level of last year’s real growth rate.

Let me put to the House now the sort of budget Australia needs and should have for 1978-79. The Labor alternative must naturally take the figures contained in this Budget for many of its starting points. Given that qualification, we believe that what we propose is soundly conceived in the light of national need. A Labor Budget would aim for modest expansion and a reduction of unemployment, not stagnation. On the revenue side, most of the tax increases announced in the Budget last week would be done away with. The rate of income tax has gone up by about 5 per cent on a full year, while the increase in indirect taxes is about 1 5 per cent.

The combined contractionary effects of these changes, according to Professor John Neville, amounts to cutbacks of about 2 percentage points in GDP growth. We would retain the measures to tighten self-assessment for provisional tax and restrictions to income, averaging provisions for non-farm income of primary producers. We would abandon the other tax increases. An auction tender system would be substituted for the 12 lh per cent tariff on imports subject to quota. This would be a much more certain way of reaping the windfall profits from the quota system and would lessen the strong possibility of the increase in tariff being passed on to consumers.

The excise increase on beer, cigarettes and spirits would be removed. The increase in the price of crude oil not covered by the import parity arrangements would be removed. It is too much, too soon, as the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Anthony) said less than a year ago. The increased costs that would flow from the Government’s new petrol tax are enormous. It must force up food prices. For the average Queensland sugar farm in the past two years, the extra costs would amount to about $950. For the average Western Australian wheat farmer it would amount to more than $1,200. The higher tax creates a severe cost disadvantage for all farmers- those members of the community who produce 40 per cent of our exports and are supposed to be more competitive as a result of this Budget.

As I have pointed out already, the increases in income tax are totally unfair. Higher income tax means lower disposable incomes, lower demand, less production and fewer jobs. The income tax surcharge should be dropped. For 90 per cent of taxpayers the increase is 8 per cent. For the rest, it is much less. It is only 5 per cent in the case of somebody on the Prime Minister’s level of salary. I seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard a table illustrating this point.

Leave granted.

The table read as follows-

Mr HAYDEN:

– The reduction in sales tax on motor cars is welcome, if months overdue. In the general contractionary context of government policy, the reduced sales tax cannot provide fully the stimulus expected. We would not, however, propose to alter it. Given the revenue measures we would forgo, there would obviously have to be new taxes in other areas. The principal ones would be a resource tax and a capital gains tax. But we would reverse the inequitable impact of last February’s tax changes that gave the top one-and-a-half per cent of taxpayers handouts of $200m- about 15 per cent of the total savings. This redistributive measure would yield about $200m from the top two per cent to three per cent of income earners.

The resource tax would be implemented to cream off some of the excessive profits of mining companies such as Utah Development Company, which has just reported a profit of $9 1 m for the first six months of its financial year. Utah’s profit rose by $2 1.8m last year to $ 158.3m. In that period, the reduction of the Government’s coal export levy saved the company about $25m. If the coal levy had been operating fully on this latest half-year result, it would have returned to public revenue, for the benefit of Australians, about $ 1 7m.

Utah’s rate of return on working capital is about 60 per cent. It is no more than reasonable that a share of such huge profits from an Australian resource development should be returned to public revenue for the benefit of all the Australian people. Equally, it could hardly be claimed that a company like Utah would pack its draglines and go home because its profits were lowered from the ‘super’ bracket to the merely very large’. We would expect initial revenue of about $ 1 50m from the proposed resource tax.

In addition, we would impose a levy on windfall profits flowing to oil companies because of the Government’s policy on crude oil pricing. The move towards import parity for crude oil, announced in last year’s Budget, will produce a windfall of $340m for the producers this year. After tax, most of that profit will find its way overseas. We believe that since it was produced by public policy, and from the Australian public, the windfall for this year should be returned in full to public revenue for the benefit of the Australian public.

The Fraser Budget aims to tax unused leave and lump sum retirement payments- the nest eggs of working people. Yet it leaves untaxed the massive unearned capital gains of the wealthy. Labor would introduce a capital gains tax to correct this inequity. The capital gains tax we propose would exclude the family home and normal possessions, including a car. It would cut in around $200,000 and would yield about $300m to revenue.

We would terminate the investment allowance introduced by this Government. It has not fostered economic growth- rather the contrary. It has made capital cheaper, encouraging employers to replace people with machines. It has put pressure on the balance of payments. The investment allowance should never have been introduced. The Labor Party would not tolerate such a handout to big business at a time of high unemployment and depressed economic activity.

We would act positively against the use of family trusts as devices for tax avoidance. It is suggested that one of the Government’s motives in changing the terms of the family allowance is to stop tax cheating through the use of these trusts. What an extraordinary back-handed way to go about it! The central issue is ignored, while the Budget proposes an administratively impossible scheme which filches children’s pocketmoney earnings. We would tackle the trust problem directly, difficult though it is.

The Asprey Committee on tax reform recommended that all investment income of minor children be taxed at the rate of the parent. A simpler measure would be a straight-out penal tax rate on trusts to end their use as tax avoidance devices. On that basis, we would expect to increase tax revenue by $100m. The net impact of the changes we propose would be to reduce revenue by about $470m. The overall effect is expansionary.

On the outlay side, we would not proceed with the proposal in the Goverment ‘s Budget for $20m expenditure on development of the

Ranger uranium project. Our outlays on education would be redirected. We would not, as this Government is doing, resurrect the monster of state aid by abandoning need as the chief basis for assistance to schools. It is fundamental that the greatest growth in education outlays should be in the areas of greatest need. That is not the area of the expensive, private school. The Prime Minister’s approach of favouring his own private school background reflects a divisive and unjustifiable prejudice. Among non-government schools, we would re-direct increases in funding from the wealthier to the poorer schools. Deference to privilege must not be reintroduced into education funding.

Labor would increase spending in several areas, and make no apology for it. As I have just indicated, we would remove the means test on the family allowance. Who would have thought that an Australian Prime Minister would resort to raiding the piggy banks of children? We would retain twice yearly indexation of pensions. We would retain twice yearly indexation of unemployment benefits for all eligible recipients. We would expand the vitally necessary employment programs which this Goverment is either ignoring or strangling. There would be more funds for manpower planning, and structural adjustment programs in particular.

The Labor alternative would see $450m injected into housing and capital works where there is such a catalogue of pressing need- for example, public rental housing to reduce the waiting list of more than 90,000 families; construction in the Macarthur development centre; Aboriginal hostels in remote areas; community health centres, and aged persons accommodation. A stimulus of this size would create about 40,000 jobs-20,000 in the building and construction industry and another 20,000 in their associated support industries. The increased spending would more than reverse the loss of almost 30,000 jobs expected from the Government’s cutback of about 10 per cent in real terms in total Commonwealth-controlled funds for housing and public works.

The net increase in outlays from these changes would be of the order of $530m and this would provide a stimulus to gross national product of slightly more than 1 per cent. The net expansion of the deficit would be about $840m, since the gross figure of $ 1,000m would be reduced by the effects of increased employment, which in turn would create new tax revenue and reduce the payout on unemployment benefits. In other words, we would accept a total deficit of $3,650m.

In terms of the domestic deficit, this would be only $50m greater than the Government’s deficit for the year just ended. It would, in fact, mean a reduction of the domestic deficit as a proportion of gross domestic product from 2.9 per cent to 2.6 per cent. Through the various multiplier effects, the total impact of these changes would be to increase growth by around 3 per cent. I have already stated our view on the Government’s growth estimates. They are not realistic at the stated 4 per cent, and are more likely to be less than 3 per cent. The growth potential of Labor’s alternative proposals is 5 te per cent- a wholly realistic 5 te percent.

Our alternative would provide a growth in employment of about 3 per cent, or about 160,000 jobs. This would not only absorb the natural increase in the workforce- about 110,000: We could expect to see unemployment reduced by 50,000. The Budget presented to this House last week assumes, on its own figures, that unemployment will rise by another 90,000 in the course of the next year.

The Government claims the total effect of its Budget will be to reduce the consumer price index. It has not given the House the detailed basis for that claim but it appears that if the full effects of the petrol price increase are taken into account, the reverse will be true. Its Buget will add about half a percent to the consumer price index. The Labor alternative would reduce the consumer price index by about 2 te per cent.

We would not alter the sales tax reduction on cars, which represents about half a percentage point on the consumer price index. We would cut other sales taxes by another $200m, representing a further half percentage point on the consumer price index. Retention of the health arrangements would reduce the consumer price index by a further Ite per cent, making a total of 2 te per cent. Our proposal to auction import quotas, rather than tax the goods affected by 12te per cent, would be far less likely to be inflationary. But it is not sufficient to concentrate on only one measure of inflation. How many times did we hear the former Treasurer telling us that last year? The general price index is the gross nonfarm product deflator applied to the national accounts, and the Government expects no marked slow-down in that direction.

With Labor’s alternative Budget proposals, the stimulus to the economy would result in fixed costs being spread as output expanded. This, in turn, would reduce unit costs and contribute to a further lowering of the underlying rate of inflation. Some commentators have expressed fears that an expansionary Budget would put pressure on the balance of payments through increased import demand.

So far as our program is concerned, those fears can be discounted for three reasons: Firstly, there is massive unused capacity in the present depressed Australian economy. The modest increase in demand we are proposing would be easily absorbed domestically. Secondly, the blend of outlays and revenues in the Labor alternative has been chosen carefully to avoid new import pressures. The investment allowance has been a source of pressure on the balance of payments, and it would be removed. Imports of producers’ capital equipment increased by 14 per cent in the 10 months to April, compared with a rise of only 8 per cent for all imports. Our proposals for increased spending concentrate heavily in the building and construction sector, which relies almost exclusively on domestically produced materials. Import pressure there is negligible. Thirdly, the resources tax and the levy to absorb windfall profits on crude oil production would reduce pressures on the balance of payments by slowing outflows of repatriated profits.

A more expansionary budget will result in more real growth. The money supply would have to be expanded accordingly to accommodate it. But a target growth of 9 to 11 per cent in money supply, broadly defined, would be sufficient to keep downward pressure on inflation while still allowing for real economic growth of around 5 te to 6 per cent. The domestic deficit would be little more than last year’s. This means that loan raisings from the non-bank public would need to be only about the same as last year. There would, therefore, be no increased pressure on interest rates. Real interest rates are more likely to fall under the Labor alternative, and the falls would be genuinely sustainable.

The Government ‘s cuts in interest rates are not sustainable under present tight monetary and fiscal conditions. The flattening of the yield curve is creating uncertainty and hesitancy in the money markets. Many interest rates still have not come down; the bank overdraft rate is still 10 1/2 per cent and personal finance such as Bankcard runs as high as 18 per cent. The Prime Minister promised that in the course of this calendar year interest rates would fall by 2 per cent. He has partially achieved one-quarter of that fall and has 3 te months left to make good the promise before it goes the way of so many other Fraser promises.

Let me turn now to wages, where this Government is setting a deliberate course for confrontation. According to Budget estimates, the Government is seeking something less than 50 per cent indexation for Public Service salaries. It even threatens retrenchment to keep its figures intact. The cornerstone of this continuing attack on wages has been what is known as the ‘real wage overhang’- a phenomenon which has now disappeared, according to the most recent publications of both the Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research and the Flinders Institute of Labour Studies.

The argument that wages must come down to re-establish the historic profit share is myopic, to say the least. Economic recovery is the certain road to increased profit share, but the Government seems determined not to recognise the fact. As economic activity picks up the profit share of GDP will improve. Repeated attacks on wages will restore profit share only at lower levels of profit and lower levels of overall activity.

The Government’s Budget, with its increase of half a per cent to the consumer price index, would add about $190m to the wages bill through its assumed 75 per cent indexation.

With our alternative Budget, CPI reductions of 2te per cent would reduce the wage bill by more than $900m on the same assumption of 75 per cent indexation. But we would be looking to something more- and better- than that, in consultation with the unions. Specifically, we would want to see full wage indexation up to the level of average weekly earnings. We would want to explore trade-offs between future productivity increases and future wage increases. We want to develop policies to adequately respond to the potentially explosive and destabilising problems of wage anomalies and catch-up which have developed as a result of the Government’s indexation policies.

Attacking wages will intensify the recession. A lower growth in wages must constrain the growth of disposable income, which in turn constrains the growth in private consumption. A far broader approach is necessary. A broader approach to the particular cancer of unemployment is the central thrust of the Labor Budget alternative. Mr Speaker, I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard detailed tables summarising Labor’s alternative Budget proposals.

Leave granted.

The documents read as follows-

-470

Mr HAYDEN:

- Mr Speaker, these remarks to- preparation of this Budget. The pity is that the night have been confined largely to short term Government has provided no real answers for issues because they are the issues, unfortunately, the short term, while it ignores the longer term which have preoccupied the Government in the altogether. There is no mention in the Budget of, and apparently no thought for, the future of industry, the training and retraining of the work force, and gearing the Australian economy for the 1980s. We are ill equipped under this Government even to cope with economic recovery, if it were in sight.

The Australian economy must be strengthened and revitalised in a number of fundamental ways. This is not the time to enter into that debate. But the Prime Minister and his colleagues know the extent of their failure in this area. They are embarrassed by it and seek to avoid debate wherever possible. They will not be able to go on avoiding it. Labor has been progressively developing these themes and will continue to do so, in this Parliament and outside.

Mr Speaker, this Government talks of hard decisions but lacks the courage and the vision to face them. It is determined to punish the people of Australia for its own deceptions and miscalculations. It runs the very grave risk of causing serious, long term damage to the growth potential of the Australian economy. It is prepared to send a whole generation of young Australians to the social scrapheap- a generation unable to achieve financial independence in their lifetimes, forced to be outcasts in what should be and can be an affluent, growing society.

The Government’s vision for the future of Australia is bleak and narrow. The Labor Party rejects it. There is reason for confidence in our future. There are the means to demonstrate that confidence now. Blinkered by its own prejudices and misconceptions, the Government can look only backwards. For what this Government says about the future of this country through its Budget, it deserves the strongest censure of the Parliament. Only the spirit of self-preservation among its mutinous members saves it from that fate. Mr Speaker, we reject the Budget.

Mr LYNCH:
Minister for Industry and Commerce · Flinders · LP

– The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Hayden) has demonstrated once again his total inability to face up to economic reality. The so-called economic alternative which he has advanced tonight would set the Australian economy back on a path towards high inflation and high interest rates and, beyond that, to severe recession and increased unemployment. It is interesting to look back on the record. Only three years ago the present Leader of the Opposition had this to say in introducing the 1975-76 Budget:

Today, it is inflation itself which is the central policy problem. More inflation simply leads to more unemployment.

In that same Budget Speech he also said:

Some might argue that a large deficit could be offset by a tough monetary policy- but this would mean greatly increased interest rates, disruption in financial markets, further depression of business confidence and serious company failures. That is an unacceptable option.

Tonight the Leader of the Opposition has once and for all abandoned the propositions which he advanced only three years ago. Tonight’s alternative package would lead to a resurgence of inflation, a weakening of business confidence and a fall-off in overall economic growth. There would be no prospect whatsoever of achieving the 6 per cent economic growth rate promised by the Leader of the Opposition and consequently no prospect of holding the deficit even at the inflated level he has specified. Equally we reject absolutely the claim of the Leader of the Opposition that his policy would lead to increased employment in the Australian community. One thing is abundantly clear: The Labor Party has learnt nothing from its period in office. The heavy imposts which the Leader of the Opposition seeks to impose upon the business and industrial community would be devastating in their effect. The resources tax, the excess profits tax, the capital gains tax and the abolition of the investment allowance are proposals designed to destroy development and to inhibit business confidence. What is the story all about? It is the same old story- sock it to business, hit the industrial community, provide more money in transfer payments and hope that jobs will as a consequence be created. Of course that simply will not wash. It is a series of proposals which have been tried before and have failed. At a time when the profit share remains too low these proposals would depress business incentive, investment and activity. Combined with an inevitable rise in interest rates the proposals of the Leader of the Opposition would guarantee a slump in industry confidence, a severe contraction in business activity and, as a consequence, higher unemployment. The fact is that the comments of the Leader of the Opposition on the Budget both during the week and tonight have been little short of hysterical nonsense. They are the product of a man who is temperamentally incapable of conducting national economic affairs and who has on numerous occasions cast aside the national interest in order to get himself on the front pages of the daily press. This is the man who deliberately undermined this country’s exchange rate, a man who has sought at every turn to talk the economy down both here and overseas and a man who has invited violence as a means of changing the present economic strategy. All of these actions have been not only irresponsible but also downright hypocritical. The

House only has to recall what he said in November 1975 about the propriety of public comment on the exchange rate.

I don’t -

Said Hayden-

  1. . like talking about exchange rates even when I am in exile because -
Mr Charles Jones:
NEWCASTLE, VICTORIA · ALP

– Why did you get the sack as Treasurer?

Mr LYNCH:
LP

– Opposition members have a lot to worry about. That is all I can say.

Mr Charles Jones:
NEWCASTLE, VICTORIA · ALP

– Tell us why you got the sack as Treasurer?

The SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Newcastle will remain silent.

Mr LYNCH:

– I was reminding the Opposition of what its present leader said in November 1 975 about the propriety of public comment on the exchange rate. He said:

I don’t like talking about exchange rates, even when I am in exile -

I might interpose that he will be there for a long period of time-

  1. . because I know the sort of wild speculation that flows from it. And in public office -

Says this ‘responsible’ gentleman- both in and out of government, at the centre of decisionmaking or the far reaches- I think one has always got to be responsible.

Honourable members know and the country knows as a matter of record that the honourable gentleman did talk about exchange rates. We know that he did become directly involved in wild speculation and in so doing very seriously damaged this country’s national interest by causing a run on the Australian dollar.

Budget Statement No. 2 prepared by the Treasury contains a range of extremely favourable forecasts for 1978-79: For example, growth in non-farm domestic product of around 4 per cent; a sustained high level of private business investment; a further decline in the personal saving ratio; and a healthy increase in private consumption expenditure. These forecasts also foreshadow a further substantial decline in the rate of inflation to something approaching 5 per cent at the end of this financial year. The present Government’s economic record, combined with the extremely promising outlook for the current year, is in marked contrast to the disastrous recession caused by the former Government and to the shoddy mismanagement of the Leader of the Opposition when he was Treasurer of this country. The honourable gentleman based his Budget on an increase of 5 per cent in real gross non-farm product. The outcome was an increase of only 1.1 per cent. The honourable member for Oxley talked about a monetary policy which would not be fully accommodating to inflation and yet permitted monetary growth to proceed at an annual rate of around 20 per cent. Against that background who in this House or in the country would have any confidence in the 6 per cent growth objective and the 9 per cent to 1 1 per cent monetary target advanced by the Leader of the Opposition tonight? Tonight’s proposition is, like the Budget of the honourable member for Oxley, a total sham.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I raise a point of order. He is not the honourable member for Oxley; he is the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr SPEAKER:

-He is both.

Mr LYNCH:

– I thank the honourable gentleman for raising the point of order. He might know that, some of us might be somewhat doubtful about it but the people at large do not know about it because of the way he has gone about public affairs in this country. Tonight the Leader of the Opposition has made all sorts of unfounded comments about the effect of this Budget on the man in the street. Let me remind him of the facts. Real household disposable incomes rose in both 1976-77 and 1977-78. Notwithstanding the temporary income tax increase, real household disposable incomes are again expected to rise in the current financial year. In other words, the living standards of Australian families are expected to rise again this year as they have done in each of the last two years under the present Government. This gives the lie to the assertion or to any suggestion that this is a Budget for the rich. It is a Budget under which all Australian families will continue to enjoy improved living standards. It is a Budget which I believe is backed by the Australian community and one in which we can all have confidence.

Mr Humphreys:

– What about the unemployment?

Mr LYNCH:

– If the honourable member knew anything about the problems of the unemployed he might look at his own wage indexation proposals. The comments of the Leader of the Opposition on the impact of expenditure restraint on the community are of course equally distorted. Although the Budget reflects restraint over expenditures with outlays increasing by 7.7 per cent compared with 1 1.1 per cent last year, no draconian harsh measures have been taken. Education funds are expected to increase by 6. 1 per cent, health by 8 per cent and social security and welfare by 7 per cent. Given the lower rate of inflation next year-down to an annual rate approaching 5 per cent- these increases are substantial in both percentage and money terms. For example, the level of education expenditure will maintain current total intakes of students into universities and colleges of advanced education next year and reflect, in a major way, greater support for technical and further education.

The essence of this year’s Budget is that it holds in place the economic strategy which has been pursued by the Government since it came to office at the end of 1975. This strategy, in a relatively brief period of time- two and a half years- has met with very substantial success. It is a strategy which has restored stability and strength to the Australian economy. Inflation now has been brought under control and the increase in the consumer price index of 7.9 per cent for the year to the June quarter was the lowest since 1971-72. Hand in hand with the decline in inflation there has been a strengthening in business investment spending, a steady increase in consumer spending and a gradual reduction in the level of interest rates. Because this year’s Budget maintains the thrust of government economic policy the rate of inflation is likely to be some two to three percentage points lower at the end of the financial year. This will bring about further benefits in terms of improved economic performance.

We have frankly acknowledged the enormous problems which the Government faced in keeping Budget policies on track. In the absence, of tax changes, estimated receipts in 1 978-79 would have grown by only 4.5 per cent, or some 3 per cent less than the estimated increase in average weekly earnings of 7.5 per cent in the same 12-month period. Thus, even after pruning back estimated outlays by some $1.5 billion the deficit in prospect was still around $4.5 billion- a level completely inconsistent with the Government’s economic strategy and as the Leader of the Opposition has said, that would be ‘tantamount to abandoning concern with inflation’.

Our political opponents now believe that a greatly expanded deficit would be appropriate in current circumstances. We utterly reject that proposition. It has been tried before, both here and abroad, with disastrous consequences. We place emphasis on the need to control that deficit for good and cogent reasons. A significant increase in the Budget deficit, as would have been the case had we not imposed additional taxes, inevitably would have led to sharp increases in interest rates or, alternatively, to a highly inflationary rate of money expansion. This Government has no doubt that a reversal of the interest rate reductions which have taken place would have turned recovery back into recession. Equally, we have no doubt that a return to the policy of former periods of printing money would have led to a resurgence of high levels of inflation.

In budgeting for a deficit of less than $3 billion the Government, unlike the Opposition, has placed economic responsiblity ahead of shortterm political popularity. In this regard the comments made tonight by the Leader of the Opposition are just so much humbug. In spite of the taxation increases Budget receipts will rise by only 1 1 per cent next year. That is some 5 per cent less than the average over the past 10 years and a marked contrast to the 1 7 per cent increase two years ago and the 28 per cent increase under our political opponents in 1974-75. Indeed, taxes paid this year will be some $3,000m less than would have been the case under a continuation of the Hayden tax regime. This could hardly be described as a return to the high taxation policies of our predecessors who, the House will recall, raised personal income tax receipts by a massive 89 per cent during their first two years in office, placed a penal tax on unearned income, abolished the income tax age allowance and refused to index personal income tax. The House might also recall the Hayden Budget in which receipts were estimated to rise by more than 25 per cent and which increased income tax for many taxpayers, including those on low incomes.

Against the background of the far-reaching taxation reforms carried out by the present Government over the course of 2y2 years and the savage tax rip-off imposed by our predecessors, the tax increases in this Budget are of limited significance. Furthermore, the income tax increase, I emphasise again, is temporary and will be lifted on 30 June next year. It also needs to be stressed that the increases in indirect taxes will have very limited inflationary consequences and in large measure will be offset by the changes that have been made to health insurance arrangements. Because of the shape of this year’s Budget and in the particular context of the magnificent loan result today, we can look forward -

Mr Howard:

– Hear, hear!

Mr LYNCH:

– I can hear the Treasurer interjecting. Well he might interject because the loan result is a sign of great confidence. We can look forward to further sustainable reductions in interest rates during the year. This will permit the

Government to pursue a policy of monetary restraint throughout the year without unduly restricting the supply of finance to key sectors of the economy such as housing.

I now turn to what is without doubt the most intractable economic problem facing the Government, present wage levels- a problem which the Opposition still refuses to acknowledge. The excessively high level of wages, or more particularly the extent to which real wages in recent years have moved ahead of productivity increases, is the principal factor underlying the present high level of unemployment. The Leader of the Opposition in his speech tonight simply backed away from a recognition of that fundamental problem. He cannot face up to the strength of the militant Left of the trade union movement of which he is captive. Yet just three years ago the same gentleman, the honourable member for Oxley, had this to say:

It does employees generally no good to get higher and higher money incomes if the results are just higher prices, a severe squeeze on profits, a slump in new investment and a contraction of job opportunities.

Mr Baillieu:

-Who said that?

Mr LYNCH:

– It was the honourable member for Oxley, the Leader of the Opposition. Those words simply illustrate the humbug of the position adopted tonight by the Leader of the Opposition. Failure to achieve a greater degree of wage restraint has, to a significant degree, held back economic recovery and prevented the creation of new job opportunities. Continued failure to achieve wage restraint could well mean that present levels of unemployment will remain for some years. In short, if the views put in relation to wage indexation by the Leader of the Opposition were to be adopted that would be contrary to the objectives of the Government and I believe, the wishes of the community at large. For this reason the Government’s monetary policy over the next 12 months will reinforce its submissions in national wage cases, and the rate of monetary expansion during the coming year will simply not allow excessive increases in money wages without consequential effects.

I turn finally, but only briefly, to a very significant area of the Budget, one within my area of responsibility; that is, support for Australian industry. That is an area of need which has been completely abandoned tonight by the Opposition. I say briefly, because I will be referring to this matter in detail when we are discussing the Estimates, that overall financial assistance to manufacturing industry will amount to $437m, not including the benefit of the $200m per annum reduction in sales tax on passenger motor vehicles. This represents an increase of 130 per cent on the level of assistance in 1975-76.

Let there be no doubt: This Budget will lead to improved economic performance over the course of the current financial year and to better living standards for Australian families. The response already apparent from the financial community, including the international investment community, indicates that the Budget already is producing results. There could be no better illustration of this than the record result of the Government loan to which the Treasurer (Mr Howard) referred today during Question Time. This, combined with the international acclaim which has already been given, demonstrates the fundamental soundness of this year’s Budget and the total inadequacy of the policy put forward by the Opposition. The ghost of Gough Whitlam still walks tonight on the Opposition benches.

Mr HOWE:
Batman

-This year’s Budget marks an important stage in the history of this Government. It represents the point where it passes from the stage where it can suggest with any degree of credibility that the problems facing Australia and the Australian economy are in any real sense a reflection of the policies of the Whitlam Labor Government. From this point on the Government will be forced to accept judgment on the basis of its own record of economic management, its own set of priorities, its own peculiar set of responses to the interests which lie behind the Liberal and National Country Parties and which inevitably influence its policies.

It is instructive in any consideration of this Budget to remind ourselves of the objectives set by Mr Malcolm Fraser as the Leader of the Opposition in his policy speech in 1975 and to remind ourselves of the promises that were made only to be subsequently broken; to remind ourselves of the high tone of morality and responsibility; to remind ourselves of the promise of restoration of initiative, of higher rates of growth and the reduction of levels of unemployment. There is indeed a curious contrast between a Prime Minister who regards an election promise as sacrosanct and a government that cannot be trusted to keep its word about any of its promises. Let us recall some of those promises. They included policies for producing a growth rate of 6 per cent to 7 per cent and the effective halving of the deficit. The Liberal and National Country Parties said: ‘We will fully index personal income tax for inflation over the next three years. We will be generous to those who cannot get a job and want to work. Under a Liberal and National Country Party government there will be jobs for all who want to work. There will be no more international safaris for members of parliament’. One could go on and on. They also said: ‘We will continue urban programs. We are the people who can work with State and local governments to overcome the problems caused by rapid growth in the cities and the new expanding suburbs’. I think we can say that those promises are now history because they are promises that have not been honoured.

On the other hand, the Government of Malcolm Fraser has kept its promises to financial institutions whose continuing support is basic to the retention of this Government in office. There have been the investment and depreciation allowance provisions; there have been the stock valuation provisions; there has been the industrial legislation; the Prices Justification Tribunal has been gutted, and so on. There has been a massive attempt to turn the clock back to the Menzies years. However, the promised halcyon days have not returned and now even sections of big business are among the most trenchant critics of government policy. In 1975 we were promised government by consensus. We have in fact moved from a situation of temporary recession into a period which might be described as a depression that is comparable in some respects to the situation that existed in the 1930s. The Government is no longer able to blame its predecessor. So the Government is now moving to launch a bitter attack on the average wage and salary earners- the grass roots base of the Labor movement.

One could say that the greatest single criticism of this Budget is not simply that it reflects no strategy to achieve economic recovery- that is certainly true- but that, even more seriously it reflects no sense of the need to ensure that the burden of economic recession is in any sense shared fairly or justly by people with different degrees of access to income, services, influence or power.

The present Prime Minister made much in 1975 and 1977 of providing a government for all Australians. It was to be no sectional government looking after privileged interests. On the contrary, it was to be a government for the people who work in the offices and factories and on the farms of Australia. However, this is not what this Budget is about. This Budget is essentially a class Budget- just as was true of the two Budgets that preceded it. It is a Budget which is specifically designed to ensure that the burden, the costs and the suffering which are afflicting Australian people should be borne by the ordinary wage and salary earners, by the people who are unable to take a place in the work force- by the unemployed, by the pensioners, by the sick and the aged- and by the families of this nation which traditionally have produced this country’s wealth but which are rarely in a position to influence the way it is distributed. More than that, the Budget is based on the proposition that those people, particularly the 60 per cent of Australians who are on average weekly earnings or less and who are fortunate enough to be in employment, are the enemy of this country simply insofar as they endeavour to maintain their standards of living let alone improve them. They have become the scapegoats for this Government. They are the victims who the current Treasurer (Mr Howard), a mere cipher for the Prime Minister, must blame and castigate.

The basis of this new attack is clearly laid in the failure of the two Lynch Budgets. It was no doubt because of his economic failures, not his moral traits, that the Prime Minister had to remove the previous Treasurer during last year’s election campaign. The House will remember that Mr Lynch promised in his 1976 Budget Speech that there would be a gradual improvement in the rate of unemployment in that financial year and said that ‘prospects for a gain in the unemployment area would grow in the following year.’ However, by August 1977 the same Mr Lynch, who was talking in the House a few moments ago about what we might have said had lost this earlier confidence in his Government’s policies and predicted only some reduction in unemployment and said that, on balance, the likelihood is for little or no change over the period. In fact, there were substantial rises in the levels of unemployment in the years of each of the Lynch Budgets. The present Treasurer, however, is wiser as a result of Mr Lynch ‘s experience and admits to actual increases in unemployment in this year- perhaps another 90,000 persons. However, whereas Mr Lynch had accepted reduction of the level of unemployment as a government responsibility, the present Treasurer no longer suggests this is the responsibility of the Government. He says that ‘real wages are still too high and this remains a major cause of the unacceptable levels of unemployment’; that is, that the responsibility for curing the basic and serious problems facing this country must be put at the door of ordinary wage and salary earners who have already borne the brunt of changing government policies in the two previous Budgets and are also bearing the brunt as a result of Government pressure on the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission and a general reduction in the social wage as a result of this Government ‘s policies.

This judgment on which hangs the whole basis of the argument implicit in the Treasurer’s speech is certainly not subscribed to by major academic economists who in some other respects have not been so critical of the Government’s policies. The Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research has said, for example, in regard to a most recent survey of the economy that … an unduly high level of real labor costs can be a cause of unemployment but that on its assessment of the evidence the relative levels of wages and profits and the level of real wages are not the major factors behind the high level of unemployment in 1977-78. Indeed, the Institute went on to argue that ‘reductions in real wages that are not accompanied by offsetting measures to stimulate activity will add to rather than reduce unemployment.

Similarly, the Institute of Labour Studies at Flinders University in South Australia suggests that the argument concerning a real wage overhang stemming from 1974 is a misinterpretation of the evidence based on a failure to distinguish sufficiently in calculations between the public and the private sector. It points out that the tendency of the public sector to grow in times of economic recession means that aggregate estimates of the total share of wages and salaries disguise sectoral trends. It is maintained by the Institute that an analysis of the market sector as opposed to the public sector shows that labour costs have been steadily declining since 1974 and that the effect of that trend is to remove the basis of the wage overhang argument. Indeed, the Institute goes on to argue that real wage overhang is not to be regarded as a condition for recovery and that too much effort aimed at reducing real wages might easily backfire and intensify the recession. It says that real wages are a major component of real household disposable income, which is the main constraint on private consumption behaviour.

Similarly, the Government has been obsessed since 1975 with the size of the deficit. However, the Government has in fact been amassing relatively large deficits as a result of the increasingly depressed state of the economy and as a result of two relatively contractionary Budgets and now a severely contractionary Budget. This will mean that we can expect to see not taken up the substantially unused capacity which exists in industry as there will be no stimulus either from the deficit or from a rise in consumption as the result of the effects of the Government’s considerable pressure to reduce even further real wages. Insofar as there will be transfers of income occurring via the Budget those transfers will tend to go to people and institutions that will not be prepared to invest in manufacturing or construction industries but are more likely to store investment, invest in property or in sectors of industry with no real capacity for massive job creation. The end result of these policies will be a combination of ever increasing levels of unemployment and depressed living conditions for hundreds of thousands of Australians. It is just sheer nonsense for the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Mr Lynch) to come into this House and talk about the alternative Budget being more likely to create unemployment. This Government has doubled the rate of unemployment in 2Vi years. If this Government is allowed to continue for the next 2’A years with the policies that it has pursued in the last 2’/i years then we are talking about one million unemployed in the early 1980s.

The principal argument that I wish to put is that this is a class Budget. It is a Budget which is designed to foster divisions in Australian society rather than achieve consensus; a Budget which reflects a narrow and extraordinarily short term view of Australian interests, in that it makes no contribution to dealing with the long term problems of Australian industry or indeed of Australian society. There is not present within the Budget Speech itself, or in the accompanying papers, any attempt to analyse human problems or to place the narrow economic perspective of the Treasury in any broader social perspective. There is no hint that the economic problems that we face as a nation are problems of social and political structure or indeed are influenced by a changing social and economic context. The Budget is based on what might be regarded as simplistic notions of trend analysis where the Government’s role as an allocator of resources is reduced to the manipulation of the narrowest economic statistics.

The result is that people in a real sense are reduced to statistics, and the human implications or impacts of those statistics are presented without any indication of sensitive analysis. In no aspect of the Budget Speech is this clearer than in relation to the problem of unemployment. Even the projected estimates for unemployment have to be inferred and are nowhere clearly stated. It is even difficult to do that because of the lack of analysis, for example, of the meaning of a term such as ‘participation rate’. Should not those people who give up all hope of getting a job be included in the projected estimates of the unemployed? Does not a tendency for a drift to occur in the ‘participation rate’ mean the loss of valuable resources as well as an increased burden on those on whom they become dependent?

We have no analysis of the scale and distribution of unemployment. There is no suggestion that special regions of the country, or indeed special industries, may be suffering higher rates of unemployment than average and may require special programs and assistance. Why has the automobile industry, as opposed to the construction industry, been chosen for a stimulus? No justification is provided, because there is no rationale on social grounds for making the decision. Indeed, rather than placing an emphasis on increased assistance channelled to areas of high unemployment, the Budget has running through it a vindictive strain which would have the Department of Social Security expanding its budget, not to provide special assistance for the unemployed but rather to increase the policing of them. The unemployed are to be pursued, stigmatised and, if necessary, ostracised. Everyone recognises that unemployment is a complex problem and that alternative theories can be advanced about the future for full employment. However, the insensitivity of this Government, which screams so much about waste and extravagance in the investment of money, in its failure to invest in the lives of young Australians, has to be seen to be believed. I am sure that that is a matter of considerable embarrassment to the absent Government back benchers and to their committee on unemployment. It is absurd to be spending thousands of millions on unemployment benefits and not to have the Government sponsoring a single job creation program.

Even the Government’s policies on training schemes are difficult to follow. Having emasculated the National Employment and Training scheme, which at least provided some kind of framework for manpower planning in the education and training area, the Government has introduced as part of the NEAT scheme the Special Youth Employment Training Program which subsidises employers, at their profit, and provides six months of cheap labour and perhaps training. Having seen the weaknesses of the scheme, the Minister, rather than revamping and rethinking it and devising a more effective program, budgets for more funds, lower rates of subsidies and shorter training periods. In other words, he throws more money away. There is hardly a comparable country to ours which does not have job creation policies and programs. This would seem to me to be a matter of the utmost urgency. As the Government begins to face up to the widening divisions which we have seen appearing, I hope that pressure will be brought to bear on the Ministry to do something about this lack.

The Government, which for 2lh years has pursued and scapegoated the unemployed, is now setting out to do a job on the working people of this country. For 2 1/2 years the Government has sought, via the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, to reduce workers’ standards of living by attacking the basis of indexation. The lower the rate of increase in the consumer price index, the more vigorously the Government is seeking to bear down on wages and conditions. Now it is seeking to open up another front. The income tax surcharge falls most heavily on people with incomes at the lowest end of the range. The surcharge affects the wealthy the least. On top of the so-called tax cuts, the changes to the tax system substantially affect its basic equity and provide little or no relief for working people. Now, to hammer the point home, there are indirect taxes which, added together, might cost the average family another $ 10 a week. That $ 10 a week has to come out of a minimum income of $120 or $130 which has to look after a family. Unlike income tax increases, the indirect taxes are much more harsh in their effects on the pensioners, the under-employed and the unemployed. These changes in the tax system are extraordinary, given the Government’s promise to introduce full tax indexation. We had half tax indexation and now we have a half indexation plus a surcharge.

Those measures also have to be compared with other measures that are taken. I refer, for example, to the abolition this year of estate and gift duty, making Australia the only country in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development that has no tax whatsoever on wealth. Add to this various measures which the Government has introduced for companies, such as the investment allowance and the stock valuation adjustment, and we can see transfers to companies and wealthy individuals of more than $ 1,000m. That is happening while the lower income family struggles to get the marginal dollar.

A further example of the way in which the Budget is geared to serve class interests is the abolition of the concessional tax rates on annual leave and long service leave payments on retirements from a job. This will severely reduce the retirement benefits of blue collar workers, many of whom have little or no superannuation entitlements and whose major or sole retirement benefit is accumulated leave. With this Government a person cannot afford to gain a little because the Government will push him right down again.

So it is possible to go throught the Budget, to examine various sections of it and to find a similar trend. The Government is on about reducing people’s standards of living in a myriad of ways. The worker who manages to get together a deposit on a house no longer will be eligible to receive a benefit under the mortgage interest deduction scheme. He may manage to get a home savings grant if he is able to hang on for a year or so, but that scheme might go in the next Budget. If he was hoping to get into a housing commission home he will find that the waiting list will become longer because of cuts in expenditure on public housing. Whether he is after housing commission accommodation or otherwise, if he is a low income earner he will find it more difficult to get housing closer to the city. He will have to look for housing in the very outer suburbs or in the country area, where jobs are scarce. He will probably find that there is no sewerage because the Commonwealth has chopped that program. Public transport does not even get what was decided two months ago in the States Grants (Urban Public Transport) Bill. The allocation has been chopped by $20m. The home buyer may need to watch out for freeway constructions, because the Government no longer is funding environmental investigation and research.

The situation in State schools was improving, but now funds are being diverted to assist the wealthier private schools to encourage initiative and to encourage children to show respect for privilege. We will return to the situation of having to raise most of the money for any day care or pre-school program, and there is no hope of a community health centre being established in such an area. The home buyer should buy near a hospital because the hospital development program has gone too. If a person is really poor he could take a risk on not insuring against sickness, but he should wear old clothes when he visits the doctor and he should remember to restore his working class accent so that he gets classified as being socially disadvantaged.

It is possible to go on and on looking for examples of areas in which the Government has saved a dollar and made someone carry the burden. Unemployment benefits are not indexed, and for the unemployed without dependants and for the single youth under 1 8 years of age they remain at $36 or 50 per cent below the poverty line. On the whole, one does not expect LiberalNational Country Party Budgets to be imaginative. They are not usually human; this one is unusually inhumane. However, the critical problem to which we must return is the narrow view of budgeting, of economics, that this Budget encompasses. The Prime Minister has taken this country in a certain direction for a short term again. He has already had to reverse his policies on taxation. He will have to reverse them on other issues. He cannot continue to pursue a new federalism policy under which the basic economic priorities of the country are being determined by States rather than by the Federal Government. This Budget is essentially a class Budget. It ought to be condemned.

Dr EDWARDS:
Berowra

-The Opposition attack on the Budget has been entirely predictable, as is well evidenced by that speech from the honourable member for Batman (Mr Howe). By concentrating on particular aspects in a selective and misleading way it deliberately ignores and obscures the central thrust, the main purpose, the overriding, major objective of the Budget and of the Government’s economic policies generally namely, to build on the foundations already set for the long-term stability and economic growth and prosperity of Australia. That is what this is all about. That is the way all Australians, in the fullness of time, will benefit from this Budget.

It has been- and there is a long way to go yet- a long haul. The Government recognises that and I say that the Australian people recognise it. The great majority of Australians will disown the efforts of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Hayden) and other Labor members from this place, and Labor Party members and officials elsewhere, to whip up opposition to the Budget, as they tried to do in the rallies and the disorder and violence of yesterday.

The Leader of the Opposition had much to say about unemployment, but as usual without indicating any proven way of reducing it in a lasting manner. Unemployment is high, too high, and may yet get rather worse before finally it gets better, depending to a considerable extent on the approach of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission to wage and salary adjustments. The Government is concerned about that, every bit as concerned as the Labor Opposition affects to be. Of course we are concerned about the high level of unemployment- as I have said, that is what the Budget and the Government’s policy is all about: To restore fully stability, growth and prosperity, and high levels of employment on a long-term, sustainable basis. The Opposition may disagree as to how to bring that about. I will tell honourable members something on that: There is some disagreement among the professionals- professional economists, academics, in the Reserve Bank, in the banks, in industry- though I would judge that the weight of opinion is on our side. But as to the objectives, the stability and economic growth and prosperity of Australia, there is no dispute.

It has also been easy for the Opposition, in respect of a Budget which is very complex, with many elements about which a dramatic story could be woven, to make great play about particular aspects of it. Yes, to take up the opening thrust of the Leader of the Opposition, taxes on beer, spirits, cigarettes and petrol are raised and the Australian people very reasonably will grouch about that. I point out, however, that the thrust of these measures, other than in respect of petrol, is broadly to raise the incidence of taxes on these commodities to the sorts of levels that prevailed the last time they were increased. When was that? It was in the Budget that was brought down by the very Leader of the Opposition who kicked off this debate tonight, the honourable member for Oxley, in 1975, when Treasurer of the Labor Government. He saw it then as the best, or least unacceptable, course, the lesser of evils, for responsible economic management. Similarly, with this Government today. Again, I have confidence that the Australian people will see it that way and recognise the need for these measures.

That need, as I will go on to stress, is to keep the deficit in the public accounts under control and hence to continue to bear down on inflation and reduce interest rates. I stress the latter particularly. It is a key thrust of the Budget to get interest rates down. That means putting real money in the pockets of people, in the pockets of home owners, for instance, where a one percentage point reduction in the interest rate on a typical home loan would lead to reduced payments of the order of $18 a month, $4-plus a week, and a total of the order of $5,300 over the period of a loan.

Moreover, as against the price rises for beer, cigarettes and petrol there is an important offset namely, the change that the Budget makes to health insurance. The Leader of the Opposition tried to disparage what the Government had done, but the fact is that the Government’s measures will substantially reduce the cost of health insurance for the typical Australian family. The Government will provide free a refund of 40 per cent of the scheduled fee, with a maximum patient contribution of $20 per service- so, for a large operation costing, say, $200, the Government would provide $180- together with free public hospital treatment. To ‘insure up’, so to speak, to the benefits currently provided by Medibank Standard, at 75 per cent of the fee, with a maximum contribution of $10, whilst one cannot be certain, I have it on good authority is unlikely to cost more than $150 per annum, probably less. So for perhaps half or less than the current maximum health insurance levy of $300, on a family basis, Australian families will be able to receive the benefits that are currently provided by Medibank Standard. That is a very substantial saving.

It is, of necessity, a complex Budget and time does not permit me to go over again all of its particular components. I would, however, reiterate the statement of the Treasurer (Mr Howard) this afternoon that, in respect of the family allowance, it was never the intention of the Government that the part-time earnings of the newspaper boy- children generally showing a bit of ‘get up and go’ and earning something for themselves in part-time work- should be disadvantaged. The Government is reviewing the scope of that matter.

What I come back to, in the time left to me, is that the central thrust, the main purpose, the overriding objective of the Budget and of the Government’s economic policy, is to build on what we have already achieved, towards establishing the long-term stability and economic growth and prosperity of Australia. The Budget is a tough one, people say. Well, yes, it is tough on inflation- but not, except temporarily, on Australians and Australia. The central thing to be said about it is that it maintains the thrust of the Government’s policies to correct the major elements of imbalance in the Australian economy, which were in the main a legacy of the Whitlam years: First, the so-called real wage productivity imbalance- to put it in plain words, the too-high cost of labour in Australia, so that everywhere business tries to shed labour, hence the continuing high level of unemployment. The second element of imbalance is the too-high level of inflation and interest rates.

As to interest rates, if any further support for the correctness of the Government’s approach were needed, the annual report of the Reserve Bank of Australia, tabled last Thursday evening, provides it. It comes through there that with a deficit in the public accounts much larger than the Government has provided for it would have been difficult, virtually impossible, to finance it and maintain the downthrust in interest rates. To finance means to borrow, and the bigger the deficit the more you have to borrow; the more you have to borrow, the more the upward pressure is on interest rates. The further reduction of interest rates, which this Budget is pitched to achieve, is the most pervasive and powerful stimulus to the economy you can get. Interest rates affect activity at every point. In the purchase you may want to make of consumer durables the level of the interest rate affects what you ultimately pay. It affects the purchase of, the very capacity to pay for, a house. As I have outlined, a one percentage point reduction in the interest rates means a reduction in repayments of the order of $ 1 8 a month.

Mr Chapman:

– That is a major factor in housing.

Dr EDWARDS:

– Yes indeed. It affects borrowing by industry for additional working capital and new investment. So, to carry through the reduction in interest rates, that is a key element in the Government’s approach. The Leader of the Opposition wants to solve all of our problems by pumping in more demand quickly, via a higher deficit.

Mr Martyr:

– More poison.

Dr EDWARDS:

– By putting more poison into the system. I say, firstly, that particularly while the real wage productivity imbalance persistsexpressed in simple terms, while the very high cost of employing an Australian, in relation to what he can produce, remains- increased aggregate monetary demand directly will result more in increased inflation, in high cost output, than the expected expansion of employment. That is the first point to be made about the proposal of the Leader of the Opposition. Secondly, the higher deficit, by preventing the continued fall in interest rates, would inhibit longer-term increased demand and employment in the private sector. So the guts of the matter is that by following the path of the Leader of the Opposition, what we might gain temporarily in the one area we will lose on a long term basis in the other area, namely, the private area. There are simply no short cuts in the business of restoring stability and prosperity to the Australian economy.

I think it is clear from what I have just been saying that of key importance is the growth of productivity, which takes time- and in the interim exacerbates the unemployment problem. A cut, even a temporary one, in real wages understandably is resisted. If real wages, representing the real cost of labour, are not to be reducedalbeit temporarily, which is all that is asked- the only way to correct the imbalance between real wages, the real cost of labour, and productivity, which is what labour will produce, is for productivity to grow. Of course, over the past couple of years productivity has grown, very significantly. That is why, notwithstanding increased output, the level of unemployment continues to be high. It is worth stressing that on the latest figures the level of total national output is over nine per cent higher than it was at its low point in 1975, but of course so is the level of productivity.

Mr Chapman:

– That shows how well the policy is working.

Dr EDWARDS:

– Yes, that is how well the policy is working, but there is yet further to go. This point merges with the general point I would like to make; namely, that formulating policy for the economy is particulary complex and difficult because we are not dealing with an ordinary cyclical variation in the economy, but rather, we are dealing with inflation, and unemployment, stemming from the major elements of imbalance to which I have referred, but also from structural factors which to a significant degree are independent of those elements. For example, in the postWorld War II decades relatively rapid population growth was an important element which made for economic growth. But the rate of population growth has now slowed considerably, with important implications, for example, for demand, output and productivity in the building industry.

Mr Kevin Cairns:

– It was an important inducement to capital accumulation too.

Dr EDWARDS:

– It certainly was. A second point in this matter is that the post- War era of strong growth was fueled, among other things, by the development of manufacturing industry, largely on an import replacement basis. However, in many areas the limits of development on that basis have been approached.

Mr Chapman:

– We have to get into exports now.

Dr EDWARDS:

– Improved productivity and competitiveness, as my colleague said, in particular a greater export orientation are critical to the restoration of a healthy manufacturing sector. Thus it is important that economic policy and the Budget be directed not only to the general objectives of beating inflation and reducing interest rates, but also towards specific measures aimed at alleviating structural problems. Accordingly, in respect of manufacturing this Budget makes the important provisions which were referred to by the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Mr Lynch) who preceded me in this debate.

Thus this Budget contains a greatly increased provision for export incentives. Industrial research and development activity promotes innovation and increased productivity and competitiveness in industry. In this Budget industrial research and development grants have been increased by some 75 per cent. The investment allowance, the trading stock valuation adjustment in the tax field and other assistance to industry is maintained. The Leader of the Opposition said that Labor would abolish the investment allowance and add a resources tax, a capital gains tax and other imposts. What a way to approach strengthening industry, encouraging growth and thrust in industry, and creating higher levels of employment!

Mr Chapman:

– It would destroy it.

Dr EDWARDS:

– As my colleague said, it is a recipe for destroying industry and employment. Then, as I have stressed throughout my speech, a reduced rate of inflation and lower interest rates are of fundamental and major significance to the viability and health of Australian industry. But under the proposals of the Opposition those elements also would be undermined.

As I have said, Australians are entitled to grouch about higher taxes on their drinks, cigarettes and petrol, though remembering that their medical insurance and, when they get around to buying it, that new car will cost less. But it says a great deal for the common sense, the native intelligence and fair mindedness of Australians that the great majority of people have accepted the need for the introduction of these measures and I believe, they reject the slant which the Opposition tries to put on what we have done. All Australians will benefit. I believe that they can see and understand this from the restoration of stability and growth in the

economy- from reduced inflation, lower interest rates, more competitive and employment-giving Austraiian industry. This Government, and as a component of its continuing policies this Budget, will bring about these achievements.

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

-The 1978-79 Budget is morally bankrupt, devoid of vision, lacking the will or capacity to grasp the significance of vast scientific and technological changes which confront Australia, incapable of bridging the social gulf between rich and poor and incapable too of resolving the problems caused by unemployment, the social cancer which hits old and young alike. Treasurers have a unique opportunity to make Budget speeches important social documents. This Budget contains the crudest and meanest form of social Dar.winianism in which the interests of the poor, or socially disadvantaged’ as the cliche now is, remains subordinated to that of the rich. What is the social base on which this Budget operates? The Australian Government Commission of Inquiry into Poverty in Australia, set up by what must now in retrospect seem to have been a great Liberal reforming ministry- the McMahon Government- found that 17.9 per cent of all income units in Australia live in poverty. A research report, entitled The Economic Circumstances of the Poor, by Dr Nripesh Podder of the University of New South Wales, published by the Commonwealth Government in August 1978, sets out a table on page 34 which estimates the distribution of net worth and assets, broken up into 20 sectors, each of five per cent, ranging from the highest to the lowest. Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek leave to incorporate tables 4.14 and 4. 1 5 in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The tables read as follows-

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

-I quote also from what Dr Podder stated in the report: . . the shares of fractiles-

That is, those 20 units of five per cent each- in total net worth have been calculated after arranging the families in ascending order of net worth. Again, the shares in total assets have been calculated by rearranging the families in ascending order of assets. Both relative and cumulative proportions of net worth and assets have been presented. The table shows that the top 5 per cent of the families in terms of net worth has 24.6 per cent of total net worth and the top 5 per cent in terms of assets holds slightly more than 22 per cent of total value of assets. At the other end, it is seen that the lowest 20 per cent of families has less than 1 per cent of total net worth. The top 10 per cent of families has 36.5 per cent of total net worth. The bottom 50 per cent of families has about 1 5 per cent of total net worth, which means that the top 50 per cent families has almost 85 per cent of total net worth. However, the distribution of assets does not seem to be so unequal. The bottom 1 5 per cent of families holds 0.5 per cent and the bottom 20 per cent of families holds 1 .2 per cent of total assets. The top 10 per cent of families owns 33 per cent of total assets. The bottom 50 per cent owns 1 9 per cent of total assets while the top 50 per cent owns almost 8 1 per cent of total assets. Thus, assets are more evenly distributed than net worth.

We might add the words ‘but not much’. An article by Phil Raskall under the title ‘Who’s Got What in Australia: The Distribution of Wealth’ appeared in the ‘Journal of Australian Political Economy, No. 2’ of June 1978 contains another table on disproportion in the distribution of wealth. It suggests that one per cent of the population has 22 per cent of the total wealth. I seek leave to incorporate that table also in Hansard.

Leave granted.

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

-It is true that Australia appears to have a greater degree of economic equality than the United States or the United Kingdom but it is far from being an economic democracy. Another table in the Government’s official publication points out that the top 20 per cent of the population has 38.94 per cent of the gross income and even after tax retains 37.68 per cent. The bottom 20 per cent has 6.3 1 per cent of the gross income and 6.77 per cent of the disposable income. I seek leave to incorporate tables 4.4 and 4.5 in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The tables read as follows-

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

-In Australia wealth, brings power, influence and self-confidence. Although this country follows democratic forms and practices, I suspect that the concept of hierarchy is closer to the Australian way of life than the concept of equality. The rich are able to exercise a domination quite out of proportion to their numbers. Their values dominate the thinking of the Liberal Party. They dominate the economic life of the country. They determine the pattern of employment. They influence the thinking and deeply materialist value systems of the whole community, partly by their total control of the newspapers, radio and television and their domination of the great range of hierarchies which determine the shape of Australian society. Hierarchies dominate every aspect of Australian life- in the political parties, the professions, business, education, commerce, industry, the Public Service and the armed forces. We are not an egalitarian country. Our public policies are protective of the strong and vindictive against the weak.

There is a strong deference vote in Australia. Many poor people are willing to believe that if anything goes wrong with the economy it is their own fault. Many people believe that it is an act of God or the determination of fate for the poor to be ruled by the rich. The poor are many and weak, lacking confidence in their own capacity. The rich are few and powerful. Think of the pressures to protect the tax evaders. Think of the pressures to abolish death duties even when, at the Federal level, they affect only 5 per cent of estates. Think of the pressures to preserve the privileged public schools at the expense of poor State and parochial schools. Imagine the outcry if Labor proposed a capital gains tax or a capital levy. On the other hand, just think how easy it is to slug the weak. To attack the unemployed is like shooting fish in a barrel. It is so easy to do; it is so morally contemptible to do it, and it is so electorally valuable to do it.

Mr Martyr:

– Why do they keep voting for us?

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

-Because people like to identify themselves with the strong, the rich and the powerful. The honourable member knows that as well as anyone else. Given his background he probably knows it better than most. We can all remember the bloodlust of the Liberal cry of ‘Get the dole bludgers! ‘. It was a very valuable political cry for the Liberals to make. It won them many votes. This is a very harsh, competitive and materialistic nation and we are passing through a period in which the strongest appeal is to crude self-interest.

I should also comment on a number of points to which the honourable member for Berowra (Dr Edwards) referred. He referred to the changes in Medibank and the fact that a tax surcharge has been introduced. These changes are expressed in this Budget as being for this year only. What will be the situation in 1979-80? Essentially the Government asks this Parliament to accept it on trust. With the reputation of the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) as a teller of truth, who could accept these assurances without anxiety? Essentially they rest on the unsupported word of the Government, the Prime Minister and the Treasurer (Mr Howard). I want to repeat briefly the key argument I advanced in my maiden speech of 23 February, which appears on pages 1 64 to 1 70 of Hansard.

Mr Baillieu:

– I remember it.

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

-But the honourable member did not understand it. I said that Australia is well into the ‘post-industrial society’, an era in which the new technology breaks the nexus between productivity and employment, that is, output in many industries will be in inverse proportion, not direct proportion, to the number of people employed. For example, agriculture in the United States is the world’s most abundant but it employs the smallest work force proportionately. There is no National Country Party there.

Mr O’Keefe:

– A great pity. It would help the country.

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

-That is not a widelyheld view. Nine thousand workers in the Japanese steel industry produce as much as 100,000 steel workers in Great Britain. In Australia, 200 of the largest firms in manufacturing industry produce 50 per cent of ‘value added ‘ but employ only 44 per cent of the work force in manufacturing. Thirty thousand small firms, mostly Australian owned, produce the other 50 per cent of ‘value added ‘ and employ 56 per cent of the manufacturing work force. It seems clear that while government policies such as the provision of generous depreciation allowances reward capital intensity and the imposition of payroll tax punishes labour intensity, we must move towards a condition where the 200 capital intensive firms will produce perhaps 60 per cent or more of ‘value added ‘ and hold perhaps only 40 per cent of the available manufacturing work force. I do not believe that there is anyone in this Parliament who believes that that tendency will be reversed, that the 30,000 small firms will overtake the ‘value added ‘ of the 200 large firms.

There is no suggestion in this Budget of planning for job creation or even analysing and identifying the areas of growth or decline in future employment areas. I have proposed- I shall briefly mention it again- a five-part analysis of the economic and employment sectors.

  1. The primary sector involving the pro duction of raw materials.
  2. The secondary sector involving manufac turing and construction.
  3. The tertiary sector involving general econ omic services; essentially the processing of matter and energy.
  4. The quaternary sector involving infor mation processing; essentially the processing of symbols, words, images, figures, symbolic objects and, of course, computer tapes.
  5. The quinary or quasi-domestic sector in volving the provision of home services or services analogous to domestic services.
Mr Cohen:

– That is a brilliant analysis.

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

-I thank the honourable member for his perceptive comments. The House might be interested to know that Dr Colin Clark, who first divided the economy into three sectors, and Professor Jean Gottman of Oxford, who first proposed the four-part division, now accept and adopt my five-sector analysis. I commend that analysis to the Government. I point out that in the United States information workers have earned more than 50 per cent of all salaries since 1967 and comprise virtually 50 per cent of the work force- in a four-sector analysis. By 1 980, in a four-sector analysis, the information sector will employ as many people as the primary, secondary and tertiary sectors combined. Australia is moving very rapidly in the same direction.

I want to say something about the nature of the information society into which we are moving. Post-industrial Australia will be an information-based society in which the largest segment of the paid workforce will be engaged in collecting, processing and disseminating data. Much information processing will be done on an individual basis and will remain labour intensive- for example, social work and counselling, much secretarial and office work, research and development. Group work will continue to be extremely important- for example, the relationship of the teacher and a class or of the manager with a small work force. This will remain reasonably labour intensive. However, there is a problem area in mass information services- for example, the collection of vast quantities of data where computers are replacing armies of clerical workers in the Public Service, in banking and insurance and in the dissemination of information through print and electronic media.

While there is a vast, sometimes exponential, increase in the volume of transactions, labour intensity is being replaced by capital intensity due to technological advances. Two examples can illustrate this. In Massachusetts all recording and retrieval work for all banks is being done by a single computer. In the United States the total volume of printed material published each year has tripled since 1950 but the number of people employed in the printing and allied trades is falling due to computerised typesetting. There is irony in the joke about the micro-electronics company that grew so fast that it had to move into smaller premises.

Information is a vital and valuable national resource. Access to information is equivalent to access to power. Control of information resources leads to excessive and disproportionate exercise of power by the rich over the poor. Individual freedom and individual efficiency will largely be determined by each person’s ability to secure the right information at the right time. Australia is divided into the ‘information rich’ and the ‘information poor’ and facilities are remote from those who need them most. There is enormous inequity in ‘information transfer’ in

Australia. Information resources of governments and corporations are almost infinite. The resources of individuals, even highly placed ones, are limited. The position of the individual versus the institution is likely to deteriorate rapidly.

Post-industrialism is not a mere abstraction. It involves major changes to the lives, employment, prosperity and aspirations of us all. As a nation we have adopted the motto ‘Out of sight, out of mind’ and we are reluctant to face the implications of problems until far too late. If we are to get the best out of post-industrialism in Australia we need a long lead time for planning. The personal impact of post-industrialism will be enormous. To most Australians the two cores of their lives have been the family and work. The Australian family has been the nuclear one, not the Italian style or Japanese style extended or threegenerational one. Our children leave the home as soon as they are able, to begin their own nuclear families. With many Australians in later years, as the family disperses, work may well become the dominant core in males lives. As a result unemployment and retirement have a tragic poignancy in Australia which nothing seems able to fill. The situation of women who leave work for marriage and child rearing only to face years of boredom and isolation after the children are able to look after themselves is probably worse.

The ‘knowledge explosion’ poses new problems for people. The vast increase in the production of data of all kinds- in the form of newspapers, television, magazines, books, pop music, computer printouts, promotional and advertising campaigns, and forms to be filled in- may make it harder for many people to feel that they can cope or keep up. This adds to a sense of personal failure, of a condition of aimlessness and rootlessness, sometimes called anomie’- to use Durkheim’s word- the condition where people say: ‘I do not understand what is going on any more. I feel lost’. Many young people suffer from anomie. They feel that they have been trained in an absolutely useless way in the schools for job situations and opportunities that no longer exist. We have to be careful not to delude ourselves that we only need a bit of ‘fine tuning’ in the economy and that if we slap on a few band-aids and take a few aspirins all the problems will go away. This is particularly true in the anonymous wasteland of Australia’s huge faceless cities.

If changes in the pattern of work lead to people being compulsorily retired at 55 or unemployable at 25, we should not be surprised if they turn to liquor, drugs, day-time television, the occult, introspection, boredom, emotional paralysis or the Australian Democrats. We must not waste our greatest national resource- people. What can be done? First of all, I think we have to recognise the reality. There is no way in which injecting more funds into manufacturing industry will increase manufacturing industry’s sector of the work force. To believe otherwise is a sheer delusion. There is no country in the world where this has happened. All the indications are that the size of the manufacturing work force will fall, and unless we are very careful it will fall rapidly. Second, we need to look very carefully at flexible options for retirement. I would not want to force people to retire early. I would like to think that, if they had the option and wanted to stay on beyond a fixed date, they would be able to do so.

On a recent parliamentary visit to Japan I was surprised to find that the normal retiring age in industry there is 55. Incidentally, this is not a new figure. It has been 55 basically since the 1920s because, at that stage, the life expectation was only about fifty. A period of 50 years has gone by, and the Japanese have a very much increased expectation of life. They are now the longestlived people in the world, having just beaten the Swedes. They have an expectation of 78 years for women and 73 years for men. But the retirement age, certainly for the privates and noncommissioned officers of Japan’s industrial army, is 55 and in some cases 57.

Third, domestic work should be recognised as a paid economic activity. The result of this might be that many women presently in the work force would choose to remain at home. I do not want to be thought of as a male chauvinist pig. I do not want to see the Government coercing women out of the work force but I think that option should be open to them. Fourth, there should be greater absorption of Australia’s young people in fulltime education. Fifth, we need much more emphasis on government as an employment generator. Japan is dedicated to the capitalist ethic but the big businessmen there recognise very clearly the importance of government as an employment generator. They do not run away from that fact.

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

Mr O’KEEFE:
Paterson

-The honourable member for Lalor (Mr Barry Jones) commenced his speech by saying that this

Government was bankrupt. He has a very convenient memory, because although this Government had a deficit of $2.8 billion the last Australian Labor Party Government in 1975 had a deficit of over $4 billion. Indeed, in endeavouring to borrow funds to underwrite its financial disaster, instead of going to the normal banking channels it went to an intermediary- an Arab sitting in a dingy office in London.

This Budget provides for an expenditure estimated at $28, 870m, an increase of only 7.7 per cent in 1978-79 as compared with an increase of 11.1 per cent in 1977-78. This is the lowest rate of increase of expenditure for the past 10 years and it is indeed an achievement. Never let us forget the extravaganza of the three years of the Labor Government when budgets were run from $12 billion in 1973-74 to $16 billion in 1974-75 and to $22 billion in 1975-76. It was the last Labor Budget that was responsible for the economic situation that followed and which this Government is endeavouring to correct and is correcting.

This Government has been set the difficult task of arresting the galloping inflation and restoring the economic position to safe levels in order to give confidence to the people of Australia. Since the 1 977-78 Budget the public of Australia has given this Government an overwhelming mandate to pursue its economic policies and objectives. The main objective has been to reduce inflation and in this field the Government has achieved results, bringing inflation down to 7.9 per cent. It is hoped that with the policies enunciated by the Government the rate of inflation will be down to a single digit- 5 per cent- by 30 June 1979. Honourable members should remember that in Labor’s last year of office, inflation was 18 per cent and in 1977 the present Government had lowered it to 10.2 per cent. It is now running at the rate of 7.9 per cent. This is indeed a splended achievement and it is well received by responsible Australians.

Indeed, the Budget has been well received right throughout the nation. There has been an odd grumble or two, but in the main it has been well received. Australians realise that we have to have a Budget of this nature to restore the economy. Stock exchanges throughout Australia- in Brisbane, Sydney, Melbourne, Adelaide; wherever there is a stock exchange- have had a ring of confidence and the share market has risen. The same applies to stock exchanges overseas. Indeed, the Budget was very well received overseas. It was very well received in London, New York and other Western nations. Comments are favourable. Overseas newspapers have praised the courage of the Government in making real efforts to overcome inflation and to lower interest rates, with the ultimate result being an improvement in the unemployment situation.

Let us not forget also who was responsible for the galloping unemployment that we had in this country. It was none other than the Labor Government. All of a sudden it reduced tariffs right across the board by 25 per cent and allowed into this country cheap goods which were produced by labour forces earning possibly $A12 a month. That, to me, does not seem to be a sensible policy at all. It created chaos in this nation. We are faced with the problem of arresting it and curing it. There is no doubt that the reduction in inflation and interest rates will do more to help home buyers, businessmen, farmers, exporters, pensioners and the nation’s employment situation than will any other single act of government. We know now that interest rates are starting to come down. I have no doubt that with this policy interest rates will be reduced during the next 12 months. Critics of the Budget are completely overlooking this point. In most cases they are thinking of how it will affect themselves and forgetting the long term benefits that will accrue to the whole nation. These critics have completely missed the vital points. The reduction in inflation and interest rates, in itself, will provide the greatest possible stimulus to the economy.

The Government has had to face up to the situation and take hard decisions. It is easy to spend money, to throw it around and to say that that will solve all problems. We know that only too well. We have learnt, to our sorrow, just what such a policy by Labor did to our economy and to the confidence of the people in this nation. This Budget rejects this type of disastrous policy. Inflation has to be controlled to improve the competitiveness of Australian goods on the world market. This is extremely important. We have to market our products overseas to bring in the valuable export funds which we urgently need.

High unemployment persists. Real wages are too high. No doubt this remains a major cause of the unacceptable levels of unemployment. The real cost of labour continues to be out of range with productivity. Every effort must be made to step up productivity. High wages are all right, provided productivity increases. The unemployment of young people and school leavers has been a real problem. High commencing wages in this area no doubt have been the reason, in many instances, for the high level of unemployment in the youth sector. Youths starting today on wages of $60 to $80 a week, although they are really of no use to an employer for two or three years, acts as a deterrent to business people employing them.

The Government has taken quite a few steps to assist in the unemployment field. I refer to the National Employment and Training scheme, the Special Youth Employment Training Program, the Commonwealth Rebate for Apprentice Fulltime Training, the Community Youth Support Scheme, the Relocation Assistance Scheme, the Education Program for Unemployed Youth and training for industry and commerce. These are positive steps taken by this Government to assist in the provision of training for secure jobs. In the electorate of Paterson, I am pleased to say, unemployment is being reduced. It is being reduced slowly; nevertheless, it is coming down month by month. I praise the Commonwealth Employment Service officers in the area who are doing a very fine job in implementing all the programs I have just enunciated. This is having a beneficial effect on the lowering of unemployment.

I refer now to social security. With, I think, 1,200,000 pensioners in this country, the Government is faced with a huge Budget allocation to provide equitable pensions for the aged, widows, invalids, repatriation beneficiaries, deserted wives, et cetera. The Government has allocated over $8 billion in this field. When we consider that out total Budget is $28 billion we see that this is a quite big percentage of Budget expenditure. Last year the allocation was $7.25 billion. Who says that this Government has no compassion? The Government certainly has compassion. It has always increased assistance in the pension field. Those entitled to pension benefits subject to indexation will receive increased benefits of 3.4 per centthe increase in the consumer price index in the first half of 1978- from the first pay day in November. There will be a rise in the single rate of $1.75 to $53.20 a week. The combined married rate will be increased by $2.90 to $88.70 a week.

I mention another very important budgetary item in the health sector- Medibank. It was brought in by the Labor Government on 1 July 1975. It has been a real rip-off of taxpayers’ funds. There is no such thing as free medicine. Somebody has to pay for it, and pay they have for Medibank Standard. It has cost the taxpayers of this country $1,451,500,000. It is a rip-off of the taxpayers of this country. This amount is made up as follows: Hospital, $ 1,046m; medical profession, $355m; administration $46m; and programming $4.5m. Is it any wonder that

Medibank Standard has to be scrapped? Medibank Private will be maintained. In general terms there will be a return to a voluntary insurance scheme as from 1 November 1978. Sufficient time will be allowed for Australians to investigate the new proposals and to see which scheme suits their pocket and family responsibilities.

One of the great industries in this country is the automobile industry. It certainly has been in very dire straits over the past two years. So, the Government rightly has decreased by 12 Vi per cent the sales tax on motor vehicles. This news is extremely welcome. This industry is one of Australia’s largest. It gives employment to hundreds of thousands directly engaged in the manufacture and assembly of vehicles and to hundreds of thousands employed in supplying component parts such as batteries, tyres and a host of other items. The reduction already has given an impetus to this industry. Employment in the industry is on the increase. Unfortunately we had a strike recently in the General MotorsHolden’s Ltd plants. I understand that this has been overcome. Confidence has been restored to this very important industry. If the industry failed serious economic problems would result right across this country.

This Government, in the Budget, has maintained assistance to rural industries. Provisions are made for rural reconstruction and adjustment, wool research and promotion, control and eradication of cattle disease and underwriting of dairy products. A sum of $40m has been included for continuation of the superphosphate bounty. The nitrogenous fertiliser subsidy is to be extended for one year from 1 January 1979 but at a reduced rate of $40 a tonne. The cost of the subsidy is estimated at $40m in 1978-79. 1 understand a primary producers’ bank will come into operation next month. The Government will be assisting this bank by investing with it funds from the equalisation deposit trust account which stands at the present time at $80m. This Government has backed the wool industry. Wool is still Australia’s greatest export earner and this Government has always had faith in it. It has a price which we support and which has been of great benefit to the wool producers of this country. We are providing assistance to cattle producers. Over $ 100m has been made available to cattle producers under the cattle compensation scheme and this has saved many producers who were on the breadline. Fortunately the price of cattle has improved and this industry should be economically sound in the future.

Isolated children’s grants have been fully maintained. Unfortunately- I suppose it has been necessary and the Government has decided on it- there has been an increase in the cost of fuel. The cost of growing and transporting produce could jump sharply as a result of the increased fuel costs set out in the Budget. Grain growers and major users of fuel among country dwellers will be hit hardest. It is estimated that the fuel price rise will add $ 1 .80 to $2 per hectare to the cost of dry land grain farming, representing a rise of about 5 per cent in the total growing cost. In addition, the cost of trucking wheat to silos, stock to saleyards, fruit and vegetables to markets and a host of essential input items to farms will also rise. People in the country are very satisfied with the Budget but they are concerned about the increased cost that this fuel rise will mean to them. Let us hope that they have some good seasons and that the prices of primary products will help them to meet the increased fuel costs.

I want to say something about the State Government of New South Wales. It is always pressing this Government for more financial assistance. It has been reliably stated that at the present time the State Government of New South Wales has $650m in cash balances and that these have been accumulated over the last two years. These figures have not been plucked out of the air; they come from the State Treasury. This money is in the bank earning interest. It should be used on road construction and for public works, thereby helping to solve some of the unemployment problems that exist in the State of New South Wales and to improve the State roads which in many country areas are in a shocking condition because of the lack of assistance from the State Government. There it is with $650m. It has a duty to get out and spend the money on some of these roads. It is going to use the money for electioneering purposes; it will make handouts at election time. Of that I have no doubt at all.

I turn now to postal charges. I was very sorry indeed to learn of the recent increase in the basic postal charge from 18c to 20c. I feel that the Australian Postal Commission is letting us down. It is not using sound business principles. A business man increases his turnover in order to increase his profits. But the Postal Commission has just taken the least line of resistance. It has increased the cost of postage. This has meant a bonanza for courier services and for similar organisations that are able to take mail throughout the country. Solicitors, accountants and such people are using courier services now and this revenue is being lost to the Postal Commission. Postmasters whom I meet and their staff are very concerned about the fall-off in revenue from postage. Indeed, many of them are extremely worried about their employment situation because their turnover has been reduced to such a large extent.

This Government is continuing its assistance to local government. It made a promise last November that over its three-year life, the 1 .52 per cent share of personal income tax would be increased to 2 per cent. This year it has granted an 8.5 per cent increase to local government in Australia. This will be of great benefit to shire and municipal councils in their budgets. Of course, when it was announced that there would be an increase to 2 per cent most of the local governments wanted it straight away. However, local government has to take some responsibility in arresting the inflation rate and bringing sound economy to this country. So the Government in its wisdom has granted an 8.5 per cent increase to local government which will be of great benefit. It has been a pleasure to take part in this debate and to support the Budget which has been acclaimed by most responsible people in this nation.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Millar:

Order! The honourable member’s time has expired.

Debate (on motion by Mr Young) adjourned.

page 583

ADJOURNMENT

Westmead Teaching Hospital- Civil Marriage Celebrants- Pig Meat Industry- Small Businesses- Surveyors- Trade Unions

Motion (by Mr Fife) proposed:

That the House do now adjourn.

Mr John Brown:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– In my capacity as an alderman of the Parramatta City Council I had the opportunity on Saturday to be given a tour of the Westmead Teaching Hospital. With the recent retirement from this House of Mr E. G. Whitlam I would like to take the opportunity of putting on the record the great debt which I believe the people in my electorate and those adjoining such as Mitchell, Prospect, Werriwa, Reid, Dundas and Chifley owe to our former Prime Minister in bringing about the great concept of the Westmead Teaching Hospital. Perhaps the best way to start is by telling the House how deprived this area has traditionally been in regard to hospital services. There were, it is true, several district hospitals operating in the Western Suburbs of Sydney but these were extremely limited not only in bed capacity but more seriously in their ability to provide diagnostic services, intensive care and specialised treatment. Today’s medicine requires the highest degree of sophisticated medical technology. Only the large teaching hospitals are equipped with the staff and machinery to provide this treatment. Patients requiring such treatment, if they are living in the Western Suburbs- I would like to point out that there are more people living in Sydney west of Granville than are living in the whole of South Australiahave to travel many miles to obtain the necessary care.

Perhaps the greatest area of hardship has been the fact that we in this area have had no specialised pediatric hospital. Forty per cent of all admissions to the Princess Alexandra Hospital at Camperdown are children from the outer Western Suburbs. As you can imagine, Mr Deputy Speaker, this causes great problems because in an emergency parents with sick children have to travel many miles in heavy traffic to seek the proper medical treatment. Also, because hospitalisation of young children necessarily involves parents staying with the children, it has required a great deal of travelling backwards and forwards from hospitals. This has added greatly to the burden. The highest concentration of children is in the outer Western Suburbs. This is obviously where the facilities and the specialists were most desperately needed. It will be Gough Whitlam ‘s apotheosis that he perceived so clearly the neglect of the population in Sydney’s outer suburbs and that he took such giant strides towards redressing this imbalance. Westmead Hospital is the largest medical complex under construction in the world. It will contain a full teaching dental hospital with 250 chairs, and cardiovascular operating units comparable with anything of their kind in the world. The first intake of patients will commence on 30 October with an estimated bed capacity of 925 by 1981. The outpatients clinics and emergency wards will commence operation next year with many specialist clinics operating for outpatients.

I have only begun to touch on the exciting aspects of the Westmead teaching hospital. Time will not allow me to do it justice. It is a magnificent, sophisticated complex. It is a magnificent vision and worthy of the man who thought of it. If all things under heaven were fair it would be called the E. G. Whitlam hospital. It is a strange thing that a large percentage of the population rail against what they call ‘socialism ‘ and yet I do not hear any voices raised in protest against the Westmead teaching hospital- a most perfect example of socialist planning. Believe me, no private business group could undertake such a gigantic enterprise. Only governments can cope with the immensity of such projects.

In claiming the Westmead teaching hospital as one of Gough Whitlam ‘s greatest achievements I need to remind the House of the somewhat turbulent history which has surrounded the hospital. It was one of the many election promises which I believe gave the Australian Labor Party its victory in 1972. In the first Labor Budget $9m was allocated to New South Wales so that building could commence. However, the then Liberal Premier procrastinated and refused to use the money for this purpose. It was only under threat from Gough Whitlam that the grant would be withdrawn that the New South Wales Government started the works program. On behalf of the people who live in the Parramatta electorate I wish to acknowledge the great debt we owe to Gough Whitlam, to the vision splendid that was his and to the determination and courage with which he followed it through.

Mr FALCONER:
Casey

– I wish to refer to some remarks which were made by my friend and colleague the honourable member for Dundas (Mr Ruddock) last Thursday in the grievance debate when he spoke about the role of civil marriage celebrants in our community. He had some rather critical things to say. I want to put another point of view, not necessarily in direct criticism of the points of view which he expressed. In his speech he started by making a number of valid points. He questioned aspects of the manner in which civil celebrants are appointed and their continued authorisation. He drew attention to the question of whether there was some need for a review of their functions from time to time. But then he went on to make some points which I think were not as valid. For example, he quoted from a statement which indicated that the system of appointment of civil celebrants started in 1973. That is not correct. Before the Australian Labor Party Government expanded the system a limited number of civil celebrants were appointed from organisations such as the Rationalists’ Society and the Humanist Society to cater for the needs of members of those organisations. Of course the system was expanded substantially in 1973. My colleague went on to say that civil celebrants were people:

  1. . who have turned this business into a corruption of our moral and spiritual values as represented through what I would regard as the legitimate forms- the churches of this country.

He then went on to make some remarks about pagan ceremonies’ conducted by civil celebrants. I think it is worth noting that a number of clergy in Australia now praise the role of civil celebrants because they offer an avenue to which people can be referred from the churches. Clergymen find that they are faced with people who are just turning up to the church in order to do the right thing, to get married in a church, when in fact they have no long-term affiliation with that church. I have noted comments from time to time from clergy who have made the point that they find it useful to have civil celebrants to fill this need in our community. One can then question whether civil marriage celebrants ought to expand their role and perform other types of services, for example, funeral services. It should be noted that not all civil celebrants feel able to carry out funeral services, although a number of them do. However, there are a number of other people in the community who offer their services. They are not authorised civil marriage celebrants but they do have a reputation for being able to carry out the functions needed for a funeral service, and I think that is a legitimate role in our society. One does not have to observe particular religious practices to believe that a funeral service has a legitimate role in the expression of the grief of a family on the death of a member of the family. As I understand it, there are some journalists who offer their services in this role. They have interviewing skills, a knowledge of literature, and so on, and they can bring those skills to bear in performing an appropriate ceremony which expresses the grief of the family at that time.

I do have some difficulty in my own mind with the concept of a naming ceremony. I understand that from time to time people actually come to civil marriage celebrants and ask for their children to be christened. They even want godparents to be appointed at the christening ceremony. Of course, by making that sort of request they are indicating a confusion in their minds about the real meaning of a christening in a church environment. Nonetheless, if people feel some cultural need to have a ceremony to accept a child into the family and formally give it a name, I do not see why that service should be denied to them. Certainly there are some aspects we ought to look at, and I refer to the method of appointment of civil marriage celebrants and the question of whether the availability of such appointments ought to be made known by public advertisement rather than being available just to those in the know. Perhaps we also ought to look at methods of ensuring that people who are authorised as civil celebrants make themselves available to the public.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Millar:

Order! The honourable member’s time has expired.

Mr FITZPATRICK:
Riverina

– I should like to point out to the House tonight how a member who does some research in order to make a speech to this Parliament can get into trouble from two different directions. I refer to the debate on the Pig Slaughter Levy Amendment Bill last week when I was trying to point out the effect that the quantity of water available has on pig breeding. You will no doubt recall, Mr Deputy Speaker, that I was reminded of the need to relate my remarks to the Bill. Later on in my speech I referred to echium plantagineum commonly known as paterson ‘s curse or salvation jane, which was badly affecting the pig industry, according to information I had from people in my electorate. I said that the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation had imported insects which were intended to control the plant biologically. However, because, the beekeepers had protested there was a hold-up.

Last night I received a phone call from a person intimating that I did not know what I was talking about and informing me that the beekeepers were not objecting to the elimination of the plant. I have here my file on this matter and I do know what I am talking about. I have a letter from the Commercial Apiarists’ Association of New South Wales objecting to the elimination of salvation jane. I did not have a great deal of time to explain this to the man on the phone because we more or less locked horns. I do not know whether I took him the wrong way, but he asked me to write to him. I said that if he wrote to me I would reply. He had rung me and I had tried to explain the matter to him but he would not tell me what he was really after. However, I think I do owe him an explanation. I want to read a few passages from the correspondence I had to indicate that the beekeepers are opposed to the elimination of this plant. The letter commences:

We wish to draw your attention to the attached copies of correspondence in regard to a matter which, in our opinion, will result in the decline and, possibly, the eventual failure of the honey industry in New South Wales and other States.

We wish to draw your attention to the attached copies of correspondence in regard to a matter which, in our opinion, will result in the decline and, possibly, the eventual failure of the Honey Industry in New South Wales and other States.

It is proposed that the CSIRO should be permitted to release one or even two imported insects which, we understand, are currently in Quarantine, for the purpose of biologically controlling the plant Echium plantagineum commonly known as Patterson ‘s Curse or Salvation Jane.

The letter continues:

We submit therefore that action must be taken to prevent the liquidation of the Honey Industry by bureaucratic mismanagement. This is based on the following facts that the Weeds

Committee, Department of Agriculture and CSIRO, have seen fit to ignore.

Should the insect/s be released to biologically control a plant, whose estimated value to the Honey Industry is in excess of $3.3 million annually at a time when exports have dropped from $11.3 million 1973-76 to only $6.5 million 1 976-77 then the Honey Industry is doomed to disaster.

Honourable members can see from that that the honey industry is very concerned about the welfare of this plant. The letter continues:

We readily accept that the plant is toxic to pigs, however, the degree of any type of foliage within the immediate bounds of today’s piggery is virtually nil, and, is readily controlled by normal eradication processes such as tillage, etc.

I do not have a good deal of time in this debate to explain the position. I hope that honourable members will take notice of this speech and that they will be tolerant when I am trying to put the details to explain the position. Members of this Parliament do come in for some criticism outside it if they do not fully explain the points which they are trying to make.

Mr JULL:
Bowman

-There are two aspects of the operations of small businesses that I would like to bring to the attention of the House tonight. I think that much of the thrust of the very first speech I made in this House 2Vi years ago related to small businesses. One of the things which I believe I suggested at that stage was the establishment of a federal small business bureau. That has happened within the Department of Industry and Commerce. I would like to bring to the attention of the members of the House a service that now exists through that small business section of the Department. It is part of an education program for small businessmen. It comes in the form of film programs which are designed to assist them in their training and in their daytoday operations. One of the big criticisms that have been made of small businessmen in Australia over the years is that in many cases they can be their own worst enemies inasmuch as they lack certain business skills and a knowledge of business principles and accounting systems. The service that is being provided at the moment by the Department is seeking to overcome that problem.

Some two weeks ago in my electorate I conducted two screenings of these films. They were received very well indeed, but I was amazed by the reaction of some of the people who attended those screenings. I had done a business management course in my previous occupation and I had thought that basic things like business planning, cash flows and this type of thing would have been a natural to many small businessmen. Apparently most of them do not use these systems within their businesses. Obviously the films were readily acceptable. I congratulate the Department of Industry and Commerce for taking this initiative. I suggest that honourable members should avail themselves of the opportunity to show these films to small businessmen in their electorates. It is a free service and one that should be welcomed by all.

The second aspect is a matter of concern to me, that is, the decline in many of the professions during these times of economic hardship. I should like to congratulate the Queensland Government on a principle it seems to be employing at the moment in some of its departments, that is, the principle of sub-contracting more and more work to private firms to try to help them to overcome their problems. The housing area is one area in which some real advances have been made. Another is the area of the Department of Survey and Valuation in Queensland. I think that the Commonwealth could probably learn a lesson from the Department of Survey and Valuation in particular. It is interesting to see just how the surveying industry in particular has declined in recent years. In Queensland in 1972-73 there were 1,500 people employed in this industry, which involved $ 10m worth of work. At the moment only about 500 surveyors are employed by private companies in Queensland. The Queensland State Government is helping to keep this skilled manpower together by putting something like $1.4m of work to the private sector within the last 12 months. This funding of course has run out and we are hoping that this particular initiative by the Queensland Government will be renewed in the coming financial year.

If we do allow our professions to run down completely, at the time of recovery we will have problems maintaining the number of skilled people in that particular industry, especially as many of those who are qualified have now gone to other industries and have involved themselves in other businesses. I understand that in Queensland at the moment some 100 Commonwealth employees are employed within the Department of Administrative Services as surveyors. I also understand that, when a major project such as the proposed Brisbane Airport comes up, it is not uncommon for the Commonwealth to fly other public servants from interstate to help out in the Queensland situation. That, to me, would seem to be rather a silly and highly expensive undertaking. That particular business could be undertaken quite successfully by the private entrepreneurs and the private skilled staff whom they employ.

One would hope that now the model of the new Brisbane Airport has gone on display and people are starting to look at the prospect of getting along with the development work- a great deal of surveying and mapping will be involved in that project- perhaps the Federal Government could look more and more at using private companies to undertake some of this work. It has been proved that in Queensland the private companies can be much more competitive in their prices than the Commonwealth Public Service. Obviously any cost-saving factors we can get in a major project- a project such as the Brisbane Airport which is going to cost over $200mwould be more than welcome. On top of that, we can give some revival to an industry which is most depressed indeed.

Mr HUMPHREYS:
Griffith

-I would like to devote the short time available to me this evening to speaking about the trade union movement. The trade union movement has a history and a tradition of activity on behalf of organised workers in Australia which is unequalled by any other organisation in the Commonwealth. The movement does not condone useless strikes and does not inflict unnecessary hardships on its members. Industrial disputes represent only a small item of trade union activity. But unfortunately it is that item which receives wide press publicity while all other activities of the trade union movement pass without recognition.

On any given day, the trade union movement, negotiating in industrial disputes, solves thousands of problems on behalf of its members. I mention social injustices, wage injustices such as the incorrect payment of wages, victimisationwhich all honourable members are well aware happens in Queensland- unjust sackings and the finding of employment for many members in their particular trades. The last function I have just mentioned is almost impossible to achieve these days. I might add that it looks like being impossible in the not too distant future. The trade union movement contributes to countless charities. Its officers and members are continually engaged in community services. They sit on committees- more often than not they are unpaid for this- which deal with employeremployee relations and on countless other organisations in the community that are interested in the social and economic welfare of our society. The Government readily admits that many of its most important committees are unable to function without the full support and co-operation of the trade union movement.

The trade union movement will not and cannot accept restrictions upon its right to involve itself in the political life of the community. As the organised strength of the lower and middle income workers, trade unions have an obligation to exercise their civic responsibilities. The standard of living of the Australian people depends upon the strong demands of the trade unions for improved conditions in social services, education, housing and a host of other areas. Trade unions initiate the demands, and they need an Australian Labor Party government to implement them.

Let us consider our archaic social services and the way in which we lag behind other countries such as countries in America and Europe. Australian workers are expected to live on a pittance upon retirement after 50 years of service. No member of this House can deny that a worker is entitled to a retirement allowance much higher than that which he receives after such a period of faithful and loyal service. Pensioners would not be receiving anywhere near the amount of benefit they receive today had Australia not had a Labor Government in office for the three years between 1972 and 1975. Surely no honourable member would challenge the right of the trade union movement to interest itself in these matters.

We all can remember when the Government used to attack the trade union movement for its stand on apartheid. History proved that the trade union movement was right in relation to apartheid. I think history proved that also to an honourable senator. History has proved also that the trade union movement was right in its stand in opposing shipments of pig iron to Japan, in its support of independence for Indonesia and in its stand in opposing the phoney war in Vietnam. The Australian Labor Party is proud of its association with the trade union movement. I hope that while I am a member of this House I will be able to work to ensure a strengthening of the great ties that exist between the Australian Labor Party and that most important section of the working class, the trade union movement.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

House adjourned at 10.52 p.m.

page 588

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS UPON NOTICE

The following answers to questions upon notice were circulated:

Oil Refineries: Motor Vehicle Fuels (Question No. 58)

Mr Jacobi:
HAWKER, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister for National Development, upon notice on 22 February 1978:

  1. 1 ) As the interdepartmental committee set up to examine the 5th Report of the Royal Commission on Petroleum presented its Report to the Government over 5 months ago, what decisions has the Government taken on the recommendations of the Commission.
  2. Has he had discussions with the New South Wales Government about the reservation of a site on the Kurnell Peninsula for an oil refinery, in line with the recommendation of the Royal Commission.
  3. Does the Government accept the Commission’s recommendation that Australia should retain refining selfsufficiency; if so, will the Government formulate a cohesive refinery policy with reasoned haste as is suggested by the Commission.
  4. Does the Government propose that imports of motor spirit beyond a critical level will not be acceptable in the absence of proposals to add to Australian refining capacity.
  5. As the Commission suggests that there could be problems raising the capital necessary for any future refinery in Australia, will the Government initiate discussions with industry representatives to encourage a consortium or other arrangement of producers to build the new refinery Australia will need by 1985.
  6. 6 ) Will he accept the recommendation of the Royal Commission that the Government should not under-write any oil refinery in Central Australia.
  7. Will he initiate in the context of a national energy policy a study of the relative benefits of developing natural gas from the Mereenie fields as against the refinery proposal.
  8. Has his attention been drawn to an article in the Adelaide ‘Advertiser’ of 7 February 1978 which reports that many service stations in Adelaide are selling super grade petrol up to 3 cents a litre cheaper than standard grade and that many petrol resellers no longer stock standard grade; if so, is this trend in motor spirit consumption contrary to the national interest.
  9. In the interest of consumers, will he hold discussions with the oil industry with a view to changing the present ratio of premium/standard grade petrol consumption so that the cost of lead phase down proposals may be avoided while still ensuring that no more ambient lead enters the environment than is presently the case.
  10. Will he take steps to ensure that the design of petrol engines is compatible with any change in petroleum octane ratings.
  11. Does he intend to create a larger price differential between premium and standard grade petrol to effect changes in the sales ratio of premium/standard grade petrol.
  12. As widespread use of liquefied petroleum gas in motor vehicles would reduce the level of lead in the atmosphere and thereby reduce the cost of current lead phase down programs, will he give urgent attention to this matter.
Mr Newman:
Minister for National Development · BASS, TASMANIA · LP

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

  1. to (7) See the press statement I issued on ‘Petroleum Refining industry ‘on 1 June 1978.
  2. to ( 12) In addition to the abovementioned Press statement see the statements I issued on 20 and 21 June 1978 relating to discussions with the oil industry on octane rating of motor spirit and other matters.

International Atomic Energy Agency: Bilateral Training Programs (Question No. 66)

Mr Uren:

asked the Minister for National Development, upon notice, on 22 February 1 978:

  1. 1 ) What is the extent of Australia ‘s contribution to the International Atomic Energy Agency, by year and cumulatively, since the Agency’s inception.
  2. What training has the Australian Atomic Energy Commission provided to and received from the IAEA and from bilateral programs with the United States, the United Kingdom and other countries.
Mr Newman:
LP

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

  1. Records published by IAEA indicate that Australia’s annual and cumulative contributions to the Agency since 1958 have been as follows:
  1. Pursuant to bilateral arrangements, the AAEC has provided training for nine Indian scientists in the fields of chemistry, physics and isotopes and for two Japanese scientists in reactor engineering and instrumentation and control. In addition the AAEC has, over the last 13 years, provided training to large numbers of trainees, particularly from South East Asia, under the Colombo Plan, IAEA Fellowships and other technical assistance programs. This training has included the areas of health and safety, isotopes, reactor physics, chemistry, engineering and operations, and waste management.

The following countries have provided training, as indicated, to AAEC officers over the past twenty-four years:

UK: 8 1 officers trained USA: 31 officers trained Canada: 12 officers trained India: 8 officers trained FRG: 3 officers trained France: 1 officer trained Israel/IAEA: 1 officer trained Denmark: 1 officer trained.

The training was given in the following fields: reactor engineering; materials research; chemistry; reactor physics; chemical engineering; health and safety; nuclear regulation; isotope applications and production; waste management; nuclear medicine; meteorology; computer software and administration.

Liquefied Petroleum Gas (Question No. 354)

Mr Jacobi:

asked the Minister for National Development, upon notice, on 2 March 1978:

  1. 1 ) What action has been taken, or will be taken, to implement recommendation 20 of the report on the Middle East tabled in June 1977 by the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence which urges the Government to encourage the development of all feasible energy sources including the complete abolition of the Federal tax on liquefied petroleum gas which raises little revenue.
  2. Does the recommendation also urge the granting of subsidies for the cost of conversion to the manufacturers of engines suitable for LPG.
Mr Newman:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) and (2) The Government will be giving attention to all aspects of LPG usage when the recommendations of the Sixth Report of the Royal Commission on Petroleum are under consideration in the near future. See also the Government’s statement on National Energy Policy of 7 November 1977 and my press statement of 26 May 1978 on ‘Establishment of the National Energy Research, Development and Demonstration Council ‘.

Staff Canteens (Question No. 580)

Mr Bungey:
CANNING, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 8 March 1978:

  1. 1 ) What staff canteens are operated by his Department.
  2. What is the pricing policy of each canteen.
  3. Are charges for (a) cleaning, (b) electricity and power, (c) fuel, (d) rent or lease, (e) repairs and maintenance, (f) replacements of plant, furniture and fittings and (g) depreciation of plant, furniture and fittings included for determination of canteen prices; if not, what was the estimated cost of each of these items in each canteen during 1976-77.
  4. What staff is employed in each canteen, and what were the total wages and salaries paid to staff in each canteen in 1976-77.
  5. Are all wages and salaries paid to canteen staff included for determination of canteen prices; if not, what percentage of total wages and salaries paid to canteen staff were included for determination of canteen prices for 1 976-77.
  6. What decision has been made by his Department concerning subsidisation of each canteen and what was the estimated cost of such subsidisation to each canteen for

1976- 77.

  1. Are the public and relatives and friends of departmental staff permitted to use each canteen.
  2. If there are restrictions on its use how are they implemented in each canteen.
  3. What staff from other Commonwealth Departments and instrumentalities regularly use each canteen.
  4. Are there any arrangements made by his Department for any staff canteen to be operated by private enterprise; if so, which canteens and under what terms and conditions.
Mr MacKellar:
Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs · WARRINGAH, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

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

My Department is not responsible for the operation of any staff canteens.

Wheat Shipments (Question No. 858- Supplementary Answer)

Mr Hyde:
MOORE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 5 April 1978:

  1. What was the average freight advantage of wheat shipped from Western Australia over the average freights of wheat shipped from all Australian ports in each of the (a) 1973-74, (b) 1974-75, (c) 1975-76 and (d) 1976-77 pools.
  2. What is the expected average freight advantage of wheat shipped from Western Australian ports from the 1977- 78 pool.
  3. What was the tonnage and destination of wheat shipped from each Australian port from each of the (a) 1973-74, (b) 1974-75, (c) 1975-76 and (d) 1976-77 pools.
Mr Sinclair:
NCP/NP

– I now provide the following supplementary information:

The amounts shown in parts (1) and (2) of the answer given in Hansard of 1 1 May 1 978 to the question upon notice (No. 858) asked by the honourable member for Moore (Mr Hyde) were calculated by averaging the advantage per tonne for freight on those shipments of wheat from Western Australia to which an advantage applied. Not all shipments from that State attract a freight advantage. When the advantage per tonne for freight is calculated by averaging it for all shipments from Western Australia and not only for those shipments that attract a freight advantage the Australian Wheat Board obtains the following amounts.

It should be noted that these figures differ from the allowance that is paid by the Australian Wheat Board to growers in Western Australia for that State’s advantage because in calculating the allowance to growers the sum of the Western Australian freight advantage is applied to the total quantity of wheat received in that State.

Advisory and Consultative Committees: Inclusion of Members of Parliament (Question No. 1137)

Mr Lloyd:
MURRAY, VICTORIA

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 10 May 1978:

  1. 1 ) What advisory or consultative committees has he established or continued which include members of parliament.
  2. Which members and senators are included on these committees.
Mr Nixon:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) and (2)1 have not established or continued any advisory or consultative committees which include members of parliament.

Advisory and Consultative Committees: Inclusion of Members of Parliament (Question No. 1146)

Mr Lloyd:

asked the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 10 May 1978:

  1. 1 ) What advisory or consultative committees has he established or continued which include members of parliament.
  2. Which members and senators are included on these committees.
Mr MacKellar:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) and (2) I have not established or continued any advisory or consultative committees which include members of parliament as ordinary members. I preside as Chairman at plenary sessions of the Australian Population and Immigration Council, an advisory body which I have reconstituted.

Advisory and Consultative Committees: Inclusion of Members of Parliament (Question No. 1154)

Mr Lloyd:

asked the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, upon notice, on 10 May 1978:

  1. 1 ) What advisory or consultative committees has he established or continued which include members of parliament.
  2. Which members and senators are included on these committees.
Mr Fife:
Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs · FARRER, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

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

  1. 1 ) and (2)1 have not established or continued any advisory or consultative committees which include members of parliament.

Advisory and Consultative Committees: Inclusion of Members of Parliament (Question No. 1159)

Mr Lloyd:

asked the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development, upon notice, on 10 May 1978:

  1. 1 ) What advisory or consultative committees has he established or continued which include members of parliament.
  2. Which members and senators are included on these committees.
Mr Groom:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) and (2)1 have not established or continued any advisory or consultative committees which include members of parliament.

Refugees (Question No. 1170)

Mr Scholes:

asked the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 1 1 May, 1978:

  1. 1 ) How many persons have entered Australia as refugees by small boats.
  2. How many were (a) male and (b) female and what were their age groupings.
  3. ) What were the countries of origin.
  4. How many persons were unable to meet health requirements normally applied to persons seeking entry into Australia.
  5. How many persons who entered Australia under the circumstances referred to in part ( 1 ) have applied to have other members of the family admitted to Australia as migrants.
  6. How many family members are involved in these applications.
  7. Are normal health requirements applied to these applications.
  8. To what occupational groups did persons entering Australia as refugees belong.
  9. How many of these refugees came direct from their country of origin.
Mr MacKellar:
LP

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

  1. One thousand six hundred and forty-one as of 8 August 1978.
  2. The breakdown is: 777 adult males; 307 adult females; 527 children. Three-quarters are under the age of 25 years and about 4 per cent over the age of 50 years.
  3. Vietnam and Cambodia.
  4. Twenty-one persons. Immediate arrangements were made for appropriate medical treatment.
  5. 5 ) and ( 6 ) Separate records are not kept for refugees who nominate relatives under the family re-union category.
  6. Yes.
  7. There is a wide range of occupational groups. Farmers and fishermen make up around 27 per cent of the total; mechanics, technicians and apprentices made up about 6 per cent; government employees are about 4 per cent and housewives around 6 per cent. Other occupations (each less than 2 per cent) total 17 per cent. Students and pre-school children make up the largest category of about 40 per cent.
  8. All of the boat arrivals came from Vietnam. The Cambodians were in Vietnam before coming to Australia. Some had entered boat camps in Malaysia before joining boats to come to Australia.

Company Law: Defaulting Officers (Question No. 1 186)

Mr Jacobi:

asked the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, upon notice, on 24 May 1978:

  1. 1 ) Has his attention been drawn to my repeated requests for the urgent amendment of the Australian Capital Territory Companies Ordinance relating to Defaulting Officer Provisions.
  2. Is it a fact that because of the failure to amend these Ordinances the Australian Capital Territory is now some 12 years behind Victoria.
  3. Will he give urgent consideration to effecting the appropriate amendment.
Mr Fife:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) to (3 ) As the honourable member is well aware, Commonwealth and State Ministers responsible for Corporate Affairs announced on 14 May, that they had reached final agreement on a national scheme of legislation and administration for company law and the regulation of the securities industry. The legislation under that scheme will be based on the uniform laws in force in New South Wales, Queensland, Victoria and Western Australia.

To facilitate introduction of the national scheme, a draft Ordinance has been prepared to insert in the Australian Capital Territory Companies Ordinance provisions along the lines of the ‘defaulting officer’ provisions that are currently included in the Companies Acts of New South Wales, Queensland, Victoria and Western Australia. In accordance with normal practice, the draft Ordinance will be forwarded to the Australian Capital Territory Legislative Assembly for comment before it is made.

Department of Transport: Transfer of officers to Canberra (Question No. 1190)

Mr Morris:
SHORTLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 23 May 1978:

  1. 1 ) What are the classifications and salaries of all officers who have refused transfers to Canberra from the Melbourne offices of his Department from 23 May 1977 to date.
  2. Which of those officers have transferred to alternative positions within the Department’s Melbourne offices rather than accept transfer to Canberra.
Mr Nixon:
LP

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

Offices of both the Central Office and the Victoria/Tasmania Region of the Depanment are located in Melbourne but the Canberra- Melbourne transfer program involves positions in the Central Office only and it is these which are covered below:

Department of Transport: Resignations (Question No. 1191)

Mr Morris:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 23 May 1978:

  1. 1 ) How many resignations have occurred from his Department’s Melbourne offices from 23 May 1 977 to date.
  2. What were the reasons given for each resignation.
  3. What were the classifications and salaries of officers who resigned.
  4. What action has been taken to fill the resultant vacancies.
  5. 5 ) Which vacancies still remain.
Mr Nixon:
LP

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

Offices of both the Central Office and the Victoria/Tasmania Region of the Department are located in Melbourne and it is the Central Office elements only which are covered below.

1) 1 10 resignations.

Staff are not required to give reasons upon resignation but those reasons given were as follows:

  1. The Department first considers whether or not the positions should be filled. If the decision is affirmative the vacant positions are advertised in the Commonwealth Gazette and in the Department’s Administrative Circulars.
  2. 5 ) Thirty vacancies as follows:

Department of Transport: Resignations (Question No. 1192)

Mr Morris:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 23 May 1978:

What were the classifications and salaries of officers who resigned from his Depanment between 1 January 1976 and 23 May 1977.

Mr Nixon:
LP

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

Australian Atomic Energy Commission: Environmental Survey Reports (Question No. 1221)

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister for National Development, upon notice, on 24 May 1978:

  1. 1 ) Are there any environmental reports compiled by the Australian Atomic Energy Commission which are specifically not made public.
  2. Will he itemise the subject matter and the number of reports referred to in part ( 1 ).
  3. Has the Australian Atomic Energy Commission published the Environmental Survey Reports for the years 1 975 to 1 977; if not, will he (a) indicate why the reports have not been published and (b) make copies of the unpublished reports available to the Parliament.
Mr Newman:
LP

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

  1. No.
  2. See answer to(l)
  3. No. (a) and (b)-The compilation of the Environmental Survey Reports from records has been delayed due to staff shortages. The Reports are presently being prepared and will be distributed to relevant authorities and made available to libraries and the public within the next few months.

Australian Atomic Energy Commission: Staffing (Question No. 1227)

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

asked the Minister for National Development, upon notice, on 24 May 1978:

  1. 1 ) How many officers of the Australian Atomic Energy Commission held the rank of Chief of Division.
  2. What are the staff numbers supervised by each Chief of Division
  3. How many Chiefs of Division are there per staff member on average.
  4. How does the total of Chiefs of Division in the Commission compare with the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation.
  5. 5 ) What is the average staff of a CSIRO Division.
  6. By what factor does the rate of staff per division chief in the AAEC exceed that of CSIRO.
Mr Newman:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) AAEC has 2 1 officers holding the rank of Chief of Division, or the salary equivalent designation of Chief Research Scientist.
  2. The average size of a AAEC research division is 57 persons. This does not include administrative and trade support which is provided to divisions as a centralised service.
  3. There are 0.017 Chiefs of Division/Chief Research Scientists per staff member on average.
  4. The AAEC has 21 Chiefs of Division/Chief Research Scientists; the CSIRO has 123 Chiefs of Division/Chief Research Scientists.
  5. 5 ) The average staff of a CSIRO Division is 1 63 persons.
  6. The number of staff per Chief of Division/Chief Research Scientist is approximately the same in both organisations (AAEC 58.6: 1, CSIRO 56.4: 1 ).

North West Cape Communications Station (Question No. 1237)

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 25 May 1 978:

  1. What is Australia’s (a) personnel and (b) financial contribution to the North West Cape base.
  2. If Australia has joint financial and personnel responsibility why has she not been fully briefed through both of these avenues.
Mr Killen:
Minister for Defence · MORETON, QUEENSLAND · LP

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

  1. 1 ) (a) Six RAN officers and 4 1 sailors.

    1. Article 14 of the Agreement provides for Australian financial contributions as follows:

Except as otherwise provided in this Agreement, the construction, maintenance and operation of the Station will be without cost to the Australian Government (other than costs incurred directly by the Australian Government on behalf of its armed forces). The Australian Government will reimburse the United States Government for such expenses as the co-operation agencies of the two Governments agree should be met by Australia for the use of the Station by its forces. ‘

  1. The Government takes the view that information needing the policy attention of the Government should be conveyed by the United States through normal policy channels rather than military operational channels.

North West Cape Communications Station (Question No. 1238)

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 25 May 1978:

  1. 1 ) Who in the Defence Depanment was responsible for not briefing him in relation to the Harold Holt base at North West Cape.
  2. Has his attention been drawn to a reported statement of Sir Arthur Tange that technical experts can talk to one another without it necessarily going to policy level.
  3. If so, having regard to this statement as it relates to the North West Cape facilities will he inform the Parliament (a ) who these technical experts are, (b) who has the responsibility for deciding which technical experts should be involved, (c) how many technical bodies or cells are involved within Australia, (d) whether countries other than the United States of America are involved in discussions, (e) how many Australian personnel are cleared to take part in technical discussions, (f) how many overseas personnel are cleared to take pan in technical discussions, (g) whether the Secretary of his Depanment is one of those people cleared to receive information on all discussions held within Australia and overseas by members of the various cells involved and (h) whether the Prime Minister is one of those people cleared to receive information on all discussions held within Australia and overseas by members of the various cells involved.
Mr Killen:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) In the Defence Organisation the responsibility for conveying information required by the Minister rests with the Secretary on policy matters and the Chief of Defence Force Staff on military operational matters.
  2. Yes. (3 Numerous technical personnel exchange information for a variety of purposes with United States military personnel in both bilateral and multi-national meetings, in Australia and overseas. The Minister, the Head of the Depanment and senior Departmental officials are provided with information derived from these discussions when they are perceived to involve matters of policy significance. The security clearance required for participation in discussions by military personnel or officials depends on the particular subject to be discussed. The Secretary is cleared to receive any information he may require. The question of clearance does not arise in the case of the Prime Minister.

North West Cape Communications Station (Question No. 1239)

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 25 May 1 978:

Is the North West Cape facility locked into Australia’s long term defence program; if so, was the decision an Australian initiative and when was it taken.

Mr Killen:
LP

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

Following a United States Government initiative the Australian Government formally agreed with the Government of the United Sates in June 1963 that the North West Cape communications station should be established. The Agreement was formally amended, at the initiative of the Australian Government on 14 January 1975. The Agreement is for a period of at least 25 years (terminating in June 1988) and thereafter subject to 180 days notice in writing. The station is inter alia an integral element in the communication system of the Royal Australian Navy.

Defence Capability: North West Cape Communications Station (Question No. 1240)

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 25 May 1978:

  1. 1 ) Are the Australian defence forces capable of containing any consequences from hostile countries reacting to a full alert.
  2. Will he assure the Parliament that the Prime Minister will be immediately informed whenever consideration is being given to placing the North West Cape facilities on full alert.
Mr Killen:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Present and planned capabilites of the Australian Defence Force are considered appropriate in presently assessed strategic circumstances.
  2. The Joint Statement issued by the Australian Minister for Defence (Mr Barnard) and the US Secretary of Defence (Mr Schlesinger) on 10 January 1974 stated ‘The Ministers recalled the provisions of Article III of the ANZUS Treaty and confirmed the importance to both Governments of urgent consultations in case of a developing international crisis’. Mr Barnard released on the same date a statement which included the following:

Mr Barnard said that in the discussions he had raised the question of prompt advice to Australia should the alert status of any US Defence installation in Australia be changed. He said: “I am pleased to say that the US Secretary of Defense has agreed that future procedure will ensure that the Australian Government is promptly advised in this respect ‘ ‘. ‘

The Prime Minister would be informed when any such advice was received from the United States.

North Australia Railway (Question No. 1243)

Mr Morris:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 25 May 1978:

  1. 1 ) How many employees of the former North Australia Railway were retrenched as a result of the closure of the railway.
  2. Has his Department sought alternative employment for the retrenched employees.
  3. If so, how many employees were found alternative employment
  4. How many persons are now employed by North Australia Railway and what is the designation of each.
Mr Nixon:
LP

-The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: (1), (2) and (3) Of the 197 persons employed on the North Australia Railway prior to its closure, 4 retired as they had reached the maximum age, 22 accepted the offer made to all employees of transfer to other parts of the Australian National Railways, 83 were found alternative employment in the Northern Territory and 88 refused the offer of transfer and could not bc found alternative employment by ANR, and were retrenched.

  1. There are no ANR amployees currently working on the North Australia Railway. The care and management of ANR’s assets has been left in the hands of government departments and authorities to whom these have been leased. No further track maintenance is being undertaken as a resumption of services is not contemplated in the immediate future.

Housing Allowance (Question No. 1251)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development, upon notice, on 25 May 1978:

  1. 1 ) When does he expect that the first Housing Allowance Voucher Experiment payments will be made in (a) Tasmania and ( b) Victoria.
  2. For how many years is it intended to conduct the experiment.
  3. How many families will receive (a) voucher payments and (b) any other payments in (i) Tasmania and (ii) Victoria.
  4. What is the expected cost of conducting the experiment in January 1978 prices for each year over which it is expected to run for (a) voucher payments and (b) administration and analysis.
  5. Have computer contracts been let for the analysis of experimental results; if so, what is the duration of the contracts.
  6. How many (a) full dme staff and (b) consultants were engaged in experimental design as at (i) 30 June 1976, (ii) 30 June 1977 and (iii) 31 March 1978.
  7. How many staff will be employed on (a) administration and (b) analysis when the experiment becomes operational.
Mr Groom:
LP

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

  1. to (4), (7) The Government has decided not to proceed with the Housing Allowance Experiment.
  2. No.

Public Hospital Charges (Question No. 1259)

Mr Shipton:
HIGGINS, VICTORIA

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 25 May 1978:

  1. 1) Do public hospitals bill, either individually or by bulk billing (a) Medibank, (b) Medibank Private and (c) private health funds for (i) public patients and (ii) intermediate or other private patients.
  2. If so, what sums were involved for each State in (a) 1976-77 and (b) 1977-78 to date.
Mr Hunt:
Minister for Health · GWYDIR, NEW SOUTH WALES · NCP/NP

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

  1. The only details of this kind available to my Department relate to the following benefits payments made by Medibank Private:

Footwear Imports (Question No. 1261)

Mr Shipton:

asked the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, upon notice, on 25 May 1978:

  1. 1 ) What were the total footwear imports from the date of introduction of quotas to 28 February 1 978.
  2. What is the anticipated total at the end of this quota year.
  3. Does the quota system reduce imports or allow them to increase.
Mr Fife:
LP

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

  1. From information compiled by the Australian Bureau of Statistics, 103.6 million pairs of various types of footwear, having a total value of SA2218 million, were imported into Australia during the period 1 October 1974, the date on which import control was introduced, to 28 February 1 978.
  2. Quotas are allocated for a six-month quota period with the current period ending 31 December 1978. It is Government policy for import licences issued against those quotas to have a twelve-month validity period. For quota allocated during the current quota period they are valid until 30 June 1979. Consequently, imports of footwear made against quota allocated for the current quota period may be made up to six months from the date of completion of the current period. It is not possible to forecast the proportion of footwear quota allocated for the current period which will actually be imported on completion of the current period on 31 December 1978. As well, imports of footwear which are not subject to quota control are being made and these quantities cannot be accurately forecast. Footwear not subject to control or not included in total quota allocated includes rubber gumboots, specialised sporting footwear, high priced footwear exceeding a determined value for duty and certain handmade footwear imported from developing countries.
  3. There is provision for reducing and increasing quota levels. As a part of the three year programme of assistance until mid- 1980 for the textiles, clothing and footwear industries announced on 22 November 1977, a Textiles, Clothing and Footwear Review Committee was established. This Committee advises the Minister for Industry and Commerce and the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs on the six-monthly adjustments of quota levels that may be required, in the light of demand variations, to avoid disruption and any consequential major contractions in employment. The Committee may recommend that variations of plus or minus twenty per cent be made to each six-monthly allocation.

Maternity Leave (Question No. 1291)

Mr Shipton:

asked the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development, upon notice, on 26 May 1 978:

  1. 1 ) What has been the cost of maternity leave in his Department during the years (a) 1976 and (b) 1977, and (c) in the period January 1 978 to date.
  2. What was the total hours of leave in respect of these employees.
  3. How many employees have resigned or retired within one month of the end of the leave period in each of the periods.
  4. What sum was paid for maternity leave for the (a) first, (b) second and (c) third child in each of the periods.
Mr Groom:
LP

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

  1. 1976-$ 103,897.47

1977- $91,943.58

1978- $47,137.82.

  1. 1976-35,355

1977- 26,043

1978- 11,079.

  1. 1976-16

1977- 8

1978- 5.

  1. 1976-

First child-S 103,897.47. Second child- Nil Third child-Nil.

1977-

First child-$80,202.34

Second child-S 1 1 ,74 1 .24

Third child-Nil. 1978-

First child-$47,137.82

Second child- Nil

Third child-Nil.

North West Cape Communications Station (Question No. 1301)

Mr Scholes:

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 26 May 1978:

  1. 1) Is the proposed new installation at North West Cape to be under the operational control of the United States Navy.
  2. If not, who will have operational control of the facilities.
  3. Were funds for the purchase and installation of equipment appropriated to the United States Navy or another agency.
  4. Does the North West Cape agreement provide for the use of the base by any organisation other than the United States Navy.
Mr Killen:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) No new installation has been proposed by the United States Government to the Australian Government.
  2. See 1 above.
  3. No funds for installation of an MSC-61 terminal at North West Cape have been appropriated by Congress.
  4. Article 1 of the Agreement of 9 May 1963 was amended on 14 January 1975 to read ‘. . . The Station will be operated by the armed forces of the two Governments as a joint facility’. Article 3 (2) of the Agreement states ‘Except with the express consent of the Australian Government the Station will not be used other than for the purposes of defence communications . . .’. The Station is used by the Australian Navy.

North West Cape Communications Station (Question No. 1302)

Mr Scholes:

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 26 May 1978:

  1. Was the Australian Joint Intelligence Organisation aware of the United States Government proposal to alter the facilities at the North West Cape base.
  2. If so, when was the information received and from what source.
Mr Killen:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) No United States Government proposal to alter facilities at the North West Cape base has been received by the Australian Government.
  2. See(l) above.

North West Cape Communications Station (Question No. 1303)

Mr Scholes:

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 26 May 1978:

  1. 1 ) Is it normal practice for matters of significant policy content to be discussed at a technical level within the Department of Defence, without any notification of, or report on, the discussion being made to policy and other sections of the Depanment.
  2. Do technical level discussions involve details of financial arrangements, and the letting of tenders for technical equipment.
  3. Were tenders for technical equipment let in August 1977 and funds for the installation at North West Cape approved by the United States Congress in 1977.
  4. Was the Government or the Depanment of Defence notified in advance of the intention (a) to let tenders for equipment and (b) to appropriate funds for the Australian installation in the 1977 United States defence vote.
Mr Killen:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) It is normal practice for discussions to occur at technical levels between defence officers and their counterparts in other countries without automatic reference to policy levels in the Defence Depanment when the substantive matters under discussion are understood to fall within the limits of established policy. If new policy is involved there would be reference of the matter to the policy level in the Depanment.
  2. Subject to the facts of the case they can do so, subject to ( 1 ) above.
  3. In March 1978 the US Government entered into contracts for production of MSC-6 1 satellite ground terminals for international use. No funds for installation of an MSC-6 1 terminal at North West Cape have been appropriated by US Congress.
  4. No-see also (3) above.

Defence Personnel located in Washington, D.C. (Question No. 1304)

Mr Scholes:

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 26 May 1978:

  1. How many Defence personnel are located in Washington, D.C.
  2. ) What is their rank or designation.
  3. Are Defence Force officers answerable on a single service basis.
  4. How many civilian officers are responsible for policy areas.
  5. Do any of the Defence personnel located in Washington have responsibility for reporting on policy developments.
Mr Killen:
LP

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

  1. Seventy-five (established permanent posts) engaged largely in procurement, science, training and operational liaison activities.
  1. The three Service Attaches are answerable on a Single Service basis except insofar as they have responsibilities to the Head of the Defence Staff who is answerable as a Defence Representative.
  2. Two civilian officers have responsibilities in separate areas involving some specialised policy considerations. They are:

    1. The Defence Science Counsellor
    2. The Supply Counsellor.
  3. Yes. In addition to the two specialist officers referred to in (4) the two-star military officer occupying the position of Head of the Australian Defence Staff Washington is asked to report on trends and developments in United States defence policy and activity.

North West Cape Communications Station (Question No. 1305)

Mr Scholes:

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 26 May 1978:

  1. 1 ) Which officers of the Defence Department or Forces are responsible for monitoring and reporting upon hearings of defence matters before United States Congressional committees and sub-committees.
  2. On what date and to whom were the hearings of the Congressional Sub-committee on Defence Construction at which documents were tabled relating to new facilities at the North West Cape Base reported upon by the Australian Defence officers who had the responsibility of making these reports.
Mr Killen:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The Government does not rely on monitoring of some 21 Senate Committees, 114 Sub-committees and 33 House Committees and 183 Sub-committees holding an average of 20-25 hearings a day to obtain information about Administration proposals which are capable of being conveyed by the Administration direct to the Australian Government. (See answer to Question 1494 (6)). For these reasons monitoring and reporting of such matters, arising in these hearings, can only be a part of the wide span of duties of the Head of Defence Force Staff Washington.
  2. A schedule listing 21 locations which included the name H. E. Holt was submitted to one of the Sub-committees referred to above. The US Administration did not inform any Australian defence official of the relevant hearing or of the tendering of the document. No report was sent.

North West Cape Communications Station (Question No. 1306)

Mr Scholes:

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 26 May 1978:

  1. 1 ) What was the composition of the delegation from the Defence Department which went to Washington, D.C. in November 1977.
  2. Did Air Vice Marshal Jordan lead the delegation.
  3. Was Air Vice Marshal Jordan the only member of the delegation present during technical briefings at which plans for the expansion of United States facilities at North West Cape were discussed.
Mr Killen:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) A delegation was engaged in discussions on 1 4 and 1 5 November 1977. It comprised:

Mr W. B. Pritchett (Leader) AVM J. C. Jordan Major-General P. Falkland Mr R. H. Mathams

A separate military delegation attended US-Australian Joint Staff Talks in Washington 21-22 November 1 977. That delegation comprised:

AVM J. C. Jordan (Leader) Major-General P. Falkland.

  1. See (1)above
  2. A series of briefings on military operational matters was given to the delegation attending the US-Australian Joint Staff talks (see ( 1 ) above). A matter referred to in one of those briefings was technical improvements to international communications. North West Cape was mentioned as one site under consideration.

Uranium (Question No. 1415)

Mr Jacobi:

asked the Minister for National Development, upon notice, on 6 June 1978:

  1. 1 ) Has his attention been drawn to an article in the Canberra Times of 30 May 1978 relating to investment in uranium exploration and production in some 54 foreign countries including Australia, by the Iranian Atomic Energy Organisation.
  2. If so, (a) in what areas, (b) in what form, and (c) in what companies are these alleged investments taking place, and what level of equity has this organisation in investments in Australia.
  3. ) What other foreign governments or instrumentalities, or foreign private companies with the backing of foreign governments, are investing in exploration and ultimate development of Australia ‘s uranium deposits.
Mr Newman:
LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. None in Australia.
  3. Governments of the following countries are involved through instrumentalities or corporations in uranium exploration in Australia: United Kingdom, Japan, France, Federal Republic of Germany and Italy.

Roads: Classification for Funding Purposes (Question No. 1424)

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 1 June 1978:

  1. How are roads classified for the purposes of funding by the Commonwealth.
  2. What percentage of the roads of the Shire of Werribee, Victoria, fall into each of these categories.
Mr Nixon:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Road grants to the States, including Victoria, are made available under the States Grants (Roads) Act 1977 for the following categories:

National Highways National Commerce Roads Rural Arterial Roads Rural Local Roads Urban Arterial Roads Urban Local Roads

Minor Traffic Engineering and Road Safety Improvements.

The grants may be used for construction works on each of the road categories and for maintenance of National Highways and Rural Local Roads.

  1. The Shire of Werribee is totally within the Melbourne Statistical Division and all roads within the Shire are therefore either Urban Arterial or Urban Local roads for funding under the States Grants (Roads) Act 1977.

There are about 670 kilometres of roads in the Shire of Werribee. However, I have no information on the length of particular roads within the Shire which would enable me to give an indication of the percentage of roads falling into the above two categories.

I am able to say that the roads listed below are Urban Arterial roads. The remaining roads within the Shire are Urban Local roads.

Aviation Road, Ballan Road, Boundary Road, Central Avenue, Derrimut Road, Duncans Road, Fitzgerald Road, Geelong/Bacchus Marsh Road, Heaths Road, Hoppers Lane, Little Boundary Road, Little River Road, Merton Road, Morris Road, Princes Freeway/Highway West.

Air Safety: Incidence of Alcohol and Drug Abuse (Question No. 1429)

Mr Morris:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 1 June 1978:

  1. 1 ) What studies have been carried out by his Department in recent years into the incidence of alcohol and forms of drug abuse in accidents or incidents involving non-airline aircraft in Australia and overseas.
  2. What have those studies shown and will he make the results available.
Mr Nixon:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Studies have been carried out on blood alcohol in fatal general aviation accidents in Australia.
  2. The results of the studies referred to are set out in a paper by Brown and Lane published in Aviation, Space and Environmental Medicine, Vol. 48, No. 8, pages 771 to 775, August 1977. The conclusions developed in the paper are:

While there are difficulties associated with acquiring blood samples suitable for analysis, determination of postmortem BACs is a practical procedure in fatally injured occupants of crashed general aviation aircraft.

Extant surveys of BACs in fatal general aviation crashes in the USA and Great Britain are reviewed and Australian experience is described. When the percentage of all fatal accidents from which samples were obtained is fairly high, the percentage with positive BAC are generally similar.

Estimates of the percentage of fatal accidents in which alcohol was adjudged to have casual significance can be derived from two sets of US data and the Australian series. The Australian percentage is not significantly different from that derived from the lumped US data. Overall, about 9 per cent of fatal general aviation accidents show alcohol as a casual factor.

Comparisons with other modes of personal transportation shows that alcohol plays a role in fatal accident causation in descending order cars in single-vehicle accidents, cars, motorcycles, and general aviation aircraft.

Public Servants: Payment of Telephone Charges (Question No. 1465)

Mr Morris:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 2 June 1 978:

  1. 1 ) How many officers, in each classification in his Department, have the rental of their home telephone paid (a) in full and ( b) in part by his Department.
  2. What sum was involved in the payment of home telephone accounts (a) in full and (b) in part by his Department during 1976-77.
Mr Nixon:
LP

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

  1. (a) In the interest of safe, expenditious and efficient Department operations the key operational, policy, administrative and technical staff listed below have their home telephone rental paid in full in accordance with the provisions of Finance Direction 23.7
  1. b ) No Departmental officer has rental paid in part.

    1. (a) In accordance with the provisions of Finance Direction 23.7 the Department, in addition to paying the cost of rental, also pays the cost of up to 120 local calls and the cost of official trunk calls. The remainder of each account is paid by the officer concerned. (b)$/ 18,619

Aborigines, Pilbara and Kimberley Regions (Question No. 1469)

Dr Everingham:
CAPRICORNIA, QUEENSLAND

asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 2 June 1978:

What action has been taken on the recommendations of the report to him entitled ‘The Greater Involvement of Aboriginals in the Economy of the Pilbara and Kimberley Regions’, and, in particular, the provision of (a) planning for training for specified industries and irrigation-based development expected, (b) adequate staff for duties, with facilities and accommodation comparable with those provided for other departments and mining staffs, (c) ternary and continuing education facilities and investigation and development of existing facilities, (d) co-ordination and detailed legislative policy planning of facilities, (e) offices of his Department in each major town, (f) cultural and work exchange programs, (g) training teams, films and media promotion of community understanding and (h) a demographic survey.

Mr Viner:
Minister Assisting the Prime Minister · STIRLING, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

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

The Report has been under study within my Department and will be taken into account in the development of programs for the Regions. In addition, the Report has been widely distributed amongst State and Commonwealth Departments and private industry, with a view to inviting comment and using the Report as the basis of co-ordinated action.

Airport Rescue and Fire Fighting Services (Question No. 1477)

Mr Morris:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 6 June 1978:

  1. ) What is the basis of determination of: (a) which airports should be provided with rescue firefighting services; and (b) the standards of firefighting services to be provided at airports.
  2. Has the basis of determination been amended during the last two years; if so, why.
Mr Nixon:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) (a) For international regularly used airports, a rescue and fire fighting service (RFF) is provided.

For domestic aerodromes, a RFF service is provided to meet the objective of covering about 90 per cent of all users of regular public transport air services.

  1. (b) ICAO recommended practices and guidance material are used as the basis of determination of the standards of the rescue and fire fighting services.
  2. For international airports, the basis of determination of which airports should be provided with a rescue and fire fighting service has not changed. However, the ICAO guidance material related to the standard of the service to be provided at airports was revised at the end of 1976 to cover more realistically the operation of modern-day aircraft.

For domestic aerodromes, the objective has not changed over the last two years. However, the guidelines adopted to meet this objective have been revised to more logically select the aerodromes to be provided with the service, taking into account the total number of passengers and crew passing through these aerodromes.

Department of Transport: Transfers and Promotions (Question No. 1481)

Mr Morris:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 7 June 1 978:

  1. How many officers of his Department’s Melbourne offices have sought (a) transfers or (b) promotions during the periods (i) 1 January 1976 to 31 December 1976, (ii) 1 January 1977 to 31 December 1977 and (iii) 1 January 1978 to date.
  2. What are the classification and salaries of each of the officers involved.
  3. What were the reasons given for each application for (a) transfer and (b) promotion.
  4. How many officers have been transferred or promoted.
  5. What action has he taken to fill the resultant vacancies.
  6. Which vacancies still remain.
Mr Nixon:
LP

-The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: ( 1 to 3) Offices of both the Central Office and the Victoria/ Tasmania Region of the Depanment are located in Melbourne and it is the Central Office elements only which are covered below.

As officers are not required to give reasons, or even notify their own Depanment when seeking transfer or promotion it is not possible to answer the first three pans of the question.

  1. One hundred and fifty-five officers transferred or were promoted to other Departments or to Regional Offices of the Depanment of Transport. This includes trainees from the Central Training College who were posted to positions in Regions on completion of their training.
  2. The Department first considers whether or not vacant positions should be filled. If the decision is affirmative the vacant positions are advertised in the Commonwealth Gazette and in the Department’s Administrative Circulars.
  3. Vacant positions as at 7 June 1 978 are as follows:

Australian Services Canteens Organisation (Question No. 1487)

Mr Scholes:

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 7 June 1978:

  1. How will profits made from canteen services be assessed after the Australian Services Canteens Organisation is wound up.
  2. ) What will happen to these profits.
Mr Killen:
LP

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

  1. I ) The extent of any surplus funds remaining when ASCO is wound up will depend on the arrangements approved for the alternative canteens services and the fulfilling of obligations by ASCO to its staff in accordance with awards or other agreements that may be negotiated in conjunction with the Government.
  1. The formula for the disposal of any surplus funds will be a matter for Government decision.

Australian Services Canteens Organisation (Question No. 1488)

Mr Scholes:

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 7 June 1978:

  1. 1 ) How many civilian personnel were employed by the Australian Services Canteens Organisation as at 1 April 1978.
  2. How many persons employed were (a) part-time, (b) female and (c) located in centres with civilian populations under 10,000 persons.
  3. What alternative employment is available in the location referred to in part 2 (c).
  4. How many service personnel will be required to transfer to these locations in order to provide the service currently given by civilian staff in the Organisation.
Mr Killen:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) 560 plus 468 casual staff.
  2. (a) 73, (b) 265 (excluding casual staff), (c) 82 (excluding casual staff).
  3. Not known. All practicable assistance in finding alternative employment will be given to staff who become redundant.
  4. When the Services proposals for their alternative canteens systems have been received, consideration will be given to their method of staffing. The guidelines given to the Services do not envisage canteen services similar to those provided by ASCO.

Australian Services Canteens Organisation (Question No. 1491)

Mr Scholes:

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 7 June 1978:

  1. 1 ) How many Service Personnel will be required from each Service to provide canteen services to replace the Australian Services Canteens Organisation.
  2. Will these personnel be taken from existing service strength.
  3. ) How many of each rank will be required.
  4. Will special training or courses be required.
Mr Killen:
LP

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

  1. 1) to (4) When the Services proposals for their alternative canteens arrangements have been received, full consideration will be able to be given to how they will be staffed. The Services have been directed to have particular regard to economy in the use of all resources, particularly manpower, in their proposals.

Service Personnel in Isolated Areas (Question No. 1493)

Mr Scholes:

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 7 June 1 978:

  1. 1 ) Is the Government undertaking a reduction in the level of services available to Service families in isolated areas.
  2. If so, is this a policy decision designed to reduce costs.
  3. Are reduced services and facilities a cause of discontent and loss of morale.
Mr Killen:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The Services have been asked to recommend the level of services necessary for Service personnel and their families in any isolated areas.
  2. and (3) No decision on level of service have been taken; these will depend on the Services recommendations.

North West Cape Communications Station (Question No. 1494)

Mr Scholes:

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 7 June 1 978:

  1. 1 ) Has his attention been drawn to a published interview by the Secretary of his Department on 17 May that discussions on the new satellite communication terminal AN/MSC-6 1 had taken place at a technical level but had not reached policy areas.
  2. If so, has he made a similar statement.
  3. Is the new AN/MSC-6 1 satellite terminal part of the United States intelligence and control system.
  4. Did the United States intelligence sources inform Australian intelligence of the proposed changes and their advantages.
  5. Did the Joint Intelligence Organisation in addition to technical areas of his Department have information about the United States proposals; if so, why was this information withheld from him and the Permanent Head.
  6. If JIO was not informed, will he ensure that new procedures are instituted in order that Australian intelligence is aware of new initiatives and developments immediately they commence.
Mr Killen:
LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. See my answer to question without notice from Mr Humphreys; page 2457, Hansard, 25 May 1978.
  3. An AN/MSC-61 satellite terminal if installed at H. E. Holt would form part of the Defence Satellite Communications System. See answer to Senate Question 475 ( I ).
  4. See answer to Question 1 302 ( 1 ).
  5. See 4 above.
  6. The Australian Government considers that where US technical planning in respect of H. E. Holt bears actually or potentially upon the policy concerns of the Australian Government the fact of that planning should be brought directly and in a timely way to the attention of the Australian Defence Department through agreed and designated US Department of Defense and Australian Department of Defence policy channels. These do not include intelligence channels. Improved procedures to meet the Australian Government’s needs are at present under detailed discussion with US authorities.

Australian Services Canteens Organisation (Question No. 1S03)

Mr Wallis:
GREY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 8 June 1 978:

  1. I ) In view of the Government’s stated intentions to cease the operations of the Australian Services Canteens Organisation, what are the Government’s intentions in regard to the operations of the Organisation at Woomera, South Australia.

    1. ls it a fact that the Organisation provides the main retail services for the staff at Woomera and the United States Nurrunger base, both being located in an area far removed from alternative services.
    2. In the event of the closure of the Organisation at Woomera, what consideration is to be given to present staff at Woomera made redundant by the closure of operations.
Mr Killen:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) and (2) The Government intends that the community store facilities at Woomera should continue to be carried on as required to meet the needs of the local population. Proposals for the alternative service and its method of operation are being developed.
  2. Should any staff become redundant as a result of the change in canteen arrangements, all practicable assistance will be given to them.

Energy Resources (Question No. 1538)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Minister for National Development, upon notice, on 8 June 1 978:

  1. 1 ) Did his predecessor state on 16 December 1977 that copies of the National Energy Advisory Committee report entitled ‘An assessment of Australia’s energy resources’ would be available within a few weeks?
  2. If so, is the report now available?
  3. ) If not, when will the report be available?
Mr Newman:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The then Minister for National Resources stated on 16 December 1977 that ‘Copies of the report will be available within a few weeks through the Australian Government Publishing Service. In the meantime a limited number are available from the Department of National Resources’.
  2. I announced on 1 1 June 1978 that this report is now available for purchase through the Australian Government Publishing Service.
  3. See (2).

Iwasaki Proposal: Environmental Impact Statement (Question No. 1552)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development, upon notice, on 8 June 1 978:

  1. 1 ) Was an environmental impact study prepared for the Queensland Government on the proposal by Mr Iwasaki to establish a tourist resort near Yeppoon on the Queensland coast.
  2. If so, was this environmental impact study regarded as unsatisfactory by the Commonwealth Government.
  3. What stage has been reached in the preparation of a draft environment impact statement to satisfy the needs of the Commonwealth.
Mr Groom:
LP

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

  1. An environmental impact statement (EIS) was prepared by consultants to the Iwasaki Sangyo Company to satisfy the requirements of both the Queensland and Commonwealth Governments.
  2. The EIS was released for public review and comment for a thirty day period from 20 June to 20 July. Following this public review period, my Department prepared an environmental assessment report taking into account the comments received, the response of the Company to these comments and the views of Commonwealth departments and agencies. On the basis of this report and taking into account the provisions of the Queensland International Tourist Centre Agreement Act and other Queensland Government legislation, which provide for continuing environmental management of the tourist resort project, the Acting Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development provided environmental clearance for the proposal on 25 July 1978. The Company has agreed to submit a final EIS within one month of the above date and to make available to the public future environmental studies prepared in accordance with Queensland Government requirements.
  3. See answers ( 1 ) and (2) above.

Western Australian Aboriginal Trust (Question No. 1742)

Dr Everingham:

asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 16 August 1 978:

Has he assured the Western Australian Aboriginal Trust that any attempt to override its authority will be countered by Federal Government resumption of Aboriginal land at the request of the Trust.

Mr Viner:
LP

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

page 603

No

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 22 August 1978, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1978/19780822_reps_31_hor110/>.