House of Representatives
28 May 1979

31st Parliament · 1st Session

  1. House of Representatives
  2. 31st Parliament
  3. 1979

The House met at 2. 15 p.m.

page 2419

ABSENCE OF MR SPEAKER

The Clerk:

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

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

page 2419

PETITIONS

The Clerk:

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

Pensions

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 restoration of provisions of the Social Security Act that applied prior to the 1978-79 Budget is of vital concern to offset the rising cost of goods and services.

The reason advanced by the Government for yearly payments ‘that the lower level of inflation made twice-yearly payments inappropriate’ is not valid.

Great injury will be caused to 920,000 aged, invalid, widows and supporting parents, who rely solely on the pension or whose income, other than the pension, is $6 or less per week. Once-a-year payments strike a cruel blow to their expectation and make a mockery of a solemn election pledge.

Accordingly, your petitioners call upon their legislators to:

  1. Restore twice-yearly pension payments in the Autumn session.
  2. Raise pensions and unemployed benefits above the poverty level to 30 percent of average weekly earnings.

And your petitioners in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Burns, Dr Edwards, Mr Innes, Mr Jull, Mr MacKenzie, Mr Les McMahon, Mr Martin and Mr Thomson.

Petitions received.

Metric System

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

The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

That the plan to obliterate the traditional weights and measures of this country does not have the support of the people;

That the change is causing and will continue tc cause, widespread, serious and costly problems;

That the compulsory tactics being used to force the change are a violation of all democratic principles.

Your petitioners therefore pray:

That the Metric Conversion Act be repealed to ensure that the people are free to utilize whichever system they prefer and so enable the return to imperial weights and measures wherever the people so desire;

That weather reporting be as it was prior to the passing of the Metric Conversion Act;

That the Australian Government take urgent steps to cause the traditional mile units to be restored to our highways;

That the Australian Government request the State Governments to procure that the imperial and metric systems be taught together in schools.

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

Australian Capital Territory: Yarralumla Nursery

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

The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: that the proposal to have the Royal Golf Club Canberra resume land occupied by the Yarralumla Nursery is not in the interests of the people of the area.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that action be taken to prevent the Royal Golf Club Canberra from resuming the land occupied by Yarralumla Nursery.

And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will every pray,

Petition received. by Mr Haslem. Petition received.

Metric System

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

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

And your petitioners as in duty bound will every pray,

Petition received. by Mr Hodgman. Petition received.

Taiwanese Fishing Boats

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, having concern at the persistent poaching and polluting of Australian waters by Taiwanese fishing boats, we call on the government to:

  1. amend the Fisheries Act ( 1952) in reference to penalties as stated in Sections 13, I3A, 13AA, 14 and IS of the Principal Act, so that each fine is increased and each penalty includes a maximum fine as well as the option of imprisonment for a certain period, or both,
  2. b ) advocate greater use of existing maximum penalties,
  3. undertake to inform the Taiwanese Government and Taiwanese fishing companies of Australia’s strong opposition to illegal fishing in our waters.
  4. investigate the use of ‘mother ships’ in the illegal Taiwanese fishing operation.
  5. ascertain from other Pacific nations whether Taiwanese fishing companies transport quantities of raw fish, clams or other forms of marine life through those countries to Taiwan, or sell quantities of the same to those countries. (0 investigate the possibility of applying trade sanctions against Taiwan.
  6. amend the Continental Shelf (Living Natural Resources) Act ( 1968), in reference to Section 18 (3) (a) and (b), so that each penalty is doubled.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House will request the Government to

And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will every pray,

Petition received. by Mr Humphreys. Petition received.

Nursing Homes Subsidies

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, because increased fees at nursing homes throughout Australia are forcing patients to either draw heavily from their savings to meet fees above their aged pension, or leave their homes for alternative accommodation, we urge that the government:

  1. review immediately the Commonwealth’s contribution to the standard nursing home fee,
  2. undertake to review the Commonwealth’s contribution to the standard fee on a quarterly, or at least half yearly basis.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House will request the Government to

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

Australian Heritage Commission

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:

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray,

Petition received. by Mr Humphreys. Petition received.

Pensions: Chronically Invalided Persons

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 attempts by the Department of Social Security, following ministerial directives, to reduce pensions and supplementary assistance or rent allowance by petty amounts such as 20 cents, 30 cents and SO cents are causing concern to a great many pensioners, especially to spastics, paraplegics and other chronic invalids who have no form of income over the invalid pension, other than supplementary assistance or rent allowance.

Your petitioners therefore pray:

That the Government legislate to introduce another grade of pension of invalid pension for the chrome invalid, i.e., spastics, quadriplegics, paraplegics, etc, especially in cases where they are being cared for pr:vately, and that the Government increase the allowance for rent or supplementary assistance and accordingly increase the means test for that allowance, in recognition that it is not possible for a chronic invalid to forego supplementary assistance, with a means test of one dollar (single) a week, and earn an income with the pension means test of $20 (single) a week.

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

Women’s Refuges

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 we, the undersigned:

  1. Protest against the present funding arrangements for Womens Refuges, whereby the Federal Government contributes 75 per cent of recurrent costs and the State Government is expected to contribute the remaining 25 per cent.
  2. Are concerned that at present Womens Refuges are dependant for their existance on State Governments who may or may not wish to contribute their share of the funds.
  3. Deplore the lack of support given to Womens Refuges by the Western Australian Government

We, the undersigned request the Government to:

Provide 100 per cent Direct Federal funding to Womens Refuges so as to ensure the continuation of Womens Refuges as an ongoing service in the community.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will every pray,

Petition received. by Mr Hunt. Petition received.

Aboriginal Land Rights

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. That the Federal Government recognise Land Rights in the States, such as Queensland in a similar manner to the recognition of Land Rights in the Northern Territory, that is, enact an Aboriginal Land Rights Act for Queensland;
  2. That the Federal Government support the abolition of the Aborigines Act (Queensland) 1971, and the Torres Strait

Islanders Act (Queensland) 1971 and take such action as they deem necessary to ensure that the provisions of the Queensland Discriminating Laws Act, 197S and the Racial Discrimination Act, 1 975 be enforced in so far as they relate to Aborigines and Islanders;

  1. That the Federal Government assume responsibility for Aboriginal Affairs under the powers given it by the Referendum 1967. The State Department of Aboriginal and Island Administration (Queensland) should be abolished and Aboriginal and Island reserves should have the choice to be self-governed with local government status.

Your petitioners, in duty bound will every pray,

Petition received. by Mr Innes. Petition received.

Vietnam

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

The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth:

  1. That the social, economic and environmental effects of over thirty years of war in Vietnam were considerable.
  2. That the effects of the war have been exacerbated by a succession of major natural disasters and by the refusal of the United States of America to fulfill their aid obligations.
  3. That the Australian Government and the Australian people have, because of their involvement in the war against the Vietnamese people a strong responsibility to grant maximum possible aid to the Government of and people of Vietnam.
  4. That actions by other nations to fulfill their reconstruction aid obligations to Vietnam will greatly assist in rebuilding the living standards of the Vietnamese people thus assisting in alleviating the refugee problem.

Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Australian Government will undertake to:

  1. reverse its decision to suspend all reconstruction aid to and cultural exchanges with the Socialist Republic of Vietnam.
  2. develop in conjunction with the Government of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, a reconstruction aid programme so as to fulfill our moral obligations to the people of Vietnam.

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

Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport

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. We call upon the Commonwealth and State Governments to select a site for Sydney’s second Airport now and to protect it by immediate development.
  2. We do not agree to the expansion of the Sydney (Kingsford-Smith ) Airport.
  3. We support the Marrickville Municipal Council’s opposition to the Airport extension proposals.
  4. We do not agree that nuisances from aircraft noises are reducing.
  5. . We oppose any shorter evening ‘ curfew ‘ hours.

Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that there be no extension of Kingsford-Smith Airport, Sydney.

And your Petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Les McMahon. Petition received.

Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport

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:

We call upon the Commonwealth and State Governments to select a site for Sydney ‘s second Airport now and to protect it by immediate development.

We do not agree to the expansion of the Sydney ( Kingsford-Smith ) Airport.

We support the South Sydney Municipal Council’s opposition to the Airport extension proposals. We do not agree that nuisances from aircraft noises are reducing.

We oppose any shorter evening ‘curfew ‘ hours.

Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that there be no extension of Kingsford-Smith Airport, Sydney.

And your Petitioners as in duty bound will every pray, by Mr Les McMahon. Petition received.

Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport

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. We call upon the Commonwealth and State Governments to select a site for Sydney’s second Airport now and to protect it by immediate development.
  2. We do not agree to the extention of the Sydney ( Kingsford-Smith ) Airport.
  3. We support Leichhardt Municipal Council’s opposition to the Airport extension proposals.
  4. We do not agree that nuisances from aircraft noises are reducing.
  5. We oppose any shorter evening ‘curfew ‘ hours.

Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that there be no extension of Kingsford-Smith Airport, Sydney.

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

Pornographic Publications

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

That we the undersigned, having great concern at the way in which children are now being used in the production of pornography call upon the government to introduce immediate legislation:

  1. To prevent the sexual exploitation of children by way of photography for commercial purposes;
  2. To penalise parents/guardians who knowingly allow their children to be used in the production of such pornographic or obscene material depicting children;
  3. To make specifically illegal the importation, publication, distribution and sale of such pornographic child-abuse material in any form whatsoever such as magazines, novels, papers or films;
  4. To take immediate police action to confiscate and destroy all child pornography in Australia and urgent appropriate legal action against all those involved or profiting from this sordid exploitation of children.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your honourable House will protect all children and immediately prohibit pornographic child-abuse materials, publications or films.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray,

Petition received. by Mr Martyr. Petition received.

Australian Broadcasting Commission

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 we are concerned about the deteriorating standards of ABC radio and Television programs.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that Parliament take immediate steps to appoint an independent inquiry into the ABC which:

  1. Investigates the practical experience and qualification of the commissioners to perform theirs.
  2. Determines the effects and staff ceilings and reduction of funds, in real terms, on standards.
  3. Thoroughly reviews the organisation to determine its present effectiveness.
  4. Ascertains if any external or internal censorship exists.
  5. Makes recommendation to reduce censorship and improve the efficiency and standards.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray,

Petition received. by Mr Ian Robinson. Petition received.

page 2422

MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
Prime Minister · Wannon · LP

– I inform the House that the Minister for Transport (Mr Nixon) left Australia on Sunday for a visit to Europe, the United Kingdom and the United States on a range of transport matters. The Minister for Productivity (Mr Macphee) will act as Minister for Transport until Mr Nixon’s return.

page 2422

JEWISH DISSIDENTS

Notice of Motion

Mr BAUME:
Macarthur

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

That this House-

Welcomes the Russian Government’s reported decision to release Jewish dissidents and congratulates all those concerned in helping to bring about such a change in attitude; and

Condemns the anti-Jewish attitude of the left-wing of the Victorian Labor Party which has constantly opposed such actions by the Russian Government.

The motion will be seconded by the honourable member for Perth.

page 2422

DEFENCE AND FOREIGN POLICY PLANNING

Notice of Motion

Mr KEVIN CAIRNS:
Lilley

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

That this House-

Bearing in mind that for economic, defence and foreign policy planning the short-term is any period of time less than 18 months or two years, acknowledges that mutual defence arrangements between Australia and the United States of America must not be of such short-term duration;

Calls for the guarantees concerning the Pine Gap, Nurrungbar and the North West Cape communication and defence bases to be long term;

Records that last week in another place, the shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs on behalf of his Party failed to clarify his statement that ‘clearly Australia could not have the facilities removed in the short term’; and

Therefore very respectfully calls on the Federal Conference of the Australian Labor Party to guarantee that the three facilities continue for the long term with their present functions unchanged -

Mr Young:

- Mr Acting Speaker, I raise a point of order. The Speaker has ruled here on a number of occasions that notices of motion cannot be used for propaganda purposes. They must contain the motion of the mover in very concise terms. The honourable member for Lilley is giving a description of a debate which took place here last week for no other reason than to add to that debate. Mr Acting Speaker, I ask you to have a look at the ruling which has been given by the Speaker.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

– I disallow the point of order.

Mr KEVIN CAIRNS:

-I will repeat the last sentence.

Mr Katter:

– Read the whole thing again. We want to hear it again.

Mr KEVIN CAIRNS:

-No, I will not start again. My notice of motion continues:

  1. Therefore very respectfully calls on the Federal Conference of the Australian Labor Party to guarantee that the three facilities continue for the long term with their present functions unchanged as promised by Mr Whitiam in 1975.

page 2422

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

page 2422

QUESTION

INFLATION AND UNEMPLOYMENT

Mr KERIN:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Did the Prime Minister last Friday endorse the admission by the Treasurer the previous night that inflation might not improve over the next 12 months? Does the Prime Minister also accept the Treasurer’s forecast that unemployment next January and February will be the same as this year’s record of 493,000 or maybe a little higher?

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
LP

– In some Press reports last Friday I think I indicated, as did the Treasurer, that in view of inflationary pressures in Australia and overseas to hold the current Australian inflation rate might well be a significant achievement in its own right. I think it is worth noting that inflation is moving up very markedly in a number of overseas countries, such as the United States, Canada and the United Kingdom. Under those circumstances and under circumstances of much higher than envisaged oil prices; under circumstances in which meat prices have risen a good deal more than might earlier have been envisaged; under circumstances in which there was an earlier wage case giving 100 per cent indexation- we thought that decision was disastrous for the Australian economy- and under circumstances in which the wheat harvest over the recently concluded season was double that of last year; there are obviously inflationary pressures within the Australian economy that have to be contained. Any responsible government would move to contain those pressures. Because these elements have emerged since the last Budget, there is no reason to fix rigidly on every aspect of that Budget and not make the appropriate modifications and changes that are necessary for the overall economic well-being of Australia. I believe that what the Treasurer said gives a broad indication of what is likely to occur.

In relation to employment I also said that it is a question of the actual rate of increase in civilian employment in the private sector especially, which has been taking place for the last seven or eight months. We have worked for a very long time to make sure that Australian industry becomes competitive again. Within the Australian market our industries are doing much better. A number of Australian industries are moving out in an enterprising way to get export markets of the kind that were destroyed during the Labor years. These circumstances are ones to which the Government had to respond. It has done so in a responsible way. I believe that we have shown great confidence in the future. We have shown that we are completely determined to maintain our approach against inflation and for development and enterprise in Australia. That is the only way in which we will re-establish growth in real job opportunities for Australia. We are determined to keep to that path.

The fact that the Government introduced measures at the end of last week, following upon some adjustments to interest rate settings also reflecting a change in market circumstances, means that during the winter months before the Budget comes down the Australian community, the business community and the financial world, here and overseas, can know with absolute certainty that the Government’s commitment to its basic objectives is totally unchanged. Earlier, I think some honourable gentlemen indicated that because there were some factors outside Australia and some factors inside Australia that have an impact on inflation this may qualify some earlier criticism of an earlier Labor Government. There can be no qualification of that whatsoever. It was the expenditure decisions of the previous Labor administration, under which expenditure went up about 46 per cent in one year, coupled with wage policy decisionswages were going up by about 25 per cent- and other irresponsibility in these particular matters which led to the great inflation in Australia.

It is worth noting that in Australia inflation was very much worse than in many other countries even though we, largely, had been insulated from the overseas oil prices, or, if not insulated, at least protected from them because of our domestic crude oil. Therefore, one would have expected that Australia would suffer inflation less than a number of other countries. However, because of the policies of the previous administration, Australia suffered much worse inflation than many other countries.

page 2423

QUESTION

AVIATION FUEL

Mr Ewen Cameron:
INDI, VICTORIA · LP

-Is the Minister for National Development aware that Avgas supplies in New South Wales and Victoria have been virtually exhausted? Can he inform the House when further supplies will be available?

Mr NEWMAN:
Minister for National Development · BASS, TASMANIA · LP

– I am aware that there are difficulties with Avgas supplies. The product for Victoria and New South Wales comes from the Mobil Oil Australia Ltd refinery at Altona. That refinery experienced technical difficulties in producing Avgas late last year and early this year. That short supply situation was made worse by the situation in Iran, our main supplier of Avgas. As a result of the refinery difficulties and the problems of world-wide supply, Mobil has had to produce a system for allocating available supplies. The system is based on a percentage of the offtake of last year’s purchases. I am told now that the refinery is working at full capacity and the product is going on to the market. I expect the allocation system to prevail for at least a couple of months more.

page 2424

QUESTION

FRASER GOVERNMENT: ECONOMIC DECISIONS

Mr HOWE:
BATMAN, VICTORIA

-Did the Prime Minister yesterday excuse the latest economic decisions as proof of the Government’s ‘commitment to responsible economic management’? Will this commitment suffer the same fate as the many other promises which have been broken in the last 316 years? If the Government now claims it must break its promises if it is to be responsible, will the Prime Minister concede that his many promises which have been dishonoured were irresponsible in the first place?

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
LP

-The Treasurer and I have made it perfectly plain that we excuse nothing. What was said at the time of the last Budget was said in good faith. If a commitment was made in relation to tax indexation, and the tax surcharge coming off at the end of June it was made in good faith in the light of the circumstances as we knew them at the time of the last Budget. I said that if that is a cross we have to bear we will bear it and will carry it forward. But it would be quite plain, as there have been changed economic circumstances since that last Budget, that if we failed to respond to those circumstances we would be acting irresponsibly in regard to our major commitment to the wellbeing of the people of Australia. We have no intention of putting that commitment aside.

In answer to an earlier question I indicated that a number of factors had altered since the time of the last Budget. Let me run through those factors again. One of those factors was the doubling of the wheat harvest, which was certainly good for wheat farmers and good for the balance of payments but bad for the money supply. Another of those factors was the great improvement in beef prices, which was again good for the balance of payments and the profitability of farms but which, at the same time, was not good for inflationary expectations. I do not think that any member of the Opposition foreshadowed what was going to happen in Iran. I do not think that any honourable gentleman opposite foreshadowed what was going to happen in Indo-China, which led to a need for increased defence expenditure, which will be an increased charge on the Budget for the next financial year.

Opposition members- Ha, ha!

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

– We all know that defence is and always has been a laughable matter to the Australian Labor Party. We all know that the Australian Labor Party is now moving to a position which would betray Australia and betray the ANZUS Treaty. It is trying to postulate circumstances that would make it quite impossible for the joint bases between Australia and the United States of America to continue. The frivolity with which the Australian Labor Party greets matters of a serious kind involving defence is totally and utterly disgraceful and totally and utterly irresponsible. It is especially irresponsible as the Leader of the Opposition, who is a chatterbox and has not stopped chattering this afternoon, knows quite well, as do other members of the Australian Labor Party, the purposes of these bases. Knowing the purposes, they still allow Senator Wriedt to make the statements he has made in conformity with and in support of the Labor Party’s policies. The Australian Labor Party stands for gross irresponsibility in these matters. If changing circumstances during the course of the year require greater defence expenditure by this Government we will see that those funds are provided, as they will be provided. But that therefore alters Budget outlays by this Government in the next Budget and that alters the total situation with which we have to deal. If circumstances change we will respond to those changes, in pursuit of our commitment to full support for the Australian people, through Budget policies that will bear down on inflation and which will meet our commitment to the people of Australia.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

– Order! Before calling the next honourable member to put his question, I remind the House that honourable members have the right to ask their questions in silence and that Ministers have the right to reply to them. I should imagine that it would be of benefit to both parties if the answers were heard in silence.

page 2424

QUESTION

NATIONAL COMPANIES AND SECURITIES COMMISSION

Mr MOORE:
RYAN, QUEENSLAND

– My question is directed to the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs. With the failure to date to settle the site of the National Companies and Securities Commission, will the Minister give consideration to an alternative site?

Mr Hodgman:

– Hobart.

Mr MOORE:

– Whilst Hobart and Brisbane have particular charm it might be appropriate to apply the 1901 solution to the SydneyMelbourne conflict.

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

– It is a fact that a great deal of difficulty has been experienced in relation to the siting of the proposed headquarters of the National Companies and Securities Commission.

Last week I telexed all the State Ministers responsible and suggested that a meeting be held today, the purpose of which would be to settle this question. I suggested also that it be settled by way of ballot. I see no other way of resolving this issue, save the unexpected happening of all States and the Commonwealth agreeing on one site. Over the past few months it has become apparent that the debate on this matter has centred around the site being in Sydney or Melbourne. Very good reasons have been advanced as to why the headquarters should be established in either centre.

I have said on a number of occasions that it is important for this matter to be resolved so that the more important aspects of the scheme can be considered- firstly by the Ministers concerned and then by the seven parliaments in Australia. As I have pointed out on numerous occasions, it is terribly important to bring into this Parliament the legislation to set up the National Companies and Securities Commission. I have the legislation here, Mr Acting Speaker. It has been available to honourable members on both sides of the House for some time. As a matter of fact, I made the Bill available to the Opposition on 6 April this year so that honourable members on both sides of the House would have an opportunity of examining the proposal on a confidential basis and so that this House would be able to give proper consideration to the Bill when it is introduced.

Because of the terms of the agreement entered into between the Commonwealth and the States, we are unable to bring this piece of legislation into the House of Representatives until all the States and the Commonwealth have agreed. Five out of the six States have agreed. The Commonwealth has agreed. New South Wales to date has failed to provide agreement to the bringing of this legislation into the House. The suggestion that we might consider going back to the 1901 solution has some merit. It was not the intention of the Commonwealth Government to suggest that Canberra be the site for the headquarters of the Commission. But if it will help to resolve this situation and help to facilitate the introduction of the legislation into the Parliament, I am prepared to make a recommendation along those lines to the Commonwealth Government.

page 2425

QUESTION

INCOME TAX SURCHARGE

Dr BLEWETT:
BONYTHON, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

-Can the Prime Minister confirm that continuation of the tax surcharge and the failure to implement full tax indexation will cost the average taxpayer $6.50 a week from 1 July? Can he also confirm that changes to the health scheme also announced in the miniBudget will cost the average family an extra $4 a week?

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
LP

– The point which needs to be very clearly understood by every taxpayer in Australia is that contrary to the things that the Australian Labor Party would like them to believe, taxes will not go up on 1 July. A great deal of the debate on this matter has been designed to lead people to believe that at the end of this financial year taxes will rise. That is not so. The pay-as-you-earn tax deduction schedules will remain as they now are until they are varied by the Treasurer in his Budget Speech, if they are varied then. One of the great humbugs over the last week or two has been the attitude of the Australian Labor Party trying to pose as a party of taxation reform. Under three years of Labor government, income taxes grew by a massive 125 per cent. Punitive tax rates were proposed and put into effect by the present Leader of the Opposition when he was Treasurer. Taxpayers who were on a salary of just $10,000 a year moved into the 45c in the dollar bracket.

Dr Blewett:

– I raise a point of order, Mr Acting Speaker. I draw your attention to Standing Order 145 which reads: ‘An answer shall be relevant to the question’.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-There is no substance in the point of order. The right honourable the Prime Minister is entitled to answer the question as long as he remains relevant.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

– I can well understand that the honourable gentleman does not like the tax record of his leader being rubbed in the eyes of this Parliament. A taxpayer on $10,000 a year moved into the 45c in the dollar tax bracket. That was a totally punitive rate. A person wanting to work overtime would not do so because he would then go into that punitive tax bracket.

Mr Hayden:

– Why can ‘t you tell the truth?

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

-Mr Acting Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition still chatters into the microphone, hoping not to be heard by you. What is worse than I have already stated is that a taxpayer on $16,000 a year moved into the 55c in the dollar tax bracket.

We have introduced major tax reforms. We have increased the tax threshhold set by the Leader of the Opposition as Treasurer, from $2,519 to not far short of $4,000. As a result, 500,000 people no longer pay any tax at all. Even allowing for the tax surcharge in this year, taxpayers will be paying $3, 000m less in income tax than they would have paid under the punitive tax scales set by the Leader of the Opposition.

I think it ought to be understood that, under our reforms, a marginal rate of over 10c in the dollar less than the rate under Labor applies at $ 10,000 a year and over 20c in the dollar less at $16,000 a year. They are very substantial reductions indeed. It does not matter what the Australian Labor Party might say in these matters -

Mr Young:

– That is just not true.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

-The honourable member for Port Adelaide has said that these tax reductions are just not true. If he thinks that they are not true, I will repeat them for him. He knows very well that they are true.

Mr Young:

– I take a point of order, Mr Acting Speaker. We have had three and a half years of lies. It is about time that we had some truth in this House.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

– I assume that the honourable member for Port Adelaide rose to take a point of order. I ask him to take that point of order.

Mr Young:

– The Prime Minister has been asked quite specifically whether the average family will be paying $6.50 a week more tax after 1 July and an additional $4 for health cover after 1 July. Obviously the answer is yes. This Parliament and the people are sick of the lies of this Government -

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

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

Mr Young:

– The whole lot of them. Why don ‘t you tell the truth?

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Port Adelaide will resume his seat. There is no substance in the point of order. I call the Prime Minister.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

-Let me repeat the facts for the honourable member for Port Adelaide. Under our reforms, a marginal rate of tax of over 10c in the dollar less than the rate under Labor applies at $ 10,000 a year -

Mr Young:

– More lies!

Mr MALCOLM FRASER And over 20c in the dollar less at $16,000 a year. I know that honourable members opposite do not like these facts. They do not like the fact that the Labor Party is a high tax party, and that it is a big government party. They do not like the fact that under a Labor Government income taxes grew by 125 per cent over 3 years. They do not like the fact that the Leader of the Opposition, when Treasurer, introduced the most punitive tax rates ever seen in the history of Australia. They do not like the fact that he slugged the average working men and women of Australia 45c out of every additional dollar they earned when their income got to $10,000 a year, and 55c in the dollar for every additional dollar they earned over $16,000. The tax record of Labor is a disgraceful one and members of the Opposition should not bother to raise the subject in this House.

page 2426

QUESTION

SOVIET DISSIDENTS AND JEWISH EMIGRATION

Mr BIRNEY:
PHILLIP, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs whether the Government will take early action to follow up the breakthrough achieved last week by Mr Hawke in his discussions with Soviet authorities on Soviet dissidents and Jewish emigration?

Mr MacKELLAR:
Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs · WARRINGAH, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– I thank the honourable member for Phillip for his question because I know of his strong and continuing interest in the reunification of Jewish families from the Soviet Union with their families in Australia. I have noticed reports in the newspapers on this matter, and I think that the Leader of the Opposition could be pardoned for imagining that some sort of campaign was being waged against him. Looking at the situation, we know from time past that there has been strong pressure on the Soviet authorities for liberalisation in relation to the emigration of Soviet Jews, particularly dissidents. There has been, of course, some strong evidence in recent years of a liberalisation of the Soviet policy. I am not sure from the accounts that have so far come to me whether any significant breakthrough has been achieved by Mr Hawke. I am not sure whether he was acting in his individual capacity; I do not think that he was acting as a prominent member of the Australian Labor Party.

I think it is useful to say at this stage that the Australian Government welcomes any liberalisation in Soviet policies in relation to these people. It is also useful to take into account the background of the situation. The emigration of Soviet Jews began in about 1973 when people were allowed out nominally to settle in Israel. Since that time about half of those leaving the Soviet Union have settled in Israel. The remainder have settled in countries such as Australia, Canada and the United States. The Australian record during the administration of the previous Government was an unfortunate one, to say the least. In 1973, 100 people from the Soviet Union were allowed to resettle in Australia. In 1 974 that figure rose enormously. It reached 120. We can contrast those figures with the attitude and record of the present Government. This year some 1,200 Soviet Jews will be resettled in Australia. We have been in constant discussion with the Australian- Jewish welfare societies and the Federal Catholic Immigration Committee. As recently as 29 April this year- before Mr Hawke made his much celebrated and publicised visit to the Soviet Union- I gave permission for an additional SO families, covering 250 to 300 people, to be added to the numbers already being resettled in Australia.

There has been a liberalisation of the Soviet attitude towards the emigration of Soviet Jews. About 1,200 to 1,500 a month were allowed to leave last year. That figure has escalated to 3,000 to 4,000 a month this year. It is hard to believe that a sudden breakthrough has been achieved. I certainly would be anxious to see the details of any arrangements that Mr Hawke has entered into. I can say only that he has joined with the Government. For some years the Government has been carrying on in an active and positive way a program of reunification of families from the Soviet Union with their Jewish relatives in Australia. The final point I make is that this is in marked and absolute contrast to the performance of our Labor predecessors.

page 2427

QUESTION

HEALTH CARE

Mr John Brown:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-I ask the Prime Minister whether on 2 7 November 1 975 he stated:

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

Has the Government abided by this commitment?

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
LP

-To be fair to the Australian Labor Party I think I should say that Medibank had one virtue over the scheme which preceded it- it gave total cover to all Australians. As we know, the scheme that preceded it gave a cover to 93 per cent or 94 per cent of Australians. Some might say that the changes in moving to a universal cover were mammoth ones. They had many costs associated with them and they lost the virtues of a scheme which, if it had been improved rather than completely changed, might have led to a better situation. The virtue of universal cover is a virtue that we certainly support. If there is a meaning in Medibank that makes sense, it is universal cover for Australians. The philosophy that people can either pay their small bills themselves or insure is a fair one. The philosophy that the Government will protect people against large and calamitous charges is also a fair one. That is precisely what we are doing.

page 2427

QUESTION

CONDUCT OF THE HOUSE

Mr KATTER:

-Mr Acting Speaker, I address my question to you and seek your guidance. It relates to the conduct of the House over the last week or so. Is it permissible, because of the attitude of the Leader of the Opposition in carrying on with continuous gibberish at the table, for the people behind him to act more or less in the nature of a group of sex crazed baboons, to disrupt the House and, what is far more serious–

Opposition members interjecting-

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-Order! The House will come to order.

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

- Mr Acting Speaker, I raise a point of order. It goes to the impartiality of the Chair. The Labor Party has been harangued by Mr Speaker and you on a number of occasions for comments far less offensive than those now made by the honourable member for Kennedy.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

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

Mr KATTER:

-My final point is that members of the Opposition have constantly indulged in raising issues which do not even approach a point of order. They are not even on the fringe of a point of order. Honourable members opposite rise constantly just to hold up the business of the House. Mr Acting Speaker, I seek your guidance as to whether this will continue or whether you, Sir, will put a stop to it?

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-Order! Implicit in the question of the honourable member for Kennedy is some mild reflection on the incumbent of the Chair, whoever it might have been at the time. I will put that aside. It is not the Chair’s responsibility to instruct honourable members in the manner in which they might conduct themselves in the House or properly apply themselves to their business. It is the responsibility of the Chair to ensure that honourable members do not contravene the Standing Orders. It would be of assistance to honourable members, the Chair and the dignity and decorum of this place if honourable members fully acquainted themselves with their responsibilities.

page 2427

QUESTION

TAX INDEXATION

Mr Les McMahon:
SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– My question is directed to the Prime Minister. I ask whether on 27 November 1975 he stated.

We will fully index personal income tax for inflation over three years. It will make government more honest with your money.

In view of last week’s decision not to implement his promise of full indexation after 1 July, does the Prime Minister acknowledge that his Government is less than honest?

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
LP

– Whatever we have done in relation to taxation has been plain and open and by legislation. We have had to debate these matters in the House and there is no doubt that the commitment to tax indexation has meant that we bring tax measures more often into the House than we would have done if there had been no tax indexation. That in itself is the purpose of tax indexation. I think that is very plain.

page 2428

QUESTION

EXPENDITURE ON HEALTH AND EDUCATION

Mr ALDRED:
HENTY, VICTORIA

– I direct my question to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that Australia’s population growth is stabilising, will the Prime Minister agree that calls for increased expenditure on health and education infrastructure and benefits are based on extremely tenuous grounds?

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
LP

-There was a time when there was a very significant backlog in education expenditure which needed to be made up. As a result of capital programs going back over 10 years or more much of that backlog has in fact been made good. The very fact that a vote goes on at a certain level for year after year is not in itself an argument that that vote should have to go on at that level. It must be judged against total priorities and against the needs of the Commonwealth. The indications that were in the honourable member’s question about a stabilising population, about a stabilising or even a falling school population, are very relevant to the size of the education vote. In addition, as has been made very plain on a number of occasions, we have been trying through negotiation with the States to achieve greater economies in hospital expenditure, one of the most expensive areas of health services. But we still have a situation in which there are a number of hospitals fully manned and staffed but operating at only 60 per cent or 70 per cent occupancy rate. There has been the South Australian report of the AuditorGeneral and other indications that there is still a very great deal of waste within the hospital system. That is why the Government has decided that there should be a major inquiry as a matter of urgency into this matter. If it were one totally within the Commonwealth’s control I doubt very much whether that inquiry would have been necessary. But we can operate only through the joint committees we have established with the States. It is the State governments and State administrations that basically have control over their hospital systems. We are able to operate only through the power of persuasion. We hope very much that there will be a greater degree of reason and economy as a result of the inquiry that is foreshadowed.

page 2428

QUESTION

COAL LEVY

Mr ARMITAGE:
CHIFLEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Did the Deputy Prime Minister state on 3 September 1975 that the coalition parties were ‘opposed to this levy on coal exports. We will review it when we are returned to office. It is a retrograde, irresponsible and shortsighted measure’? Now that his Government has reneged on its commitment to abolish it, what is his attitude to the levy now?

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

– I would have thought that the Labor Party would not want to bring this matter up, it having been the author of this levy which imposed a burden on the Australian coal industry. This Government has given an undertaking to reduce it. Already the Government has reduced the levy on soft coking coal from $2 to $1.50 and that on hard coking coal from $6 to $3.50. That is a very significant reduction and it means additional revenue for the coal mining industry. Whilst the coal mining industry might be disappointed that the Government has not found it possible to reduce it this year, it knows what the Labor Party did to the industry when in office. The industry knows that the Labor Party is all in favour of a resources tax, something which would be quite devastating to the industry in accumulating capital to carry out the vast development that is necessary.

I can understand members of the Labor Party being acutely sensitive about this matter. They try to claim, in some roundabout way, that they are the supporters of working people- the coal miners, for instance. Yet by introducing this coal levy they disturbed the development and confidence of the industry as that industry has never been disturbed. They are doing exactly the same thing by talking about a resources tax. How can this industry achieve all its possible development- and it is going to be enormous development in this country- if it has the shadow of a resources tax held over it, as is pronounced daily by the Leader of the Opposition? As far as the Labor Party is concerned, it is out to raise as much money as it can from the coal mining industry irrespective of the consequences to those thousands of fellows who work very hard down coal mines.

page 2429

QUESTION

OIL REFINING INDUSTRY

Mr ROGER JOHNSTON:
HOTHAM, VICTORIA

-Could the Minister for Industrial Relations tell the House about the situation at the Caltex refinery at Kurnell? Are the unions acting in a responsible manner for the good of all Australians?

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

-The parallel jurisdictions of the Federal Conciliation and Arbitration Commission and the New South Wales Industrial Commission have caused difficulties for some years in the New South Wales oil industry. There has been a complete refusal of oil industry employees at the Kurnell refineries of Caltex and Total to recognise federal jurisdiction. Those men are members of the New South Wales State branch of the Australian Workers Union, which operates separately from the federal Australian Workers Union which covers the rest of the industry in New South Wales.

Last November the oil companies succeeded in obtaining an order from the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission restraining the New South Wales Industrial Commission from arbitrating on awards and terms and conditions of employment at Kurnell. The refinery operators, members of the State AWU, refused to accept this decision and sought, before a full bench of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, to set aside or suspend the federal award. In this they were supported by the New South Wales Government. The application for these men to be covered by a State award instead of the federal award which now applies was unanimously rejected by a full bench of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission on 14 May 1979. The Federal Government intervened in that case and argued that the men should continue to be covered by a federal award. It is important to note that we were supported in that argument by the federal Australian Workers Union, the federal Storemen and Packers Union and the federal Transport Workers Union. The central theme of all the submissions was that an industry of great national importance such as the oil industry should be covered by a national- that is, a federal- award.

I understand that the President of the Industrial Commission of New South Wales has written to the President of the federal Conciliation and Arbitration Commission and indicated that he does not believe that anything more can be done in the State jurisdiction. Therefore, the State branch of the AWU, because of its completely irresponsible attitude, is now totally isolated. In these circumstances the New South Wales Government has a very clear obligation to convince the men at Kurnell that they should be covered by a federal award and permit the work of the Moore conference to proceed. I remind the House that a working party was established last year under the chairmanship of Sir John Moore and comprising representatives of industry, employees, employers and the Labor Council of New South Wales to try to achieve a responsible approach to industrial relations in this vexed industry. That working party should be allowed to get on with its job.

page 2429

QUESTION

DONATIONS TO POLITICAL PARTIES

Mr HUMPHREYS:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND

-Is the Treasurer aware that the President of the Queensland branch of the National Party of Australia has written to business corporations informing them that donations to the National Party in the form of advertising in the Party’s magazine National Outlook are tax deductible and that donations, such as the $100,000 donation from the former Gold Coast Mayor, Sir Bruce Small, will be deductible at 46c in the dollar? Given the Treasurer’s firm commitment last Thursday night to crack down on tax avoidance, will he consider amending the Income Tax Assessment Act effectively to prohibit or discourage excessive advertising expenditure which might be abused in this way? Finally, as donors of more than $10,000 receive dinner invitations from the Premier, and since the Federal Treasury is subsidising almost 50 per cent of all donations, does the Treasurer intend to take up the Premier’s invitation on behalf of the Australian taxpayer?

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

– I am aware of a campaign by the National Party in Queensland to raise money. I cannot tell the honourable member for Griffith or any other honourable member the precise status of that campaign under the Income Tax Assessment Act without obtaining some advice. In any event, ultimately opinions on the Income Tax Assessment Act are not matters for Treasurers or other Ministers to give; they are matters upon which people should obtain their own legal counsel. As far as the Government and I are concerned the National Party of Queensland or any other branch of a political party in Australia will not be given any privilege under the tax law.

page 2429

QUESTION

LIQUEFIED PETROLEUM GAS

Mr CONNOLLY:
BRADFIELD, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I address my question to the Minister for National Development. In view of the major disruption which can be caused by industrial disputes at oil refineries, does the Minister agree that it is time that liquefied petroleum gas is made an economic alternative to petroleum motor spirit and in acceptable quantities? Accordingly, how does the Government intend to encourage oil companies and fuel distributors to install additional LPG outlets? What is the attitude of Australian vehicle manufacturers to producing vehicles able to use LPG gas?

Mr NEWMAN:
LP

-The Government is well aware of the need to encourage the use of liquefied petroleum gas as an alternative to motor spirit. Therefore, over the last few months or more we have embarked on a very forthright program to ensure that that happens. I can cite a number of instances of that program or policy being followed. For example, there is a guarantee that the present arrangements for excise that lie between motor spirit and LPG will not be changed without five years notice being given. That allows people to make a conversion and know that they will get a proper return on the cost of making that conversion. Another important decision that was taken about one month ago was the decision to bring the cost of LPG from Bass Strait up to what amounts to world parity prices. That means that there is now a real incentive for the producers of LPG from the oil fields to improve the outlet for their LPG products. There is evidence that that is now happening. Outlets are now appearing on the Hume Highway and in Canberra. Those are two examples.

In relation to the question of motor vehicle manufacture, I have had talks with the major producers. We have explored the arrangements that might be made for them to start mass producing LPG powered vehicles. There are difficulties in producing the required numbers so that it is a viable exercise for the car manufacturers. As more people convert to LPG and there is a bigger demand, that will start to occur. In summary, the Government is pursuing a very forthright and, I think, dynamic policy in the encouragement of the use of LPG. The very fact that in Melbourne there is now a three or four month waiting list to convert vehicles to use LPG as a substitute for motor spirit is evidence of that policy.

page 2430

QUESTION

HEALTH CARE COSTS

Mr HOLDING:
MELBOURNE PORTS, VICTORIA

-I refer the Prime Minister to the fact that health care cost charges in the 1976 Budget added to the consumer price index and were consequently discounted for tax indexation purposes. Did the changes for funding health care announced in the 1978 Budget reduce the consumer price index? Did the Treasurer’s statement to Parliament last Thursday take no account of this item in determining the tax indexation factor for 1979-80? Can the Prime Minister inform the House why this important factor which would bring substantial benefits to all taxpayers was omitted from the Treasurer’s package last Thursday.

Mr HOWARD:
LP

– The honourable gentleman will be aware that when the changes were made in the 1978 Budget-the 40 per cent-$20 arrangements- they involved a very significant increase in the amount of the direct Commonwealth subsidy for health care. In those circumstances any suggestions that there should be an adjustment regarding the consumer price index were entirely inappropriate.

page 2430

QUESTION

WHEAT SHIPMENTS

Mr O’KEEFE:
PATERSON, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I direct my question to the Minister for Trade and Resources. What has been the effect on the wheat industry in New South Wales of industrial problems on the Sydney and Newcastle waterfronts? What is the outlook as far as wheat shipments are concerned?

Mr ANTHONY:
NCP/NP

– The last wheat harvest was an all-time record for Australia. Indeed, the value of that crop makes that industry far and away the biggest industry in this country in production value. However, that value can be realised only if Australia exports the great bulk of our production. In Australia we consume a relatively small proportion of the wheat we produce. Unfortunately in New South Wales there has been a good deal of disruption this year at the terminals. This has been due mainly to the issues of terminal manning and overtime. This has significantly delayed the shipments of wheat that might be exported from New South Wales. The wheat harvest in New South Wales last year was a record harvest, in line with the rest of Australia. All the terminals are full. Indeed, some of the wheat is being held on properties. Unless there can be continuity of movement of wheat along the railways and out of the terminals for export, there is going to be a very heavy carry-over next season which would limit the deliveries that wheat growers might be able to make. This would pose additional problems of trying to find on-farm storage facilities. At the moment it looks as though about 50 per cent of Australia ‘s six million tonnes of carry-over wheat will be in New South Wales. This will be a limiting factor on the production and delivery of wheat in that great industry in New South Wales. Tentative agreement has been reached with some of the unions. I am pleased to say that shipment rates have gone up considerably since overtime has been worked. Where it was taking a week to load a ship with 30,000 tonnes, that time has been reduced now to two or three days. I think people should be aware of the reponsibility they carry to try to assist this industry, which is earning so much revenue for Australia and which means so much to the economic well being of country areas and indeed to the whole economy of New South Wales.

I hope the New South Wales Government will give as much attention as possible to ensuring that all facilities at the grain terminals are working, that the transport system is working, and that the elevators at the storage depots are manned so that everything works in harmony for the balance of this year. An hour’s delay will only add to the problems that already exist in trying to dispose of the record wheat crop.

Mr Kerin:

– I rise on a point of order. Could the Minister direct his attention to the question as to why the Grain Elevators Board cut down on overtime, and put off people during a record harvest?

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-Order! There is no point of order.

Mr ANTHONY:

– I would not have thought that the Opposition would interrupt on this question because there have been great union problems at the terminals in trying to have the ships loaded. I do not wish to exacerbate the situation because there has been some tentative resolution; there is an uneasy peace at the moment. However, I certainly hope we do not have a repeat of what happened earlier this year, with people refusing to work overtime. If the unions do have industrial problems then they ought to try to settle them without delaying shipments. They should go to the industrial courts while continuing work, instead of going on strike or refusing to man terminals on overtime. That is most important. I hope the New South Wales Government realises that its economy will be in jeopardy if it does not find a solution to some of these problems.

page 2431

AUSTRALIAN AGRICULTURAL COUNCIL

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

– For the information of honourable members I present the resolutions of the 106th meeting of the Australian Agricultural Council held in Christchurch, New Zealand, in January 1979.

page 2431

NATIONAL ACCREDITATION AUTHORITY FOR TRANSLATORS AND INTERPRETERS

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

– For the information of honourable members I present the annual report of the National Accreditation Authority for Translators and Interpreters for the period 14 September 1977 to 31 December 1978.

page 2431

HEALTH CARE COSTS

Discussion of Matter of Public Importance -

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

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

The Government’s further arbitrary changes in health funding, which will create confusion and heighten inequality in the provision of health services, while fuelling both unemployment and inflation.

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-

Dr KLUGMAN:
Prospect

-The question we are discussing today is of major concern not only to the Opposition but also to everybody in this country. The Government’s arbitrary decisions, announced last Thursday, will increase the confusion that already exists and heighten the inequality in relation to the provision of health services and at the same time cause more unemployment and inflation. As I said on Thursday night when these changes were announced, I feel sorry for the Minister for Health (Mr Hunt). I feel sorry also for the people of Australia, because unless we make an intelligent attempt at discussing rationally the matter of improving health care services, unless we come to intelligent decisions which result in helping those people in the community who most need help and unless we give assistance to those areas of health care which most need help from governments, we will not have a good health service. In the process we will cause damage to people both from a health point of view and an economic point of view.

It is depressing to me that on an important issue such as health the Minister for Health is ignored and his Department is ignored. Last Thursday the Minister pointed to the high proportion of the total Budget which is spent on health. It may be recalled that on 24 May last year- exactly one year to the day before the changes were announced last week- the Minister made a statement in which he said:

Until an improved data base becomes available, the Government believes that it would be premature to proceed further with the consideration of major adjustments to the health insurance system.

The reason the Minister made that statement following some changes that had been made- they were the third lot of major changes made by the Government since it came to power- was that it was silly to keep on jumping from one point to another without knowing what the effect of those changes would be. We all know that about five days before the Budget was introduced in August last year the Minister was informed by the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet that huge changes were being introduced- changes which in a full financial year were estimated by the Government to cost $62 1 m.

The only reason for introducing those changes was to fiddle with the consumer price index. I think the Government was successful in fiddling with the consumer price index because, although the index increased by 2.3 per cent for the last December quarter, if one ignored the changes in relation to health insurance the real figure would have been 3.8 per cent. It is interesting to note that the Government was perfectly happy to accept a 1.5 per cent reduction in the consumer price index in the December quarter of last year but that it is already foreshadowing the argument that an increase of approximately 1.5 per cent in the consumer price index arising from the changes which are being proposed now and which come into force on 1 September should be ignored by the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. Hopefully the Arbitration Commission will not accept that proposition.

The Minister introduced that legislation last year on the same night in August on which the Budget was introduced. This year he went on a trip overseas to attend the World Health Organisation meeting. I do not say that he should not have attended that meeting but, if he had been here, he might have been able to put a greater input into the statement he made last week. He came back on Monday and he was presented with a new plan which represented a completely changed proposition in regard to the funding of both medical and hospital services. In effect he was told that approximately $450m would be saved by this proposition. Again I am not necessarily arguing that it is not possible to save approximately $400m out of a huge health budget. I am arguing that the advisers to the Department of Health and the people who are informed in this area should be able to make a greater input into it. These people have not been able to do anything when the funding was increased last year by $600m and when it was decreased now by $400m.

I am pleased to see in the House today the Chairman of the Standing Committee on Expenditure, the honourable member for Lilley (Mr Kevin Cairns). I have noted that at least when he is chairing that Committee he argues in favour of rational decision making by this Parliament in regard to expenditure matters. The last two major changes to health expenditure have not been made on a rational basis. Neither the increase nor the decrease was made on a rational basis. It was ironic that last Thursday when the Minister announced the very significant changes to the hospital system he took the opportunity during his speech to table a discussion paper which is quite a good one but which is already completely out of date. That discussion paper is entitled: ‘A Report on Rationalisation of Hospital Facilities and Services and on Proposed New Charges’. I refer the House to Table 2 which appears on page 25 and to Table 3 which appears on page 26 of that discussion paper. I hope that those honourable members who are interested in this matter will examine those tables. I seek leave to incorporate those two tables in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The tables read as follows-

Dr KLUGMAN:

– Table 2 shows that the proposal by the Commonwealth Government was for a reduction of occupied bed days per 1,000 of population from the current estimate of 1,100 in four equal annual steps in New South Wales, South Australia, Western Australia and Tasmania and for different steps to be taken in the other States. I think that they were reasonable propositions. The hospital system could live with them. However, in Table 3 one sees that the total savings over four years- I emphasise that these savings are over four years, increasing from $12. 3m during the first year to $45. 5m in the final year of the four year system- came to $ 1 14m. I think that that was a rational proposal. But what happened? The Minister had to announce in the same speech that, in fact, $200mwhich is twice as much- would be taken out of the hospital system in one year, which would be the first year of the operation of the proposal.

This Government talks about federalism and about co-operation with the States. There is no sign of that co-operation taking place. Arbitrary decisions are made and imposed on the States.

Usually a large number of back benchers are not happy when taxation is increased and when services are reduced. It is interesting to note that there seems to be a move by the back bench of this Government to put pressure on the Government to be tougher. I notice that those back benchers include the honourable member for Perth (Mr McLean), the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman), the honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck), the honourable member for Swan (Mr Martyr), the honourable member for Moore (Mr Hyde), the honourable member for Macquarie (Mr Gillard), the honourable member for Barton (Mr Bradfield), the honourable member for St George (Mr Neil), the honourable member for Brisbane (Mr Peter Johnson), the honourable member for Bowman (Mr Jull), the honourable member for Macarthur (Mr Baume), the honourable member for Henty (Mr Aldred), the honourable member for Casey (Mr Falconer), the honourable member for Bendigo (Mr Bourchier), the honourable member for Ballarat (Mr Short), the honourable member for Phillip (Mr Birney) and the honourable member for Kingston (Mr Chapman). These members asked the Government to produce a tough Budget. They wanted higher and not lower tax payments. They wanted fewer benefits. They wanted less expenditure on health, education and on social services. It is remarkable that the people who represent those seats are so completely out of touch. The seats that I mentioned are generally what I would describe politically as swinging seats. Yet those honourable members are prepared to say that there ought to be higher taxation and that fewer services ought to be provided.

Only yesterday, Mr Mason, the Leader of the Liberal Party and Leader of the Opposition in New South Wales, stated his position quite clearly. I think he stated the Liberal Party’s position quite clearly. He argued in favour of higher taxation and lower health, education and social service benefits. Those back benchers whom I have mentioned- I hope they can justify this to their electorates- argued in favour of those things, and they got them. Following the changes announced last Thursday the average weekly earner will pay an extra $6 a week or more in taxation. That is he will have to pay $6 a week more than he would have had to pay had the Government not introduced those changes. The average weekly earner will have to pay an extra $4 a week for health care, either in the form of insurance or in the form of carrying a risk for himself and his family. The Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs (Mr Viner), to whom I unkindly referred the other day as the Minister for Unemployment- I think I was justified in calling him that- told us over the weekend that the $200m cut in expenditure on hospitals would not cause any loss of jobs. That is a ridiculous proposition. Seventy per cent of all hospital costs are immediately salaries and wages.

If expenditure on hospitals is cut by $200m the amount of employment will be cut. There will be 18,000 fewer jobs directly in the hospital system. There is also a multiplier effect, as honourable members undoubtedly know, especially in country towns. If hospitals go, if wards close and if employment goes in a country town, it goes not only for those people who are directly employed by the hospital, but also for those people who live on the earnings of those who are employed in the hospitals. I am surprised that the Minister for Health, who represents a country electorate, proposed for New South Wales a huge cut in hospitals expenditure. Varying amounts have been cited. The figure, which I am told is the accurate figure, represents a cut of $116m on expenditure in country hospitals. Obviously country hospitals will have to be closed, including some hospitals in the electorate of the Minister. The honourable member for Eden-Monaro (Mr Sainsbury) is one of those people who are keen on reducing services and increasing taxation. He says that that is the right way to go about curing inflation. I wonder how the people in his electorate will feel about that?

In New South Wales hospitals the average ratio of private to public patients is 60/40. There are 60 per cent so-called private patients where the doctor immediately benefits by having that patient in hospital and 40 per cent public patients. At the Bega District Hospital which is a public hospital 95 per cent of the patients are private patients. The New South Wales Government was asked to spend approximately $2m extra to redevelop the Bega District Hospital, which is really acting as a private source of income for the doctors of that particular area. I suppose one can admire the moral courage which the honourable member for Eden-Monaro has shown in saying that, firstly, the people of Eden-Monaro ought to pay higher taxes and, secondly, no such services ought to be provided for the people of Eden-Monaro. I just wonder what will happen in Eden-Monaro when the people realise- I hope they will realise- that the honourable member for Eden-Monaro is one of the leaders of that particular group.

I know I have very little speaking time left today, but let me come back to the propositions that are being introduced as far as individuals are concerned regarding health insurance. I can only recommend very strongly an article which was published in yesterday’s National Times. I am not usually an avid supporter of that newspaper. On page 9 there was an article by Meryl Constance. I do not know whether that is a he or a she. It is a very interesting and intelligent article. I can strongly recommend it. Meryl Constance understands what the situation is all about and points out the huge increases that people will be liable for and how debatable it is as to what their decision ought to be. I do not want to get into an argument now as to whether people ought to take out health insurance. It is ridiculous for a government which claims to be a low tax government to introduce all these cuts and yet to be a high tax government. Let us remember that Pay-as-you-earn taxation was $7,000m in 1975-76 when we were last in power. In the current year the amount is up to $ 10,341m which the Government collects in taxes from individuals. That is an increase of 47.3 per cent. We heard the Prime Minister at Question Time today talk about how much more we would have paid under a Labor Government. We would have paid less. We are paying 47.3 per cent more on pay-as-you-earn taxation. That amount is being paid by the wage and salary earners of Australia. That is what this Government ought to be looking at. Yet it is introducing measures at the present time which will still significantly increase this amount.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

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

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

– I would just like to answer the honourable member for Prospect (Dr Klugman) on one very important point before I go any further. That is on the question of the inquiry into hospitals. The honourable member for Prospect has assumed a figure- cut of $ 1 1 6m. In my speech, I did not mention any figure for savings because hospital expenditure is to be held at existing levels. I said that the Commonwealth and State governments would look at holding of Commonwealth expenditure at current levels. There is a great difference between what I said and how the honourable member interpreted what I said. Quite clearly it would be foolish to close down country hospitals or to close down any hospital until an inquiry such as a royal commission has completed its survey into the total situation in this nation. I think it would be true to say that very few governments would have the political courage to close hospitals, even though we have a great surplus of beds, unless there was an in depth inquiry at a national level. I hope it would be a royal commission into the operation, efficiency and administration of hospitals throughout this country.

No one will convince me that if we are to come to grips with this great problem of health costs in Australia we can leave to one side the necessity for inquiring into the operations of hospitals in Australia. Hospitals do represent, so far as this Government and the taxpayers are concerned, the biggest drain on resources. Something like 60 per cent of the Commonwealth Government’s contribution, which is taken from the taxpayers of Australia, is going to meet the operational costs of hospitals throughout this country. There have been enormous developments in that area. There has been a great burgeoning of high cost medical technology. There has been a lot of evidence to indicate that there has been duplication of very expensive units within the hospital system in the inner metropolitan areas of this country. There has been evidence of wastage. There has been evidence of maladministration as was brought to light in the inquiry by the Public Accounts Committee in South Australia. It would be quite irresponsible for this Government or for any government to continue to go on ignoring the fundamental reasons why health costs in Australia are exploding. I will go on to show in a moment how they have exploded.

In regard to the discussion before the House, I concede one point and that is that this further change will, to some extent, create confusion in the minds of the people. I believe it is unfortunate that we have had as many changes to the health insurance system. Quite clearly this Government has been faced with a very serious and critical problem of coming to grips with one of the greatest economic problems that this nation has gone through, apart from the Great Depression of the thirties. We inherited this problem from the Opposition that sits opposite.

Mr Holding:

– You made it yourself. You have compounded the problem.

Mr HUNT:

– The Opposition created the problem. When the Opposition was in government in this country for three years it failed to come to grips with so many problems that it did not matter. When it was in government it failed to formulate a health policy which had any vestige of economic prudence. I do not know whether the honourable member for Prospect assisted in the formulation of the scheme that the Opposition introduced. I doubt that he did. The scheme proved to be fair to the poor but extravagant and indulgent to the rich. The Government of this country almost went bankrupt in the process of trying to find money from people to pay for some of its expensive social welfare and health policies. One of the policies which helped to bleed almost dry the consolidated revenue which is taken from the Australian people and, therefore, the taxpayers, was Medibank itself. The other night we were called a bunch of amateurs by members of the Opposition. I can say with some justification that this country was governed by a bunch of incompetents for three years. They got this country into the mess that it is in today. Most people realise that the damage which was done to the nation was done during the Australian Labor Party regime.

Mr Holding:

– That’s just rubbish and you know it!

Mr HUNT:

– The honourable member for Melbourne Ports reacts and why would he not react. He sits there as guilty as any honourable member can be. Not only did his Party do economic damage when in government through its economic mismanagement, but its policies had an impact on the expectations of people in this country. Australians of all walks of life suddenly thought that they were in the land of free lunches- the lucky country syndrome. The Labor Government raised health and welfare payments to such levels that some people in the community began to believe that it was their God given right to receive a benefit from the government. They overlooked the fact that they were paying, and paying dearly, for those benefits out of their own pockets as a result of high taxation. Unfortunately, in the health area the financial circumstances of the individual were improperly considered and resources were not necessarily directed to those in need. So the record of the Opposition whilst in government regarding health services is so disastrous that the less members of the Opposition talk about the subject the better it must be for them.

During Labor’s three years of office the openended Medibank arrangements were associated with doctors’ fees increasing by nearly 60 per cent. Then there was the open-ended hospital cost-sharing agreements which we had to tighten up and the hospital development plan under which hundreds of millions of dollars were poured into further hospital development without an attempt to rationalise the growth of the hospital system in Australia. In 1972-73, health costs represented 5.97 per cent of the gross domestic product whereas by 1975-76 they represented 7.76 per cent- a rise from $2,505m to $6,460m. Mr Acting Speaker, I seek leave to incorporate in *Hansard- * hope that the honourable member for Prospect will permit me to do so- a table, taken from the Department of Health estimates, showing how costs increased in respect of the gross domestic product, how the Commonwealth contribution increased during the Labor Party’s term of office, what the State contribution is and what the private contribution is.

Dr Klugman:

– Will you make the point in Hansard that Medibank came in 1975 and not 1972?

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-Is leave granted?

Dr Klugman:

– Subject to that qualification that Medibank came in in 1 975.

Mr HUNT:

– I am not going to be bound by blackmailing tactics. If that is the honourable gentleman ‘s wish, I will read some of the table.

Dr Klugman:

– No, you can incorporate it if you -

Mr HUNT:

– I am not making any such statement. The honourable member has made such a statement often enough.

Dr Klugman:

– Leave is granted if you want it.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-Order! I understand that leave has been granted for incorporation of the document.

Leave granted.

The table read as follows-

Mr HUNT:

– Thank you, Mr Acting Speaker. I thank the honourable member for Prospect too. I am glad that he came to his senses. In 1972-73 the percentage of gross domestic product spent on health was 5.97, with the Commonwealth contributing 3 1 per cent of total health costs and the States 27 per cent. The total government contribution was 58 per cent and the private contribution was 42 per cent. Yet by 1975-76 the Commonwealth contribution had risen to 48 per cent; total government contributions, that is, taxpayers’ contributions, had risen to 72 per cent; and the private contributions were 28 per cent. This indicates the direction of the former Labor

Government in regard to health costs. The Australian Labor Party’s philosophy is expressed in its health and social welfare policy. It is a socialist philosophy, I respect members of the Opposition for adhering to it. But I also ask them to respect the philosophy of the Government. It does not tally with the Opposition’s policy. Our policy is not to try to give a blanket cover to all people at the same level and thus dissipate resources to the point where ultimately the Treasury will be left in such a state that, in the final analysis, the Government will find it difficult to support anybody at all.

Mr Holding:

– What is your policy?

Mr HUNT:

– Our policy is expressed in the legislation and in the action which the Government takes. I should like to give some further figures which are very interesting insofar as the Labor Party’s record, while in office, is concerned. In 1971-72, $2,232m was spent on health in Australia. By 1975-76, that amount had risen to $5,660m- a total increase of 150 per cent. In three years of a Liberal-National Country Party Government- the same number of years as the Labor Party had in office- this figure was reduced to 41 per cent. So whatever the honourable gentleman might say, the Government had succeeded in reducing the great explosion that occurred during the Labor Party ‘s term in office.

The Government makes no apology whatsoever for its changes to the health insurance system or for its ideological approach to health and welfare which, as I said earlier, is vastly different from the approach of the Australian Labor Party. The Liberal-National Country Party Government’s fundamental social welfare philosophy rests on its commitment to channel scarce resources- they are scarce enough; they are taken from the people’s pockets- into the areas of need. We do not support a policy where everybody in the community, regardless of income, is entitled to receive benefits at a high level- at, say, the former highly costly Medibank Mark I level of 85 per cent of the medical benefits fee with the patient paying a maximum of $5. 1 ask what is the Labor Party’s policy? If the Labor Party were re-elected to government, would it reintroduce Medibank Mark I? Opposition members are silent. There is a strange silence in this chamber.

Mr Baillieu:

– A deafening silence.

Mr HUNT:

– Yes, there is a deafening silence on the part of the Australian Labor Party as to what its health policy would be. Opposition members sit there like honourable mutes. They will hot commit themselves as to their policy. I would be delighted if the honourable member for Prospect or the next speaker from the Opposition would announce Labour Party policy in this regard. We could then engage in an ideological debate and see which system the people would like.

I have here an article written by Dr Richard Taylor in January 1979 headed ‘Labor Health Policy: ‘How Can Labor Reform the Health Care System when Elected in the 1980s?’ In this article Dr Taylor recommends very strongly the payment of a Commonwealth medical benefit amounting to 85 per cent of the scheduled fee for patients attending doctors who bulk bill and a higher percentage for those attending doctors who do not bulk bill. What an incredible policy! I am certain that this policy will have the scalpel put through it by the shadow Minister for Health, the honourable member for Prospect. I think it is an incredible document but, this policy having been put forward, one wonders whether too many of the honourable gentlemen opposite will be swayed towards adopting a policy which, on my estimates, will cost the Australian people an additional $700m. Where would a Labor government get the additional $700m to fulfil that sort of policy undertaking or for any other system? There is only one way in which Labor could get that sort of money. I do not think that it would result in shonky loans but in very severe taxation on the Australian people.

Dr Klugman:

– Look who is talking. You have imposed a 47 per cent increase -

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Prospect had the opportunity to be heard in silence.

Mr HUNT:

– The honourable member sitting opposite has a tremendous responsibility not only to his Party but also to the Australian people to let us know just what Australian Labor Party policy is and just what the Labor Party would do in regard to bulk billing if it were elected to office.

Bulk billing is very fundamental to the way in which the health scheme works. I commend the Australian Medical Association, the Doctors’ Reform Society, the General Practitioners Society and the medical profession generally, with a few exceptions, for the way they have cooperated in bulk billing most of the pensioners and certainly the disadvantaged people. I have some very important figures with regard to bulk billing. Prior to 1 November 1978 1.769 million services per month were bulk billed. In November, 1.486 million services were bulk billed; in December, 1.307 million; in January, 1.38 million and in February, 1.32 million. Those figures indicate that doctors are bulk billing most of the pensioners and, certainly, most of the disadvantaged. For the information of honourable members, I point out that there are 6.8 million medical services per month or about 80 million services a year. Of these 85 per cent or 5.8 million per month are under $20. Sixty-five per cent or 4.4 million per month are under $10. As the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) said during Question Time this afternoon, the changes incorporate a universal cover. The pensioners and the disadvantaged people in the community can be direct billed to the Department of Health at the taxpayers expense. The rest of the community is covered to a certain level and those people can insure themselves for the balance.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-Order! The Minister’s time has expired.

Dr BLEWETT:
Bonython

-There are two points that I would like to take out of the rhetoric- that is practically all it was- of the Minister for Health (Mr Hunt). The first relates to the continuing argument that all the economic problems of this Government in 1979 are somehow due to events from 1972 to 1975. In this case that argument is peculiarly irrelevant. Three dramatic changes to the health provision have been announced in this House in the past 12 months. Was there somehow a Labor government or Labor intrusion between May 1978 and August 1978? Has there been a Labor intrusion between August 1978 and May 1979? The last three changes, each of them contradictory, have been very much the result of the failure of this Government’s economic planning. Perhaps all of us had better start arguing in those terms. The changes are the result of the economic mismangement of the last 12 months.

That brings me to the second piece of rhetoric from the Minister, that is, the silence of the Australian Labor Party on the alternative. Unlike this Government, we believe that we should be responsible to the people in these matters. We recognise the enormous costs and problems produced by these innumerable changes and threats of change. It would be wrong of us to lay down a set policy at this stage when we do not know what the Government’s policy will be next May or next August. We get a new health policy every six months. Until we can find out what the Government is threatening to do to the Australian people it is a little difficult for us to determine a policy.

Let me begin the substance of my speech with a joke. Admittedly it is a sick joke. On 27 November 1975 the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) said:

We will maintain Medibank . . .

Certain forms of this House prevent me from fully characterising that statement as it deserves. Medibank was a national health scheme conceived as universal, equitable, fair and public. It has been this Government’s objective, culminating in the mini Budget of last Thursday night, to reduce its universality, to make it less equitable and fair and to turn its administration back to a multiplicity of competing and expensive private agencies. Each of these statements can be proved by the words of the Minister himself. I refer firstly to universality. Last year, when we had a quite different medical plan before us, the Minister constantly insisted that a key element of the universality of his national health provision was the Commonwealth medical benefit of 40 per cent. We have seen the erosion of that medical benefit under this Government from 85 per cent to 75 per cent and then, last year, to 40 per cent. At that time the Minister stressed that the key feature of universality was the Commonwealth subsidy of 40 per cent. I remind him that on 28 September, only seven months ago, he said that all Australians remained covered for the Commonwealth medical benefit of 40%.

What made the scheme universal in the Minister’s words was, above all, the 40 per cent subsidy. Now even that has been abolished. True- we will give him this- a fragment of universality remains in the maximum fee of $20 and in the provisions for disadvantaged persons, to which I will come in a moment. But the medical costs of the great bulk of Australians will no longer be covered unless they take out private insurance. The scheme is no longer universal.

The health scheme is increasingly inequitable. The healthy are encouraged to contract out; the wealthy can take care of themselves. That is the effect of last year’s and this year’s procedures. The problem with health insurance in this country as a result of the Government’s actions is that increasingly the insurance burden is falling on the sick, the handicapped and people with large families. In 1976- it is true that that was three years ago and it is a little tough for this Government to maintain anything over three years- the Minister said:

The only fair and equitable method is that the user pays in accordance with his ability to pay.

That is no longer true. There is no progressive element in the system of insurance charges. There has been a shifting of the burden to the sick, the handicapped and people with large families because of the pattern of options being adopted by people in relation to forms of insurance. The impact of the most recent changes is that the people most severely hit will be the non-hospitalised, chronically ill. Those who have many regular visits to their doctors, they are the ones who will be most seriously disadvantaged.

The Minister said that bulk billing for the disadvantaged would provide or maintain universality. In October of last year we on this side of the House expressed concern about the operation of the socially disadvantaged procedures.

At that stage, the honourable member for Petrie (Mr Hodges) was prepared to support us. He too was worried about aspects of the definition of ‘socially disadvantaged’ and the problem of people going to their doctors, demeaning in itself, to have to claim to be socially disadvantaged. We said then that doctors were inadequate as categorisers of the socially disadvantaged. The figures that are now available seem to suggest that the fear of the honourable member for Petrie has been realised. Only 3 per cent of services were provided to the socially disadvantaged. That suggests that the unemployed are peculiarly healthy. The provisions of universality in relation to the socially disadvantaged are not working very well.

We on this side of the House condemn the constant changes in national health provision. This is the fifth major change under this Government. There is no doubt that it produces chaos, confusion and uncertainty. Last year the honourable member for Petrie, speaking in relation to the scheme which the Government is now to abolish, said:

This is clearly the finest scheme we have seen in this country.

After nine months the finest scheme we have seen in this country is to be abolished. I do not doubt that the honourable member for Petrie will tell us why this new plan is an even better scheme, a finer scheme. That is the way words are used by Government members. A scheme described by a Government supporter as the finest scheme we have seen in this country did not survive even for a year. The honourable member for Murray (Mr Lloyd ) said last September:

I hope that this is the last fundamental change to our national health scheme for many years.

When we dared to suggest that, knowing this Government, there would be a change in six months, nine months or a year he waxed indignant and told us clearly that this would be the last fundamental change. It has not even survived for 12 months.

Dr Klugman:

– It will be seven months next Friday.

Dr BLEWETT:

– I cannot keep up with the duration of the various schemes. The reasons for the change are not concerned with health provision for the people of this country. None of the changes in the last three years has been motivated by the effort to create a fair, equitable and universal health scheme. They have all been imposed on the Minister at the behest of the Prime Minister, simply for short term economic reasons. That is why the health scheme is changed every five months. The Prime Minister’s economics are such that they require change every five months or six months. The changes in May and October of last year and the changes this year have not been given to the country because there is a desire to provide a better national health scheme. They have been introduced simply for short term financial reasons. The changes in the August Budget were introduced simply to carry through a sharp trick with the consumer price index. The fundamental change in the scheme last year was another of the slick tricks of the Treasurer (Mr Howard) to manage the consumer price index. It was not made because of a worry about the health of ordinary Australians but to adjust the CPI simply for partisan purposes. It would be interesting to know what the Government will do with the CPI this year. The major changes that have now been made- abolishing, in the words of the honourable member for Petrie, ‘the finest scheme this country has ever seen’- have been made solely because of the immediate economic difficulties of the country produced by the inadequacy of the Budget last year. It is important, I think, for all Australians to realise that the changes are being made not to provide a better health service, but often for rather slick and snide reasons to shift economic indicators.

That brings me finally to the Minister himself who has in fact defended his proposals today simply by rather tired and worn rhetoric about the period 1972 to 1975. I have in many ways considerable respect for the Minister but in a democratic country such as ours there surely comes a point when any Minister with selfrespect, with concern for the department which he manages- in this case for the objectives of an adequate national health scheme- must say to his colleagues in the Cabinet ‘I can go no farther with emasculating, cutting and jettisoning schemes. ‘ The Minister is compromising universality, which he claims to believe in. He is compromising equity, which he claims to believe in. He is compromising efficiency, which he claims to believe in. This abdication by the Minister is in fact a major neglect of the interests of this country.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

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

Mr HODGES:
Petrie

-Let me explain to the honourable member for Bonython (Dr Blewett) why it has been necessary to institute so many changes over the past three and a half years. I for one have not welcomed all these changes but it has been necessary to make the changes and to make them progressively because of the changes the Labor Party made when it was in office. If there had not been so many drastic changes to the way of life of the people in this country we would not be in the economic mess today- created by a Labor government- which makes it necessary for this Government to make so many progressive changes to the system. It is the magnitude of the economic mess created in the years 1972 to 1975 by the Whitlam Labor Government that has made it necessary for this Government constantly to review the economy in its efforts to bring it properly back on the rails.

I take up the point that the Minister for Health (Mr Hunt) made. The Labor Party of course has no health policy. It will not spell one out. I wonder what the honourable member for Prospect (Dr Klugman) has in mind. He is keeping it under wraps for some future date. It is rather like the criticism by the Opposition of the purchase of the VIP aircraft by this Government. I suggest that we have not heard a categorical denial by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Hayden) that he will not sell the aircraft or that he will ride in them if he becomes the Prime Minister of this country. It is a similar situation in respect of health.

I want to take up two or three points made by the honourable member for Prospect. He blatantly misrepresented four or five members on the Government side. I remember three in particular- the honourable member for Perth (Mr McLean), the honourable member for Kingston (Mr Chapman) and the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman). He quite incorrectly claimed that they, among others on this side of the House, wanted higher taxation. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Dr Klugman:

– They certainly did and they were successful.

Mr HODGES:

-This Government and all of the back benchers on this side -

Dr Klugman:

– Let them answer for themselves.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Prospect and the honourable member for Bonython were heard in absolute silence. I ask honourable members to accord the same courtesy to the honourable member for Petrie.

Mr HODGES:

-Thank you, Mr Acting Speaker. All members on the Government side of the House are committed to lower taxation but governments cannot spend more and more and take less and less from taxpayers. Therefore cuts are necessary in some areas. Otherwise the Budget deficit blows out. This is another aspect in respect of which the Opposition will not state in what areas it would make cuts or indeed by how much it would increase the Budget deficit or taxation to meet its spending programs. I suggest to the honourable member for Prospect that he ought not to make these blatant misrepresentations in respect of members on the Government side.

I suggest to the honourable member for Prospect that better wording for the matter of public importance which he has proposed for discussion today would have been ‘the need for all Australians to approach health care and costs in a responsible way’. I turn to what is happening in this country today in relation to spending by people who are not responsible and the amount of money that is spent recklessly on gambling, at the TAB and on alcoholic liquor. When honourable members opposite talk about health care and services they say that the people should not have to pay for those services. I suggest to the honourable member for Prospect that he should go along to the TAB to see how many bets he can get on without money in his pockets. He should see how many groceries he can buy at the corner store without money in his pocket. The same thing applies to all sorts of goods and services. Yet when it comes to paying for health care- that is the point I am making- he does not want the people to have money in their pocket at all; he wants the Government to foot the bill for them. I suggest that if we want irresponsible people in this nation that is the way to do it- mollycoddle them and make sure that their health costs are paid for by the Government. We need to move away from the Labor Party mentality. Its view is: ‘Don’t save for the rainy day, don’t look after yourselves, but spend up while the sun shines’. Consequently people will not- I repeat, will not- following promotion of that view, provide for the rainy day. Self-sufficiency or self-reliance is a wonderful virtue and those who sit opposite ought to take some notice of it.

Mr Holding:

– What has this to do with health care?

Mr HODGES:

-People should not have to fall back on somebody else. They should plan their life, budget, learn to be responsible with money and learn to manage to get through the week, the month or the year. They should learn to provide for themselves and their families and put a little away for that rainy day. The honourable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr Holding) ought to take note of what I am saying. The Labor Party wants people to be reliant on government with government providing services free of cost and the individual not having to think too much for himself or plan too much for himself. The Labor Party promotes the hand-out mentality. Of course that is the fundamental difference between the philosophies of the Liberal and National Country parties and the Labor Party.

It is necessary in health to have an identifiable cost. I am very pleased that we changed Medibank mark I and gradually made the cost more and more identifiable so that the people of this nation would know what health is costing. Free goods and services are rarely appreciated by the recipients As I said earlier, under Labor the next thing we would have would be a free motor car repair service or when the electrician or plumber calls the services would be provided free- all provided in some fashion by the Government. I abhor this approach. I believe that all decent Australians abhor that approach. I refer to the wording of the discussion of matter of public importance. It reads:

The Government’s further arbitrary changes in health funding which will create confusion and heighten inequality in the provision of health services, while fuelling both unemployment and inflation.

I fail to see how the changes will heighten inequality. Those people in the community who are disadvantaged are being adequately catered for. The low income people, the lower income families, who may well have a member with an illness or indeed Illnesses, of course can be classified as disadvantaged. The Minister for Health spoke to me before this debate. He referred to the fact that doctors in the community are acting responsibly. They are identifying these people and people who are disadvantaged are receiving the benefit. We are all concerned for the welfare of the pensioners and to ensure that they get health services that perhaps they may not be able to pay for. I make the point specifically that the situation of the pensioners has not changed, nor should it be changed. In other words, we are caring for those who are actually in need. I suggest to the Opposition that ensuring the welfare of the needy is a worthwhile and a just objective. Looking at the disadvantaged area, we find that there are no changes. No one is further disadvantaged. Let us look at the hospital situation. As the Minister for Health said, there are compelling arguments for changes in hospital charges and there is a need for an inquiry. The efficiency of our hospital system leaves a lot to be desired. As the Minister pointed out last Thursday, in his statement, the bed occupancy rate is 68 per cent. I believe the States must co-operate, and cooperate fully and quickly, to ensure that this inquiry is conducted efficiently and effects a number of changes that obviously need to be made.

At the moment the Commonwealth is spending on a 50-50 cost-sharing basis with the States for approved budgets of hospitals. I believe that in a lot of instances States have only to put up budgets and they tend to be accepted without a great deal of question. That position has to change. The hospital cost-sharing agreement with the States cost this Government $873m in 1976-77. In two years we have seen an increase of 22 per cent to $ 1,067m. They are the sorts of changes that are taking place. They are frightening increases and increases that need to be looked at very closely. There has to be a rationalisation of our hospital services, and if that means the closing of hospitals in some country areas then that may well have to be done. In-hospital patient charges are to be increased from $40 to $50 and from $60 to $75. It is necessary to meet escalating costs. If the Opposition believes the Government should be meeting those increases out of the taxpayer’s purse generally, then I am afraid that the nation will not accept that sort of cost as a whole. In relation to the medical side, we have seen changes that now have identified the cost to the individual for all services under $20. That is a very desirable stage to have reached, despite the fact that it has been necessary to have so many changes in the last three and a half years.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

– Order! The honourable member’s time has expired. Discussion is concluded on the matter of public importance.

page 2441

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

Mr KEVIN CAIRNS:
Lilley

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

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr KEVIN CAIRNS:

-Yes. The second matter dealt with last week on General Business Thursday related to Commonwealth-State financial arrangements, on which I moved a motion. A motion appears at page 2346 of Hansard, but inadvertently the wrong motion has been printed. The motion that should have been printed is Order of the Day No. 2 at page 5559 of today’s Notice Paper. The motion that appears in Hansard is Notice of Motion No. 44. It is in some ways understandable that Hansard has printed the motion incorrectly as there are two similar motions on a similar matter. However, I suggest that a correction would be in order.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-The matter raised by the honourable member for Lilley has already been brought to the attention of the Principal Parliamentary Reporter. It is true that Notice of Motion No. 44 was published in the daily Hansard instead of Notice of Motion No. 2, the error being due to the similarity in wording of the two motions, as the honourable member pointed out. The Daily Hansard is, of course, only a proof copy, and the motion moved by the honourable member will be reported correctly in the weekly edition and in the bound volumes.

page 2442

GOVERNMENT DECISIONS ON EXPENDITURE AND TAXATION

Ministerial Statement

Debate resumed from 24 May, on the following paper presented by Mr Howard:

Government expenditure, personal taxation and revenue 1979-80-Ministerial Statement, 24 May 1979- and on motion by Mr Sinclair:

That the House take note of the paper.

Mr KILLEN:
Minister for Defence · Moreton · LP

– The House resumes the debate on a statement put down last Thursday evening by the Treasurer (Mr Howard). Two speeches were made then, one by the Treasurer and the other by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Hayden). I am going to invite the House to agree that there was a substantial difference between the two speeches. This may be a matter for ordinary comment, but I would also invite the House and thinking people to reflect upon the two entirely different characters of the speeches. The speech made by the Treasurer could be described only as a very frank speech. It acknowledged quite openly and quite bluntly that considerable political risks were associated with what he was saying. Above all, the speech made by the Treasurer was a courageous speech. By contrast, the speech made by the Leader of the Opposition on behalf of the Labor Party was a speech determined on winning votes and nothing else.

Dr Klugman:

– Oh no! We are not going to accuse him of being a politician.

Mr KILLEN:

– That is precisely the proposition I want to submit to the House. I suspect that if the honourable member for Prospect could lull himself into a measure of silence even his dogmatic attitude towards the world could be moved a little. The difference between the two speeches represents the difference between the Government parties and the Labor Party. The Government says quite openly that there is a clear need for restraint to be observed, a clear need for this Parliament to be treated with candour, a clear need for the people of Australia to be informed in blunt direct terms as to precisely what our circumstances are. The reaction of the Leader of the Opposition may be summed up in one attack that he made upon the Government and in particular upon the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) and the Treasurer. He said: ‘You have broken your promises ‘. I think this is a very fair capitulation of the attitude of the Opposition: ‘You have broken your promises’. That is the view that was expressed by the Leader of the Opposition. I think it deserves to be said in a most explicit form that those of us who sit on this side of the House would have a heavy preference for breaking a political promise rather than letting the nation edge towards bankruptcy. That is the issue. The preference of Her Majesty’s Opposition is for bankruptcy. The preference of the Government parties is for the stability and development of this country in a rational and reasonable way. They are the potential bankrupters of this country. That is precisely the attitude. When one looks at the position taken up by the Labor Party one will find that that charge can be sheeted right home, and I propose to do that this afternoon. We say that the nation comes first. We say that political fortunes come second.

Mr Bryant:

– Oh yes.

Mr KILLEN:

– It is very fine indeed to take the easy political way out. The Government proposes to take an approach to the affairs of this nation that represents responsibility in government. The Treasurer told the Parliament that we were in prospect of a deficit of $4,600m, and the Leader of the Opposition acknowledged that. If he is to sustain his attack against the Government and say that is valid, then ergo the Leader of the Opposition would be quite happy with a deficit of $4,600m. What would be more calculated to drive this nation towards bankruptcy than to have a deficit of that nature. One does not need to have passed through the London School of Economics to understand a deficit of $4,600m. There is nothing esoteric about it. It means that either the Government borrows the money or it winds up the printing presses, one or the other.

The Leader of the Opposition taunted us. He said: ‘The economy is in the hands of amateurs’. He can taunt as much as he likes. I think it is far preferable to face up to that charge than to see the economy in the hands of professional wreckers. It deserves to be said that accommodating creditors can be found around the country and that money can be borrowed and blown on current consumption year after year, but the day will come when, either with a whimper or a very large bang, something will happen. Members of the Opposition are very smart and very clever chaps indeed. It has been the case down the centuries that nation after nation and empire after empire have all tried to borrow money and to blow the borrowings on current consumption year after year. The history books are there to be read.

Mr Bryant:

– But the deficit was made up of capital works.

Mr KILLEN:

-The trouble with the honourable member for Wills is that he understands no history and he is certain not to make any.

Opposition members interjecting -

Mr KILLEN:

– The bleating of sheep has never irritated me in my life. To what do members of the Opposition resort when they run up against an argument that they dislike? They make a fuss. There are times when I think the policies of the Labor Party are so sterile that its members would not be able to make a fuss in a fowlhouse at night.

The Labor Party over the years- certainly while it has been in government- cultivated in this country an attitude of great expectations. We heard the phrases: ‘Mr Government, solve this for us; Mr Government, do this for us’. No matter what the reason, every section in the community was encouraged to go along to the Government, to build up the whole paraphernalia of government and, in turn, to impose upon the taxpayer on one hand and to resort to gross irresponsibility with respect to the printing presses on the other. Is it any wonder at all that when the Government led by Mr Whitlam was tipped out inflation was running at the rate it was? The nation was edging towards bankruptcy-

Mr Bryant:

-Ha, ha!

Mr KILLEN:

– The honourable member for Wills, in the various offices that he held, was a past master at asking for money and at handing it out. Bit by bit the currency was being depreciated. In the language of Charles Dickens:

Your sight was disturbed

You grasped at visionary teacups and wine glasses instead of realities.

This Government faces up to realities. Hence the speech made by the Treasurer last Thursday night was a speech of courage. It was a speech of candour. As a consequence he is admired by the overwhelming majority of people in Australia. I would like to read a very short extract from a lecture given by my friend the Leader of the Opposition. Appropriately, it was given to the Fabian Society in Victoria. He said:

Social welfare and economic policy are two subjects which are too often discussed in isolation from each other.

Honourable members can look at the record left behind by the Labor Government of which my friend the Leader of the Opposition was a prominent and, one must say, a distinguished member. Commonwealth outlays in 1973-74 were increased by the Labor Government by 20 per cent. The next year, with an attitude of ‘bump it up even more boys’ it increased outlays by 45.9 per cent. In 1975-76 the increase was 22.5 per cent. In the first year that this Government came into office it halved that figure to 10.5 percent.

I come back to the central proposition: Somebody somewhere must pay at the end of the day. The honourable gentlemen who sit on the Opposition benches have had the greatest of difficulty in understanding that simple, elementary principle. That is precisely why this nation now must face up to the realities of the unrealities that were visited upon this country by the governments led by Mr Whitlam.

It gives the Treasurer no personal pleasure to state to the Parliament what obviously is a tough dose of medicine for people to take. But what is the alternative? Is it to say that nothing is wrong, to continue to print and borrow money and to imagine that all is well? The fact is that the Treasurer came into the chamber and said: ‘We believe in economic responsibility. No matter how unpalatable it is we propose to say so. We propose to ensure that the people of this country understand that.’ I say to the honourable member for Wills who is trying to interject that the alternative is to allow inflation to rip along. Wherever inflation has been allowed to rip along it has led not just to the destruction or diminution of the value of the currency but inevitably it has meant the destruction of democratic institutions. Let us take the example of inflation of Germany in the 1920s. A direct line can be drawn between the inflation of Germany and the establishment of the Third Reich. Inflation is a destroyer of the currency but more importantly it is the destroyer of institutions. That fact has never been understood by my friends who sit opposite. I invoke the words of a man who is not held out as a political partisan. He has found himself involved over a long period in dealing with the existence or otherwise of poverty in this country. I refer to Professor Henderson. May I read to the honourable member for Wills what Professor Henderson has said?

Mr Bryant:

– Yes.

Mr KILLEN:

– Thank you. At long last courtesy is extended. Professor Henderson wrote:

Those who suffer most severely (from inflation) are small savers with deposits in savings banks which are rapidly losing their real value. Rich people no longer hold their wealth in fixed interest securities, but poorer people have not the knowledge or opportunity to hold it in ways that provide protection against inflation. Those who have retired on a pension, fixed in terms of money, suffer the full loss of purchasing power as consumer prices rise, and they get no compensation.

It was a consideration of those circumstances and a consideration of the whole array of democratic institutions in this country that prompted the Treasurer and the Government to put down the statement of last Thursday. I repeat that it was a candid statement. But beyond that it was a statement of great courage. I hope that this Parliament and the people of this country will never forget that, if in the conduct of affairs of high state courage is not to be found, at the end of the day we will find no nation.

Mr WILLIS:
Gellibrand

-I move:

The statement which was brought down by the Treasurer (Mr Howard) last Thursday and which we are now debating is by any measure an appalling statement. I am sure that the reaction by the vast majority of people in this country was the same as that of the Opposition, namely that they were appalled that such a statement could be made in this Parliament. This statement is appalling because, firstly, it destroyed the last vestige of credibility of this Government. As every honourable member sitting on the Government side knows, including the Minister for Defence (Mr Killen) who just read us a little homily about schoolboy economics, this Government in the eyes of this nation stands condemned as a government upon which we cannot rely. It is a government without credibility. Before this statement was made last Thursday night, this Government was in a situation where it bore the distinction of being the least trustworthy government in our history because of broken promises. The statement that was made on Thursday night, as every honourable. member knows, contained several more broken promises such as the promises about tax surcharge, tax indexation, stock valuation adjustments, coal export levy and meat export charges to name a few. As a result of those further broken promises this Government surely must now be without any vestige of credibility. Who could possibly believe any commitment that the Prime Minister may make in the future? When the Prime Minister says in the future that the Government promises to do something no one will believe that statement. That is something that this Government will have to live with in the future.

Secondly, apart from destroying the last vestige of credibility of this Government this statement also creates much more uncertainty and insecurity in the nation. It does this because it is quite clear that this Government does not know where it is going. In the statement which was delivered, the Government purports, firstly, to give us some indication of government policy. It then says: ‘We do not really know what tax policies we should be using in the next Budget so we will have to leave that go for several months’. So between now and the end of November or, at least, until 2 1 August, we will not know what the Government’s taxation policies are. The excuse given for this situation is that there may be some change in the factors which come into revenue estimates. What factors are they? We are not told what they are. It seems highly likely that the Government simply is in a stew trying to work out what policies it should be pursuing and trying to find the magic formula for economic recovery. In the process of doing this, of course, it is destroying the security of the nation, such as the personal security of people for such things as health insurance arrangements. The people are bewildered by the continual changes in health insurance arrangements in this country. It has already been shown in previous debate that the Government simply has no real answers in this area except to thrash around trying to find some way of providing health care on the cheap. As a result it is creating great insecurity for people who are concerned about their health and that includes everyone in this country. The Government simply does not know what policies it should be pursuing at the present time. That is quite obvious and that must be a matter of great concern to the nation.

It should also be a matter of great concern to the nation that as a result of this statement severe imposts will be inflicted on taxpayers in a highly regressive manner. It confirms the tax surcharge of 1 ‘/2c in the dollars which was introduced last year. That has applied over the last seven months at 2.5c in the dollar. That tax surcharge is now being continued and it is likely to be continued through the next financial year. So we have this regressive 2.5c in the dollar in addition to the tax rates which means, for the lower income earners, an 8 per cent rise in their taxes and, at the top end, a rise of 4.3 per cent. That is because the 2.5c is added to the marginal tax rate on a flat basis. So it is a highly regressive tax increase. The higher the income the lower is the tax increase. The denial of promised tax deductions means that taxpayers are paying much more tax than they had reason to expect. I will give some examples of this. The failure of the government to honour its promise in respect of tax indexation and to wipe out the surcharge means that a taxpayer in the $120 a week bracket will, from 1 July, be paying $4 a week more; at $ 160 a week, $5 a week more; at $220 a week, $6.50 a week more. Those are the amounts of tax that taxpayers will be paying additional to what they would have been paying had this Government been honest and stuck to its promises.

A further factor to take into account is that this statement greatly increases the cost of health care to the populace. This subject has been covered very well in previous debate. Let me remind the House that the removal of the Commonwealth subsidy for medical care and the increase in public hospital charges are certain to have a combined effect of increasing the cost of health insurance for a family by approximately $3.50 to $4 a week. It is amazing that the Treasurer (Mr Howard) had the gall to claim in his statement that the Government has maintained universal health protection. Quite obviously it has not done that. There is now no government protection for the health cost of such a basic medical item as going to see a general practitioner. So the Government’s claim that it is providing universal health protection surely stretches credulity even further than all the other breaches of promise which I have mentioned. Of course, the fact that the increase in health insurance costs is the same, whatever one’s income, further adds to the regressive nature of the Government’s fiscal policies. It means that the poorer families have to pay the same amount as rich or high income families. Therefore, it is a much greater percentage impost on their living standards and significantly reduces their living standards when compared to those on higher incomes. Furthermore, it is important to note from this statement by the Treasurer that he has admitted that the Government’s policies for the next financial year will not reduce inflation or unemployment. On Nation-wide, following the statement in this House on Thursday night, the Treasurer admitted that inflation would not be reduced in the next financial year. He also admitted that unemployment would not be reduced. In fact, he said it could be a little higher. When asked his reckoning on unemployment, he stated:

I think it would be in the order of what it was in the early part of this year. It may be a little higher.

So there we have an acknowledgement from the Treasurer that unemployment is more likely to get worse rather than better in the future. The Government’s excuse for all these enormous breaches of promise- that is the reduction of living standards of the Australian people, the increase in taxes and the whole array of matters which I have just mentioned- is that we must have Budget responsibility. This was the basic theme of the speech from the Minister for Defence. He said that we had to have Budget responsibility and that if we did not have this kind of Budget then we were not doing the right thing by the Australian nation because we were not being economically responsible. He might like to know, having given us a lecture on the need to reduce deficits, that in the three years of the Labor Government the total amount of deficits was $6.4 billion. In the three years of the Fraser Government the total deficits are going to be about $9.3 billion. I cannot be exact about the last percentage point on the Government’s Budget deficit because we have not got the final figure for this financial year. But assuming it is $3.2 billion which the Treasurer estimated a few weeks ago, then it is $9.3 billion for the three deficits over the last three financial years. If economic irresponsibility is measured by the size of deficits it would seem that the Fraser Government is being far more irresponsible than the Labor Government.

Let me say a few more things about Budget responsibility. However one interprets that, Budget responsibility does not excuse dishonesty. This

Government stands condemned by the people of this nation as dishonest because it made all those promises about fists full of dollars and tax cuts at the last election. They are simply not being fulfilled. Budget responsibility does not excuse that. If the Government does not know whether it can meet the promises then for goodness’ sake it should not make them. Do not come crying later that there has been a change in circumstances, that something has happened that was not expected. Budget responsibility does not excuse dishonesty. In any case, the Government’s concept of Budget responsibility is utterly invalid. This Government’s package would be very much more relevant to an economy in the midst of an economic boom rather than in the midst of a severe economic recession. The Government’s central aim, it says, is the need to reduce the deficit because this will bear down on inflation. But the Government completely ignores the fact that this process of increasing taxes and reducing Government expenditure will bear down on employment so creating more unemployment. This has been what has happened ever since this Government has been in office. Surely even the densest member on the Government side must be starting to realise that that is what has been happening while this Government has been in office. Since this Government has been in office its whole economic policy has been marked by a process of cutting back on government expenditure and latterly increasing taxes with a view to reducing the deficit. What has happened? It has not reduced the deficit. The deficit this year will be $3.2 billion. The Government has not reduced the deficit as I have mentioned. Collectively, it is much higher than the deficit of the Labor Government. It has not done that because it has not been able to regenerate economic recovery. The Government has not been able to regenerate economic recovery because the policy that it has produced to reduce the deficit has created more unemployment. The higher the level of unemployment, the higher the level of the deficit. This is the basic economic lesson which this Government simply cannot understand. If one imposes policies to restrict demand, by increasing taxes and cutting government expenditure continuously with the aim of reducing the deficit, what in fact happens, and what has certainly happened year after year after year- it will happen again next year if these policies are continued- is that the Budget deficit blows out. That happens because there is a lot less people at work than expected and therefore there is less tax gained through personal income tax and from company tax. The Government also pays a lot more in unemployment benefits. The result is that the Budget deficit blows out.

The Government knows that the deficit blew out by 50 per cent last year. In a newspaper this morning it is estimated that the blowout will be 25 per cent. The whole continuous basis of the Government’s economic policy is based on a concept which is fundamentally wrong. It is based on the assumption that the Government can cut the Budget deficit by strict fiscal measures. These measures have not worked in the past and will not work in the future because the Government is winding down the economy. In the last financial year this has been offset to some extent by a very dramatic increase in farm incomes which has given a filip to demand and given the economy some semblance of regeneration. But that is going to be cut off at the socks again by these policies. The increase in taxescontinuation of the surcharge and not continuing with tax indexation and the rest of the packagemeans that the Government is going to be cutting back on demand even further. In doing that it is going to be winding the economy down, cutting back on demand and increasing unemployment. - The Treasurer admits that higher unemployment will result in January and February next year. Again the Treasurer admitted that the policy will not reduce inflation. So this whole policy is based on an assumption which is just fundamentally wrong. Surely this Government finally must start to see that its policies will not work this way.

If one looks at the countries which have managed to get their rate of inflation right down to 2 per cent and 3 per cent, such as West Germany and Japan, one finds that reaching those figures was not enough to get their economies moving again. They both had to increase public expenditure to try to get their economies moving again. Australia does not need packages, like this one, which deflate the economy and give much less chance of full employment than we had before. What Australia needs is entirely the opposite approach. We need a stimulatory approach which will increase government expenditure to a moderate degree and some reduction in taxes to get the economy going. That process in itself, of getting the economy moving, will reduce the deficit. If we could get back to somewhere near full employment the deficit would be automatically reduced.

The Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research at Melbourne University has estimated that last year’s Budget on a full employment level of activity represented a Budget surplus of $ 1 billion. The same will be even more true of next year’s Budget. On the figures now available it is likely to mean an ever more contractionary Budget. With full employment the Budget surplus would be much greater than $ 1 billion. This indicates the extraordinary nature of this Government’s policies. If only this Government could turn the policies around. If it had an expansionary stimulatory fiscal policy it could wipe out the deficit. The Opposition wants to do this but by the sensible approach of creating full employment, not by the mad economically irrational approach of creating more unemployment

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Drummond)

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

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

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

Dr EDWARDS:
Berowra

-I rise to support the statement of the Treasurer (Mr Howard) and to reject the amendment moved by the honourable member for Gellibrand (Mr Wills) which shows that the Australian Labor Party is as irresponsible in Opposition as it was in government. It is trotting out exactly the same old formulas for expanding Government spending merrily- the expansion was 46 per cent in 1974-75- with all the consequences that has for inflation and undermining the foundations and stability of the Australian economy. This debate is all about responsibility in government. It has been said that the Liberal-National Country Party Government is dishonouring commitments and promises. I say to the Parliament and the Australian people that the central and overriding election promise and commitment of this Government is to restore the Australian economy- to beat inflation and to get the economy on the path of economic growth with stability. That is the overriding commitment- and at this time that overriding commitment commands the measures the Treasurer announced last Thursday evening.

I have no doubt that the majority of Australian people recognise the central fact of life that, in the final analysis, all our national social and economic objectives are dependent on the achievement of a sound economy. Australia’s social and economic objectives- rising living standards and adequate provision of proper welfare services for the disadvantaged and the poor- together with the acceptance of our responsibilities on the world scene, in terms of aid to developing countries and fair trade in their products, and in respect of defence- we have to pull our weight in these matters and not just look to our friends for help- require a sound economy with inflation under control. It is growth in production and higher levels of new investment- in our mines, factories and farms, on roads and in our schools that make these things possible. I stress to the Parliament and the people that that overriding objective, the restoration of the economy- which this Government has largely done- the consolidation of the gains made, and thus keeping the recovery on track, is what last Thursday’s mini-Budget was all about. The majority of the Australian people, as indeed the thrust of most editorials in newspapers around the country, understand and appreciate that point.

If the mini-Budget means that certain commitments cannot be complied with fully all fair minded people will accept that those are of a lesser order than the central objective of consolidating the gains that have been achieved and building a sound and growing economy which is the essential basis for achieving these national social and economic objectives.

Because of what the honourable member for Gellibrand has just said it is important to stress that the gains that have been achieved are real. It is important to place some of these achievements on the record because in his speech and in the amendment he referred to the so-called recessed state of the Australian economy. Let me stress that the total volume of production- the real base for achieving the Government’s objectives- is up more than 10 per cent on the stagnant level of 1975. From listening to the Opposition one would think that nothing had happened -

Mr Howard:

– That it was down 1 0 per cent.

Dr EDWARDS:

-As the Treasurer has said, one would think that it was down 10 per cent. A more recent indicator, the Australia and New Zealand Bank index, shows that factory production is up 10 per cent and rising from the level of only Vh years ago, at the end of 1977. In the investment sphere, such as the building of new factories, far from there being a state of inactivity and stagnation there is a veritable ferment of activity. Investment spending in total last calendar year was up 23.5 per cent from 1977-15 per cent in real terms. Projects of massive and lasting structural significance are poised to go ahead, such as aluminium smelting and processing and the world scale plant of General MotorsHolden’s Ltd. These projects are a tribute to the restoration of the international competitiveness of the Australian economy which this Government has achieved since 1975. The Government has done this by more than halving inflation over that period and making an effective change in our international exchange rate. It is those achievements which are currently at risk and in particular the current acceleration of real activity in the economy which alone holds out the prospect of making a real impact in reducing the admittedly too high level of unemployment, especially in the youth area. Those things are at a risk primarily because of a potential resurgence of inflation which stems from the difficult outlook on the cost front, on which I shall not elaborate at the moment, and from the too rapid increase in the money supply- which, if it is permitted to eventuate, would feed, promote and enable greater inflation and inflationary expectations.

It is this Government’s purpose to prevent that by curbing what it is doing in the spending area, and to do that in conjunction with maintaining the Government’s means to finance its spending without having to print money. That is why it was proposed in the measures announced last Thursday night to maintain pay-as-you-earn tax deductions at the present level so far as the ordinary taxpayer is concerned. No one will pay more; no one will pay less. That needs to be clearly understood, because the Australian Labor Party has been busy creating the impression that on 1 July people will have to pay a lot more in PA YE tax deductions. That is the initial position. Thereafter, between now and the Budget of 2 1 August, when the Government will have the money in for 1978-79 and will know where it stands, specific decisions will be made about the two main features, that is, the 1.5 percentage points tax levy which, and I do not mince words, was to expire on 30 June and, secondly, the tax indexation changes- in effect, the reductions- for 1979-80. I stress again that the final decisions on these matters, are as of now, deferred.

In the meantime, as the contribution so to speak of personal taxpayers to consolidating the economic upturn, PAYE deductions will continue as they are now. There will be no change. Further, some taxes in the corporate sector have been increased or retained in order to spread the burden. The coal export levy, which was scheduled to end, has been retained. Then of course, there are to be reductions in the Government’s spending. The combined effect will be to prevent the Government contributing to the too rapid growth in the money supply and thus to inflation and the undermining of all that has been achieved since 1975.

The Treasurer has said that, on present indications, it is not likely to be possible to concede both the reduction in the present level of taxation by ending the surcharge and the further reduction involved in indexing the tax scale.

That has to be seen against the background of what the Fraser Government has been able to achieve by way of significantly reducing personal taxation. Tax indexation was introduced first in the 1976-77 financial year. The effect thenunfortunately many Australians did not realise it- was to reduce the total of tax paid below what it would have been by approximately $ 1 ,000m. In the 1977-78 financial year the effect of taxation indexation to 1 February 1978 plus the change in the rate scale which was then introduced, was to save taxpayers a further $ 1 ,300m. The cumulative effect was that the total tax was over $2,000m less than otherwise would have been the case. The continuation of indexation into 1978-79- as to half, because of course, the new rate scale had had only half a year to deteriorate so that so called ‘half indexation’ was not cheating anybody- together with the continuation of the new scale meant a further saving, despite the tax surcharge, of $700m in tax that otherwise would have been paid. Therefore, compared with what would have been paid, we have an accumulated reduction in taxation of over $3,000m. The effect of thus curbing the veritable tax harvest that used to take place when honourable members on the other side of this House were in government is brought out by this: The situation in 1978-79 is one in which total tax receipts, adjusting for the consumer price index, look like actually declining slightly, whereas in 1973-74 and 1974-75 tax receipts increased in real terms by about 20 per cent in each year. I seek permission to incorporate in Hansard a table showing particulars to that effect.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Drummond:
FORREST, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Is leave granted?

Mr Young:

– We have not seen it.

Dr EDWARDS:

-Perhaps the honourable member for Port Adelaide can look at it while I continue my remarks. I revert to the point I raised a while ago that on present indications it is not likely to be possible to concede both the reduction in taxation, by ending the surcharge, and the further reduction involved in indexing the tax scale. Perhaps that is to put the options confronting the Government somewhat too starkly. Indexation of the tax scales is designed not to reduce taxes but to maintain the status quo in terms of the proportion of income paid in tax in a context of inflation and rising incomes. It was never meant to rule out a real increase in taxation if national necessity demanded it, or to consolidate the economy and to meet national needs in respect of defence, capital spending and so on.

The second point I would make in that connection is that the Government has to look at the whole situation and, against the background of a full understanding of what would have been implied by indexation for 1979-80, make its decision about the tax surcharge. To express a personal view as to what should happen- I notice that my time has nearly expired- against the background of that full understanding, it might be considered that in lieu of the tax surcharge, which is perhaps something of a blunt instrument impacting unevenly on different income groups, there may be a recasting of the tax system which would spread the necessary burden of personal taxation as equitably as possible.

There are many possibilities. The recently publicised proposal of the Government’s health and welfare committee is one such possibility. The essential feature of that proposal is to give the option to families to be treated as a notional partnership for tax purposes, which would have the effect of greatly reducing the incidence of taxation in favour of Australian families. Such a new structure is consistent with any change, upwards or downwards, in the aggregate of taxes as circumstances come to reveal the need. I would predict that this change or other changes will enable an easing of the PA YE tax take after the Budget and, in the upshot a total of personal taxation for 1979-80 which is not significantly greater in real terms than it will be this year, thus preserving the essential and over-riding feature of the gains that the Government has achieved in this area. With that Australia will stay in the low tax category of the international league in terms of the total of taxation as a percentage of the gross domestic product. I have another table which I seek to incorporate in Hansard in order to illustrate that point.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Drummond:

Is leave granted?

Mr Young:

– No.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Leave is not granted.

Dr EDWARDS:

-This debate is all about economic responsibility and this Government’s commitment, its overriding promise, to consolidate the economic gains that it has achieved. That will be to the benefit of all Australians.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

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

Mr YOUNG:
Port Adelaide

-The Opposition is not concerned with the opinion expressed in this debate by the honourable member for Berowra (Dr Edwards), the Treasurer (Mr Howard) or the Minister for Defence (Mr Killen)

Dr Edwards:

– I rise on a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I do not think that the incorporation of the two simple tables has been cleared up. Because I was asked to speak earlier than had been scheduled on the speakers list I did not have time to approach the Opposition front bench regarding the incorporation of these tables. It has not been properly cleared up whether those two tables may be incorporated in Hansard at the points at which I suggested.

Mr YOUNG:

– It is cleared up as far as the Opposition is concerned. We have said: ‘ No ‘.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-The honourable member for Berowra will resume his seat. The honourable member for Port Adelaide indicated that he did not give leave for the documents to be incorporated in Hansard.

Mr Killen:

– Never again will you be given leave.

Mr YOUNG:

– We are not concerned about what the Minister for Defence says. He could not defend a fowlhouse let alone the country. It does not matter what he says, what the Treasurer says, or what the honourable member for Berowra says in this debate. This debate is about one person in this Parliament and one person only- that is, John Malcolm Fraser. The deception which this country–

Mr Killen:

– I raise a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The honourable gentleman, I submit, is clearly out of order in using the Christian and surnames of a member of this House.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-The honourable member for Port Adelaide will refer to the Prime Minister in the proper manner.

Mr YOUNG:

– The Government is so keen on comparing the integrity, the honesty and the performance in public office of this Prime Minister against the former Prime Minister, Gough Whitlam. He makes the present Prime Minister a pygmy of politics. The Prime Minister is so dishonest in what he has told the people of Australia that he does not deserve the high office of Prime Minister of this country. Everybody who is sitting on the Government benches knows it. We have had such a performance ever since the present Prime Minister took over the reins as Leader of the Opposition in 1975. Let us have a look at what has been printed for everybody in

Australia to read about the performance of the present Prime Minister, irrespective of what people call him. I can assure honourable members that there are a lot of pubs in Moreton in which the people are not calling him ‘Malcolm Fraser’, or ‘the present Prime Minister’. On 6 February 1975 the then Leader of the Opposition, the present Prime Minister, said:

Bill Snedden has my full support. I repeat, as I have said on numerous occasions, that I support the elected leadership of the Liberal Party . . . There is no contest. The issue was decided in November . . .

Six weeks later Malcolm Fraser successfully challenged Snedden for the leadership. That was on 21 March 1975. So his commitment to the leadership of the Liberal Party lasted six weeks. There is absolutely no doubt at all that when the present Prime Minister made his commitment to the then leader of the Liberal Party, Billy Snedden, who is now Speaker of the House, there was no commitment at all. Such performances have continued right up until last Thursday night. We should not worry about what the Treasurer said, as the newspapers are now indicating; we should look for the author. The author of that paper presented last Thursday night is the present Prime Minister, Malcolm Fraser. Let us have a look at what else he has said.

Mr Killen:

– I renew my point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The honourable gentleman is clearly out of order in referring to a member of this House in the way he has.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Drummond:

The honourable member -

Mr YOUNG:

-I take the point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. On 21 August 1975, the then Leader of the Opposition, Mr Fraser- I can understand the Minister for Defence being annoyed- stated:

At this stage, it’s our intention to allow the Budget passage through the Senate.

That was said by the spokesman, the Leader of the Opposition as he was then, Mr Fraser. Thirty-six days later the Liberal and National Country parties used their majority in the Senate to block the Budget. Again that was a commitment which was given publicly to the people of Australia. There was not one element of truth in the commitment which was given. Ever since then, in the way the Prime Minister took over the leadership of the Liberal Party and the way in which he continues to hold the people of Australia in the utmost contempt through what he says publicly, we have had the same sort of performance. There are a lot of other issues that we will examine. Let us look at the election speech of 27 November 1 975. It reads:

Only under a Liberal-National Country Party government will there be jobs for all who want to work.

Now we have record unemployment. Almost half a million people are out of work three and a half years after this Prime Minister made that commitment to the Australian people. Again the Prime Minister had absolutely no belief that he could carry out that commitment when he made it. Another 250,000 people have registered as unemployed in Australia since he became Prime Minister. According to the Institute of Applied Economics in Melbourne, 300,000 people described as hidden unemployed are not registered. So unemployment in Australia could be somewhere between 600,000 and 700,000 people. This is the situation three and a half years after the Prime Minister committed himself and his Government to full employment. Let us tear this claim about the Government’s economic responsibility to pieces. There is so much truth in what the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Hayden) said on Thursday night. He said: ‘This country is being run by a bunch of amateurs’. People are saying this all over Australia. On 12 September 1 978- that is not long ago, it is not even one year ago- the Prime Minister said:

Inflation at an annual rate of S per cent is within our reach by mid- 1979. It will go on falling under the policies of this Government . . .

Here we are in mid - 1979. Inflation is over 8 per cent a year and is on the rise. Between December 1978 and mid- 1979 the predicted 5 per cent inflation rate has gone out of the window. Was there any truth in the commitment which was made by the Prime Minister that in mid- 1 979 we would have an inflation rate of 5 per cent? There was absolutely no truth in it. The Minister for Defence knows there was no truth in the commitment made by the Prime Minister in December last year. Based on that commitment the Prime Minister told the pensioners of Australia that because inflation was going to be 5 per cent by mid- 1979, the Government would index their pensions only once a year. It was said that it was only as a result of high inflation that pensions were indexed twice annually. So the pensioners of Australia had to pay for some of the extravagant commitments of this Prime Minister. What was the $28m that this Government, this Prime Minister, saved by indexing pensions once annually spent on? It was not spent on an austerity program of saving money.

The speech of the Treasurer last Thursday night did not tell us about what the Prime Minister intended to do to tighten his belt. There was no reference to the fact that the $2 8m saved by indexing pensions once a year was being spent to buy two aeroplanes for the Prime Minister to fly around the world. In the latest reports it is stated that these aeroplanes will cost over $30m. Where is the reference to that in the Treasurer’s speech which tells the people of Australia that they have to tighten their belts? What is the relevance of what this Prime Minister is doing for himself, to the sacrifices he expects the pensioners of this country to make? When some honourable members opposite get up to defend the speech of last Thursday night, they should tell us about their commitment to the pensioners of Australia -

Mr Ruddock:

– I rise on a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The Prime Minister did refuse any salary increase last year in relation to his Prime Minister’s salary and allowances.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Drummond:

There is no substance in the point of order.

Mr YOUNG:

-I remind the honourable member for Dundas that the Prime Minister’s proposed wage increase last year was not $30m. That is what he has given himself in the purchase of the two VIP aircraft this year. If the Minister for Defence is asked in the party room about the cost of the VIP aircraft and he opts to tell the party room the truth, he will say that the Government will spend $30m- the $30m which it has taken off the pensioners- to pay for VIP aircraft for the Prime Minister to fly around the world.

Let us look at another of the Prime Minister’s promises. On 27 November 1975, because he was craving to be the Prime Minister of this country, he said:

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

Within a few months of coming to power this Prime Minister absolutely destroyed Medibank. There is evidence of another commitment he made which he had no intention of keeping. This Prime Minister, as the Minister for Defence so dearly likes to call him, will say anything at election time. He will tell the people of Australia any lie that has to be told in order to get votes. Let us look at the Government’s commitment to cut taxation. In the 1977 election campaign the Liberal-National Country Parties spent $lm on an advertisement stating: ‘Ring this number in any capital city and we will tell you how much tax you will save’. People rang the number and were told that under this Government’s scheme, a man with a wife and two children would save $6 or $7 a week. Within three months of that 1977 election, tax reform went straight out the window.

The people of Australia must understand that they cannot believe this Government. This Government is built on deception. The present Prime Minister became leader of his party through deception. He told his then leader, Mr Snedden, that he had his support. Within six weeks he had challenged Mr Snedden and had taken over his job. He told the people of Australia that the Senate would not be used to block the Budget, yet within 36 days the Senate was used to block the 1975 Budget. The commitment to pensioners, the commitment to wage earners and the commitment to groups in this community connected with health care, have all gone out the window because this Prime Minister cannot be believed. Anybody who in future believes anything that this Government tells the populace of Australia will get 11 out of 10 for being a Christian. We know what is going to happen in 1980. One can predict now what the present Prime Minister is going to tell the people of Australia in 1980. He will tell them: ‘Your taxes are going to go down; inflation is going to go down; we are going to find jobs for everybody’.

I refer the people of Australia, or those who believe that this Government will find them jobs, to an advertisement in a European newspaper. We have tens of thousands of unemployed kids walking around the streets of this country, yet this Government will not spend a penny on training them for the jobs and the skills that are needed in Australia. An advertisement in a West German newspaper says: ‘Contact the Australian Embassy. We want toolmakers, fitters, mechanics, boilermakers, ladies’ hairdressers, butchers, pastry cooks and bakers’. That is an advertisement in a West German newspaper for people to come to Australia to take the jobs that a decent government would be training Australian children to do. But this Government will not spend the money to train our young people. The Treasurer (Mr Howard) made only one reference to unemployment in his speech last Thursday night- one paragraph out of a 35 or 37 minute speech- and all it said was that the Government thought there were a few more people in the community from whom it could take unemployment benefits. Later on Thursday night, when the Treasurer appeared on the program Nationwide, a new tactic was used, a new formula of deceit by this Government. The Treasurer, followed on Friday morning by the Prime Minister, told us that next year the unemployment rate would be the same as this year and that the inflation rate would be the same. They will not be the same and the people of Australia ought to realise that.

We have a rotten, corrupt Government that cannot tell the truth, a Government that was built and lives on deception. It ought to be rejected. The Government and especially the Prime Minister, has no right to remain in office. In January of next year, unemployment will be well over 550,000. Yet all that this Government can do is employ a few more people in trench coats in the Department of Social Security to hound the young people of Australia in the hope that it can stop them getting $36 a week unemployment benefit. Australia desperately needs a government that will take on some of the problems that this country is facing. More than that, we need another person like Gough Whitlam We have such a person in Bill Hayden, who is honest and decent and whose integrity is accepted within the Australian community.

Government members interjecting-

Mr YOUNG:

– Government members can say what they like about Whitlam and they can say what they like about Hayden, but neither of them tells lies, and they are looked upon in the community as people of integrity and decency, people who try to overcome the problems. Under the Labor Government, there was not the corruption and deception that has gone on with this Government. I tell Government members that the Prime Minister is going to lead them right down the drain because the deception on which their Government is built will destroy them in the end. All they have to do is read the statements of the Prime Minister over the last three or four years. No one should and no one can believe anything he says on any issue.

The honourable member for Shortland (Mr Morris) has reminded me that in 1975 this Prime Minister said that Australia did not need a tourist as Prime Minister. This Prime Minister has been overseas once every 10 weeks at a cost to the Australian taxpayer of $3.1 m. So this man who three years ago told the people that Australia did not need a tourist as Prime Minister has made 17 trips overseas since becoming Prime Minister. Sooner or later- and I hope it is sooner rather than later- the people of Australia will realise that they need a decent government. I only hope that this Prime Minister will do what he did in 1975 and give us an election a year early. He should not wait until 1980 to let the people have some say.

Mr BAUME:
Macarthur

-It is always a little distressing to hear the synthetic fury of the honourable member for Port Adelaide (Mr Young). He pretends to be infuriated by the actions of a Government which, as the Treasurer (Mr Howard) said, has a sense of responsibility about what is happening now. To relate the sorts of problems that this nation faces to nonsense about VIP aircraft is pathetic. The level at which the honourable member for Port Adelaide endeavoured to discuss this matter was, I think, a disparaging situation for the whole of the Parliament.

Dr Edwards:

– While at the same time refusing to allow facts to be incorporated.

Mr BAUME:

– I suppose that it is representative of his style that he refused to allow the honourable member for Berowra (Dr Edwards) to incorporate in Hansard a factual statement.

Mr Young:

- Mr Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order.

Mr Roger Johnston:

– It had better be a point of order.

Mr Young:

– As soon as you have finished, I will say what my point of order is. Mr Deputy Speaker, there are certain courtesies to be observed in this House. One is that if a person wishes to incorporate a document in Hansard, he shows it to his counterpart on the other side of the House so that it can be viewed before incorporation takes place.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Drummond)Order!

Mr Young:

– Let me finish, Mr Deputy Speaker, because the question of whether I am right or wrong has been raised in the debate.

Mr BAUME:

– You can make a personal explanation afterwards.

Mr Young:

– It is not a matter of making a personal explanation. The honourable member raised the point and I will answer it.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! This is not the subject of a point of order. It is the subject of a personal explanation which the honourable member for Port Adelaide can make at a later time.

Mr Young:

– Well, I say that it is a point of order. The honourable member for Berowra was quite wrong and discourteous.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! I call the honourable member for Macarthur.

Mr BAUME:

-Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. That kind of disruption by the honourable member for Port Adelaide is typical of the style used by the Opposition in endeavouring to cover this whole discussion, with personalities, with smear and with nastiness. We have a serious issue which should be discussed in this place, and the discussion should revolve around the serious question of whether a government, when it finds that there is a need for change in its policies, should make those changes. I remind the House and I remind the people of Australia of what happened in 1973 when a government came to power and made promises that involved the spending of large amounts of money. There are many people who would regard it as commendable that the Government at that time proceeded to spend not only the money it promised it would spend but much more. It proceeded to honour the undertakings it had given in the 1 972 election campaign. As I say, there are many people who would find that commendable. The facts are that by honouring those commitments, by going ahead with that extraordinarily massive volume of spending- a huge increase of 120 per cent in the time it was in office- by pursuing that enormous increase, it brought about the destruction of the Australian economy.

The big question that one has to ask when considering those huge rates of inflation at that time- I am afraid that they can be seen simply by looking at the statistics- is: What was in the best interests of Australians. Was it that these huge handout programs should proceed or was it that the Government of the day should have recognised the changing situation? The foreign situation had changed, oil prices had gone up and inflation had taken place around the world. The then Government decided that its commitment to its own programs was far more important than the health of the Australian economy. It decided that it was certainly far more important than the pensioners who were the people worst hit by the inflation that followed. The previous government had an approach different from that of this Government. For example, this Government does not have the approach of the honourable member for Gellibrand (Mr Willis) who castigated the Government a short while ago. Let us remember the economic policy in which the honourable member for Gellibrand really believes. When talking about when the Labor Government would next gain office he said: . . . we would face a mammoth task in rebuilding the public sector- and maybe an equally mammoth task in convincing the electorate that it should pay a higher level of tax to enable us to do so.

That is the heart and soul of Labor policy. That is why I contrast what this Government is doing and what happened under the Labor Government. From everything that we have heard today it seems that the Labor Party regards it as improper and immoral that the Government should do what is right for the nation as a whole, particularly the people who will suffer from a massive upsurge in inflation. The current level of inflation has begun to increase. If we did not take tough measures, if we had the sort of government that was in office from 1973 to 1975, inflation would get out of control.

Why did the Government have to go back on is undertakings? Let us recognise the fact that it has done so. There is no point in trying to escape it. Why did it have to make that determined decision? The answer is very simple. It is, in the main, that there has been a 14 per cent increase in food prices. Is it the Government’s fault that that increase has had the major single impact on the cost of living of all the factors that influence it? The 14 per cent increase in food prices is a direct consequence of the recovery in the rural sector, including the recovery in the prices of cattle. At last that recovery has come and the man on the land is not in continual danger of going broke. Thank heavens that the recovery in the prices of cattle eventually came. It has ensured that the man on the land will get a fair deal at last. The Opposition knows perfectly well that this is the major single reason for the increase in inflation in recent times. Despite that, it has been pretending that there is something sinister and wicked about what the Government has done.

The Government has recognised that the situation has changed since the last Budget. None of the honourable members opposite was aware at the time that inflation, as a result of higher food prices, particularly cattle prices, would reach the sort of level that it has. So it is nonsense and hypocrisy for Opposition members to attack the Government. I suggest that equally it is nonsense and hypocrisy for the newspapers who have been attacking this Government and demanding that it reduce government spending to complain now when the Government is reducing its spending. We should recognise that the Government spends money only on services to the public. Very little money is spent on the Government itself. All the talk we have heard about VIP aircraft from people such as the honourable members for Port Adelaide represents the same kind of hypocrisy. The honourable member for Port Adelaide knows perfectly well that for 80 per cent of the time those aircraft are to be used for the transport of defence personnel. He is aware of that statistic. The people of Australia should be aware of that statistic, although it does not seem to have been given much airplay on the television or radio and it does not seem to have appeared in many newspapers. Trying to relate minute items of expenditure such as that to a Budget deficit of thousands of millions of dollars strikes me as a typical example of the way in which minutia or relatively small items can be blown up to inflame the public in a situation like this.

Taxes on take home pay have not been increased. No tough measures affecting pensioners or the disadvantaged were contained in the Treasurer’s economic statement. I admit that from reading the newspapers the statement sounded as though it was the next thing to the end of the world. Only a tiny fraction of the money being spent goes to the Government itself. Health and welfare payments alone account for almost 40c in every dollar of Federal spending. Education takes 9c. Defence also takes about 9c in the dollar. Payments to the States and local government account for about 25c. This leaves very little else for the Government to prune in order to cut its taxes. I ask honourable members to remember this: The only way in which the Government can raise money to spend on people is either to tax other people or to raise it in the market. If its taxes are too low and it has to raise too much from people in the form of loans interest rates are pushed up. If it does not want to borrow so much it has to tax people more, and, of course, people then complain.

I suggest very strongly that what has suddenly gone wrong- it has suddenly gone wrong- is that the Government which had every intention and determination to maintain its previous policy of reducing taxes has faced a different situation this year. I question the complaints by the honourable member for Port Adelaide about the integrity of this Government. This is the first government since the war which has been able to reduce in real terms, after accounting for inflation, the volume of income tax paid by Australians. That has not happened since the war. It has not happened since the States lost their tax powers. Yet the Opposition in its hypocrisy keeps alleging falsely that this is a high tax government. The facts clearly demonstrate- I have had them incorporated in Hansard in the past- that the level of tax revenue raised by this Government this year is lower than that in the previous year.

The Opposition when in government was responsible for a Budget which proclaimed a 22 per cent increase in wages along with a 44 per cent increase in pay-as-you-earn income tax. That Budget was introduced by the present Leader of the Opposition (Mr Hayden). The increase in income tax was double the rise in wages. Any opposition that fails to recognise that it has a policy of high taxes has no right to complain about a government which has demonstrated that it has reduced taxes. Regrettably, the Government is unable to continue at the moment with its policy of reducing taxes but it has deferred its decision on the way in which will reduce taxes later this year. It is quite proper that this should take place in the Budget itself. I stress strongly that the Budget is the right time to find out how that is to be done. I hope the Government decides that it will retain full indexation of taxes. This is the key issue. The indexation of tax forces governments to be honest. We introduced indexation. It has stopped the old system under which a former Treasurer, the Leader of the Opposition, was able to double the rate of tax collections compared with the rate of wages increases. We have stopped that happening.

The only reason we are being subjected to criticism now is the new taxation system that we introduced which forces governments to be honest. It is extraordinary that the Opposition and so many newspapers are now attacking the Government for having to come forward and say honestly that it cannot do what it wanted to do. Is there anything more honest than a government being forced by the very legislation it has introduced to say: ‘We are not collecting enough tax. We regret that we have to maintain last year’s surcharge but we are not increasing the amount of tax deducted from anyone’s pay packet. ‘

The other unfortunate situation that is developing out of this debate is that there are allegations that the Government’s policies for economic recovery are not working. We heard the honourable member for Gellibrand express himself in most extraordinary terms about the increase in unemployment. What the Opposition in this place is never prepared to concede is that there are now 200,000 more Australians in work. In fact, the exact figure is 204,800 more Australians at work- according to the latest employment figures- than there were for the same month when the Labor Government was in office.

Dr Edwards:

– That includes the self-employed.

Mr BAUME:

-That includes the selfemployed, as the honourable member for Berowra has interjected. The fact is that the policies of this Government are working. They may well be not working fast enough but I ask honourable members to contrast them with the decline in employment that took place in only one year under Labor. Let us compare the situation in respect of young men. Jobs for 22,000 young men were lost in the last year of the Labor Government. Under this Government there are now 44,000 more young males at work. The basic reason for the continuing unemployment problem largely revolves around the crisis for young women as many more married women and senior women are now making it more difficult for young women to get jobs. To hear the sorts of discussions in this House based on hypocrisy, based, I am afraid, on personal abuse- that is what the Opposition has been doing- when we have here a matter of major principle is most disturbing.

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

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
Smith · Kingsford

– One would think, having listened to the speech by the honourable member for Macarthur (Mr Baume), that everything in this country was improving. But when one recalls what the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) and the Treasurer (Mr Howard) both had to say in the House and on television for the first time about the measures to have effect from Thursday last one has to face up to the dreadful position that we know has existed for some time and that is that things are deteriorating rapidly. They are deteriorating basically because of the matters that the Opposition has mentioned in the amendment to the motion that the House take note of the paper. It is incredible that this nation has been told over the air waves that things will be all right perhaps in another two or three months’ time. The Government has said: ‘Wait till November and we will have another look at the situation. We may be able to do something for you then but we cannot do it now ‘. Is this the way to run the economy of this nation?

The Opposition’s amendment outlines the target of what we are about in this debate. I ask honourable members to bear in mind that this is the Government’s debate. It is a debate of its own choosing. A motion has been moved that the House take note of the Treasurer’s statement. What are we to note about the statement? We are able to say that every promise that this Government has made has been broken. That is the reason we have moved the amendment. If a government cannot maintain the credibility and honesty of its purpose it is not entitled to remain in office. If this Government were to go to an election next week it would be defeated and defeated soundly. It would be defeated because it cannot be trusted and not on any other issue. It has no credibility. That is the point we want to put forcibly in any debate of this nature. How can we trust a Prime Minister when in reply to questions in this House we get answers which are not true? Let us look at the situation. A question was asked by myself as recently as 1 March last of the Prime Minister. I asked whether the income tax surcharge would still be maintained after 1 July or would it be only a temporary measure as he told the Parliament last year. His answer quite plainly was:

That commitment stands.

For how long did it stand? It stood for about 60 days. It has evaporated. The commitment never had a chance to stand. When the question was asked on 1 March it was known to the Government that the commitment was going to be removed. Why could not the Prime Minister tell the nation that that was the position? It is not only on that issue that we have heard nonsense. We hear a good deal of nonsense from Government members who say: ‘Really, taxation has not increased; do not worry about it; it is going to be the same as before’. But the surcharge on a percentage factor has gone up from 1.5 per cent to 2.57 per cent. The real thimble and pea trick is being played on the people again. This increased surcharge will apply for 12 months at that rate. Before it applied for only seven months. The position is that this Government was elected to office on the basis that it would reduce taxation. Anyone who looks at the statistics will find what the Government had done to the poor unfortunate electors who were stupid enough to vote for this Government. In the last Budget when it brought in this surcharge it increased taxation on every wage earner getting between $120 and $220 a week. It increased tax on a percentage scale. We do not want to listen to the nonsense coming from the other side of the House suggesting that there has been no change.

There are dramatic changes in other hidden factors. There are complaints about food prices going up. Anyone who listens to the Prime Minister would think that all our troubles are due to the fact that the fellow on the. land is getting more for his beef or wheat. One would think that that is the cause of the Government’s troubles. Have honourable members ever heard anything more ridiculous in their lives than that the whole blame for the economic mess is due to the improvement in the rural sector? I hope that the members of the National Country Party take an interest in what I am saying although not one of them is in the House at the moment. The fact is that the whole of the blame goes on to the rural producer. The honourable member for Macarthur talked about how dreadful it is that there has been a 14 per cent increase in food prices. If the honourable member has a look at the last consumer price index he will see that a very small section of it is related to food. The big increase is yet to come. It will come in the next quarter. What will be the excuse then? Again Government supporters will say that the country is doing too well. But because the man on the land is doing well do we all have to go broke and go into the poor-house?

Mr Baume:

– No.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:

-That is the argument of the honourable member. He is saying that the Government cannot manage the economy because too much money is being received for our rural produce. I have never heard anything so ridiculous in all my life. The real issue that we of the Opposition want to put before the Australian people is what has happened to the credibility of the Government. Last year we spent most of our time debating this Government’s lack of integrity, whether the matter related to the appointment of a former Governor-General to the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation, whether it related to a computer contract with Facom Australia Ltd or whether it related to a redistribution in Queensland in what is known as the Withers affair. In every one of those matters there was a lack of integrity. Now in respect of the economy the Government says:

Promise the people what you like; we do not have to maintain the promise; we only have to get the votes! What a litany of promises it is! The Government said: ‘We are going to maintain wage indexation’. It has not been maintained. In fact, it has been opposed bitterly whenever the unfortunate trade union movement has tried to get wage indexation at national wage case hearings. Another Government promise was half yearly indexation of the old age pension and other pensions. We were besieged in Canberra last week and the week before by pensioners saying: ‘Cannot you give us what you promised us? Cannot you give us indexation because the cost of living goes up on us and we have to pay for it? If you do not give us indexation our standard of living drops. ‘ Analysis has shown that the standard of living for pensioners is affected because the rate for a single pensioner has dropped by about $2.20 a week and for a married couple by $3.70. Now pensioners are getting that much less. That is another broken promise of this Government.

Another promise was that there would be at least a 2 per cent reduction in interest rates. But interest rates have been increased again. The

Government cannot hold the money supply. It does not know where it is. It has gone on to the loan market bidding in interest terms to try to get back the volume of money which has escalated to 1 1 per cent as against what was deemed by the Government to be a normal supply at 7 per cent or 8 per cent. It has gone into the loan market and escalated interest rates which affects everybody who uses borrowed capital. Every home owner has to pay more money now because of the incompetence of this Government. These are the points that ought to be driven home. Another broken promise was: ‘There will be jobs for all who want to work’. Australia has the highest unemployment level ever. Over 7 per cent of the work force are unemployed. The latest statistics issued last week by the Australian Bureau of Statistics show that as well as the unemployed who number approximately 450,000, another 370,000 people would take a job if they were offered one. In the vicinity of 800,000 people in this nation would be anxious to work if they could get a job. This Government cannot provide the work. Those honourable members who take part in election campaigns, as we on this side do, would know as well as you do, Mr Deputy Speaker, that in Victoria the question in the building industry is: ‘Where is the next job after this one?’ There is not one major project to go on in Melbourne after the present projects are completed. There is no future at all for the whole of the building industry.

The money to be made available to the States for housing has been chopped by about 37 per cent. So there will be much less money for housing programs. What about apprenticeships for people in the building industry, particularly in New South Wales? In that State 4,000 applicants could hot get apprenticeships in the building industry last year. The Government talks about jobs for all who want to work. The Government has an unfortunate member here in Canberra who suggests that the best thing to do is not to pay people the dole, particularly if they are under the age of 25. This is the penalties type of approach that we get from the Government. It is okay if you are wealthy, if you have your own business or if it has been left to you by your father or grandfather. That is the sort of government we have opposite. How many of its members have established their own way in life? How many of them have been able to say they have been able gainfully to employ others? Yet the Government comes in here with this sort of nonsense that there are jobs for all. All honourable members on the Government side know that in all their electorates there is massive unemployment. There are as many as 40 applicants for every job for people under the age of 19. Yet the Government wants to make that sort of accusation.

The Government says: ‘Medibank will be maintained ‘. Can you imagine it? Medibank now is laughable. It is a myth. It should never even have been mentioned. As a result of the speech we are now discussing, everybody will be paying about $4 a week more in health insurance. That is the result of this scrappy arrangement the Government makes from 6 months to 6 months. As my colleague the honourable member for Prospect (Dr Klugman) says, the Government has no policy at all. It just depends periodically on what it wants to do and anything it does costs the unfortunate worker more money. The Government says that the Australian Assistance Plan will be maintained. That disappeared almost overnight. It was one of the plans that had some community inspiration. It had in it the concept that people in Australia might be able to do something for themselves, particularly when we have an incompetent government. At least the Government could have given them some assistance to establish matters that would be of benefit to their fellows in the community. That plan has been abolished.

The Government also says that the deficit will be brought under control. What an incredible statement that is. We now have deficits of a nature that would make the Labor Government’s deficits pale into insignificance. Today they are deemed to be due to the oil crisis. Two things were mentioned today by the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Anthony). He said it was costing too much money for beef and too much money for oil. How stupid is it? Let me put on record what happened during the Labor Party’s time in office. We met the oil crisis and the oil hike of 1973. Nobody gave us the excuse that inflation was due to the oil crisis. Honourable members opposite also should remember what happened when the Labor Government went to the Australian people in December. Cattle prices were high then and we were talking about getting some price control. The Labor Government went to the Australian people and said: ‘Can we try and get some control over the economy?’ The answer was: ‘No, the States know how to do it best.’ The Labor Party was denied the opportunity to do it. Honourable members on the Government side need not come in here and bleat about the Government’s troubles being due to the fact that the rural man is doing well and that there is a sudden oil crisis. Those things have been apparent all the time.

Consider what the Government did as recently as last Thursday when it brought in this stupid statement saying that everybody is going to pay more tax. On the same legislative program the Government had 6 bills which abolished any taxes at all on capital. The Government talks about who is going to get the benefit. It is very easy to see the Governments priorities. From the Labor Party’s point of view, the Government certainly does not want to assist the Australian nation. Here we are talking in this debate- one which the Government wanted to bring onabout what the Government thinks are the merits of the statement. In that statement the Government admits that it does not even know which way it is going until after November next. Surely anybody in their right mind would have an economic policy by now, and it would not be aimed at increasing unemployment. Yet that is what the Government’s budgetary measures will do. A sound economic policy would not be aimed at increasing inflation, yet the Government’s measures will mean that we will go to double digit inflation within six months. A sound economic policy would not increase interest rates, yet they have gone up rather than down.

All I can hear from the other side is: ‘What are you going to do about it?’ The first thing the Labor Party would do is remove the Prime Minister. I suggest that the Government have a good look at that suggestion and do not leave it to somebody in the Senate to arrange. The only chance the Government has is to remove Fraser as Prime Minister. The Government can use that suggestion as the title of its next picture production.

Let us consider how the Government has failed. Bear in mind that the Government sought an early election. It went to the GovernorGeneral and said that it needed an election ahead of time because it wanted to get economic stability from the programs it had operating. If that was the reason why the Government got an early election in 1977- the reasons have now been disclosed- why does it not go back to the people and say that it acted on a false pretence? If the Government’s economic policy was so stable, so well known and so identifiable in 1 977 that it could get an early election, why should it not still obtain? If it does not still obtain, due to the fact that the Government has an incompetent Prime Minister, then why should it not remove him? The Prime Minister’s rating before the Treasurer’s announcement on Thursday last was 35 per cent. I suggest that it is now down in the middle 20s and most of that support would come from the Melbourne Club establishment. It would not come from anywhere else. It is no good for the Deputy Prime Minister to laugh. He should be trying to defend the attack on the people who think he ought to be looking after them. To say that they are getting too much money for their beef and too much money for their wheat and that that is the reason why the Government is in so much trouble is laughable.

The real issue that the Labor Party wants to put before the people is that the Government has no programs at all. If the Government wants to talk about unemployment, and it is right upon us, it should talk about the changes that are coming in industry, such as computer technology, the massive reduction in staff that is going to take place in the services industry, the banking industry, the insurance industry and particularly in the retail sales area. What is the Government doing about those things? Where is the Government’s analysis of what it is going to do for the people? Is the forecast of a million unemployed by 1982 to be the real issue? If that many will be unemployed, why does not the Government face up to it? It should not just come in here now, on the basis that open confession is good for the soul, and tell us all of a sudden what it expects.

The people in our electorates are getting less money than ever now because of an incompetent Government. The only solution for these people is to remember the promises made and how the Government broke them. They are about 18 in number. The Government can never be trusted again. The Labor Party notes the statement with the amendment that the Government should be rejected as an economic manager. The next time the Government goes to the people the issue will be memories- memories of issues and the promises the Government failed to keep.

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

Mr ANTHONY:
Minister for Trade and Resources · Richmond · NCP/NP

– We have listened to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Lionel Bowen) talking about the popularity of the Government and the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser). I considered the popularity of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition while he was speaking. There were three disinterested members of the Opposition in the House to hear him. Now there is not one member of the Opposition here to listen to what they consider is a most important economic debate. Oh, I am pleased that two have now come back. They are the bastion of the alternative government. Two members of the Opposition are interested in economic debate.

Members of the Labor Party can argue until the cows come home about tax surcharges, tax indexation and all the rest, but nothing can change the simple fact that the Australian nation is living beyond its means. Australians, as individuals and as families, know that they cannot keep on spending more than they earn. Yet, for some reason, many people think that the country as a whole- (Cmo/k/w formed). There are no Labor men in the House. It is very nice to have only members of the Liberal and National Country parties here. Really, I was hoping that there would be more Labor members here because they are the ones who need educating on the economic realities of life.

The economic realities of this country are that the rate of government expenditure and the emerging inflationary pressures prompted action by the Government to ensure that the nation’s economic management is kept on course. Economic recovery is underway and must not be jeopardised by a lack of resolution by the Government to do what must be done even at the risk of being accused by some that we are forfeiting earlier commitments. As the Treasurer (Mr Howard) has already said, when the Government looked at the estimates for the costs of the things it wanted to do in the next financial year it was faced with a deficit of $4,600m; that is, if we were to do all the things we want to do we would end up $4,600m in the red. We would spend $4,600m more than we collect. That level of over-expenditure would lead to inflationary pressures. In turn, we would have worse unemployment. Inflation is the basic cause of unemployment. Inflation is the economic monster that devours all; it is the destroyer of modern society.

Australia’s economic troubles stem basically from the implementation of the Labor Party’s philosophy, which is diametrically opposed to ours. The Labor Party believes that governments can spend more than they earn. Even though the Labor Party is prepared to spend more it is not prepared to take the consequences of its actions. The strange thing is that the Labor Party still blindly denies that it, and it alone, is responsible for the economic problems of this country today. It was Labor’s give-away policies and its runaway expenditure programs which created inflation and unemployment in this country.

The Labor Party believes that there is no need for people to earn their way in life. The Labor

Party believes that everyone is entitled to something for nothing. In other words, members of the Labor Party are big spenders and heavy taxers and they stand for big government. The death knell of democracy is big taxes and big government. We believe in maintaining democracy and free enterprise. The Labor Party believes that those who do not work and who do not feel any responsibility to make a contribution to the community have an automatic right to be supported by the workers, by the taxpayers. The people who save and invest are the people who pay the taxes. The Labor Party believes that virtually every demand can be met without worrying at all about the costs or the consequences. That is why we are still experiencing the aftermath of Labor’s disastrous economic policies.

Some basic facts of economic life need to be understood. The main thing that the Australian people are learning is that if they want things they will have to pay for them one way or the other. There is a growing realisation in our community that if spending on health, welfare and other areas continues to grow at recent rates the nation will be crippled economically. Despite the criticism which the spending restraint causes, the Government is determined to maintain downward pressures on inflation because that is the only way in which to achieve lasting economic recovery and that is the only answer to Australia ‘s employment problem.

The downward pressures have to be increased in view of the renewed inflationary pressures. With the international oil price increases and with the increases in commodity prices, particularly the effects that they are having on the domestic market, it is necessary for the Government to accept its responsibility and take appropriate action. The Government had no alternative but to continue the tax surcharge and delay full tax indexation. It would have been completely irresponsible to do otherwise. No one likes to have to go back on earlier commitments. We certainly did not want to do so but we recognised that if we did not do so we would be imposing an enormous burden on the economy. It would have been foolish for the Government to implement these undertakings, at a cost of more than $1,1 00m in the next financial year, when it had to face a Budget deficit of $4,600m.

No doubt people are disappointed that the Government has been unable to do what it wanted to do. I believe that when the people understand the situation fully they will accept that it was impossible for us to do otherwise. One thing which is not fully understood yet is that the effect of the tax decision is that people will not have to pay any increase in tax. There will be no increase in tax. The Labor Party is trying to lead people to believe there will be. The Opposition is trying to deceive the people into believing that they will be paying more tax over the next few months than they are paying now. That is simply not true. Certainly people will pay more tax than they would have paid if it had been possible to end the surcharge, but they will not be paying more than they are paying now. In fact, they will be paying a lot less than they would have been paying if the tax scales introduced by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Hayden) had still applied.

People have to accept that governments cannot go on spending when they do not have the money. If they want the Government to spend money at the rate at which it has been spent in recent years they will have to give it more money. There is no way of meeting our commitments other than cutting government expenditure or raising more money. People are starting to understand that they cannot realistically expect the Government to meet the needs which they expect it to meet unless these requirements are met. Everyone agrees that pensioners and disadvantaged people should not be denied adequate health care. But the average person who can cope with ordinary costs should do so. It is important that everyone be safeguarded against the personal disaster which can result from a big and unexpected medical bill. This is guaranteed by the Government’s payment of all scheduled medical costs in excess of $20. Most people will have private health insurance, but even those who choose not to or who feel that they cannot afford it will have access to reasonable and adequate health care. It is significant to note that despite the spending restraint already in operation virtually every group which has put a submission to the Government in recent times has said that there ought to be further restraint in government spending and has urged us to take necessary action.

The signs of economic recovery which are emerging, whilst encouraging, carry also a warning. The encouragement is to be found in the widespread recovery which has occurred in the farming industries, in rising consumer spending in exports, in borrowings for home building, in higher investments and in increased production. The higher level of confidence in Australia is also being reflected in higher inflows of capital from overseas. The economy is showing real growth. Whilst unemployment remains too high it is significant that private sector employment has been rising since last August. Employers are now finding it possible to take on people. Encouraging progress has been made also in getting inflation down, progress which has been the springboard for the economic improvement we are now seeing. Not many other countries have shown as good a performance as ours.

For a long time other Ministers and I have been emphasising that the only way in which we can achieve substantial and lasting reductions in interest rates is by achieving substantial and lasting reductions in the rate of inflation. To do so, we have to get the Budget deficit under control and keep a firm grip on the supply of money. It is easy for people to come forward with advice about the monetary and other policies the Government should adopt, but there is one factor about which there can be no argument, that is, that the control of inflation must remain our fundamental objective. An inflation rate out of control, as it was four years ago will frustrate any efforts to reduce interest rates and to maintain rising investment and consumption in this country. Continuing control of inflation must be achieved if economic recovery is to be soundly based and sustainable and if lasting reductions in unemployment are to result.

It is evident that the task of getting inflation and interest rates down will become harder the further we try to go. The most recent movement in prices underlines that fact. But those movements should not distract us from our goals. To the contrary, we should reinforce our commitment to the course we have set ourselves. If anything, the movement in prices should strengthen our determination to attack inflation with every weapon we can use. There must be an unequivocal public recognition of the need for the Government to stick firmly to its policies, and that is what we are doing. It would be a tragedy if the gains we have won were thrown away. Those gains, I have to say, are fragile and they are under threat. They are threatened by the less than complete acceptance by the community of the need to continue restraint on Government spending. They are threatened by the increasing cost of energy, a threat which we must offset by a realistic attitude to the way we use energy. Those gains are threatened by the demands for substantial wage increases at a time when such increases would have only a damaging effect on the recovery now under way.

I have already mentioned the lift in private sector employment. Sharp rises in wages at this time would be the surest way to reverse the encouraging trend in this direction. The gains we have made are certainly threatened by industrial disruption which is cutting our exports by millions of dollars and hurting Australia in the eyes of the world which looks to us as a dependable and reliable trading partner. It would be bitter irony if the greed of some sections of the work force were to lead to additional costs and to frustration of the very developments which offer expanded job opportunities to less fortunate fellow workers in the community. Every Australian must join in the effort to resist these threats that I have mentioned. There must be a clear understanding of the dangers we face if we were to be so foolish as to relax the grip now and to start the slide back into the economic stagnation we have been fighting so hard and so successfully in recent years. Whether we win this fight depends not just on governments but on every man and woman in this country recognising that certain restraints are necessary.

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

Mr ARMITAGE:
Chifley

-We have just listened to the Deputy Prime Minister of Australia.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– I suggest that it may be better if we rise now.

Mr ARMITAGE:

– I would like to have him in the House while I deal with him.

Sitting suspended from 5.58 to 8 p.m.

Mr ARMITAGE:
Chifley

-Mr Acting Speaker, when the sitting was suspended two and half minutes early for the dinner recess, I had risen but was not allowed to speak. I wanted to deal with the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Anthony), and I would not have needed more than two and a half minutes. When the Deputy Prime Minister, the Leader of the National Country Party, was speaking a quorum had to be called because not even the members of his own party were present. I wished to raise the matter dealth with in the statement of the Treasurer ( Mr Howard) relating to tax avoidance. All honourable members know that the Deputy Prime Minister has a family trust for the purpose of incomesplitting and tax avoidance, yet the House was adjourned two and a half minutes early and before I could raise that matter.

I think I should have been permitted the opportunity to speak, instead of being sat down, squashed, gagged when I wanted to raise the very issue of the tax avoidance being carried out by the Deputy Prime Minister of this country, of all people. However, such a practice is natural because we know that the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) has done the same thing for the purpose of tax avoidance and for the avoidance of estate duty. The Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party (Mr Lynch) has undertaken the same sort of activity. Yet the Government dares to mention the question of tax avoidance in the statement we are debating, an issue which is fundamental so far as raising revenue in this country is concerned. The honourable member for Gellibrand (Mr Willis) and I tried to table a document which had been read out, a document prepared by Taxation Office officials, and which came off the back of a truck. This document shows quite clearly that the most rampant taxation avoidance scheme in this country is that relating to family trusts. How many members on the Government side of the House are involved in this tax avoidance racket? That is what the Opposition wants to know. How many millionaires are there?

Mr Calder:

– How many?

Mr ARMITAGE:

– I understand that the latest estimate shows that there are 2,472 millionaires in Australia. We know that the honourable member for Barton (Mr Bradfield) is one of them. We know that the Deputy Prime Minister is one of them. We know that the Prime Minister is one of them. How many more members sitting on the Government benches are in that category? Is it any wonder that the policies carried out by this Government are directed deliberately towards making the rich richer and the poor poorer? I wish to deal now with a few other matters.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-Order! Before the honourable member for Chifley proceeds, I point out to him that it is my clear understanding from observing the pre-dinner proceedings that the intention of the House was to provide a maximum opportunity for him to make his speech without interruption. That may well be the case.

Mr ARMITAGE:

– Nobody approached me on that matter. I stood up to speak and I was sat down by the Deputy Speaker because he had made the decision that I should not have that two and a half minutes. I did not make the decision. The Deputy Speaker made it because he knew that I was about to reveal the facts concerning the Deputy Prime Minister, and I needed only two and a half minutes to do it.

I now wish to deal with another question, that of the broken promises of this Government. I will outline thirteen which I can think of off the top of my head- the lucky thirteen. We all know there are many more than that. The people of Australia are saying: ‘When is he going to live up to a promise?’ I believe that the Public Service was asked recently to establish how many promises the Prime Minister had implemented. It is unfortunate, but the Treasury could not answer the question. It could not find any that he had implemented. Let me return to the lucky 13 promises. The Prime Minister undertook to maintain tax indexation. We all know what has happened there. He has opposed tax indexation at every opportunity in the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. He has even fiddled with the consumer price index, and that is evident at page 16 of the statement, where the Treasurer sets out to fiddle the figures so far as the CPI is concerned. The Prime Minister undertook to apply half-yearly indexation to pensions. We know what happened there. In the last Budget the Prime Minister wiped half-yearly indexation. He could have given that little benefit. Half-yearly indexation would amount to $30m, a comparatively small amount in a mammoth Commonwealth revenue, but the Prime Minister was not prepared to give it.

We now have a situation contrary to that which existed when the Opposition was in government. Pensioners were given automatic six-monthly indexation by the Labor Party. During the 1972 election campaign we undertook to give pensioners 25 per cent of average weekly earnings. When we came to power we lived up to that promise. The present Government then enshrined that in legislation, although it had already been done by the Labor Government. Members of this Government made big boys of themselves, as though it was about to be done. But in this Government’s last Budget it wiped six-monthly indexation in order to save a mere pittance of $30m, a very small amount compared with the total amount in the Budget. The Prime Minister said that he would maintain Medibank and the community health scheme. He has decimated both. Medibank is now completely finished, yet in 1 975 the Prime Minister undertook not to interfere with Medibank. He undertook not to interfere with the community health program, yet today the block grants are being reduced so dramatically that the community health program now is no longer the scheme that it was originally.

The Prime Minister said that he would reduce the money supply yet it has been increasing dramatically in recent times. In the last Budget the Prime Minister said that by 30 June this year inflation would be down to 5 per cent. Inflation is not down to 5 per cent, it is increasing. It is now nearer to 9 per cent and is expected to go through the roof and into double figures by the end of this year. The Prime Minister undertook in 1975 that there would be jobs for everyone who wanted to work. What we have now is record unemployment throughout this country. He said that he would maintain the urban development scheme, but we know what happened there. There was a fight on that issue between the then Senator Greenwood and the Prime Minister. It was a tragic night. The urban development scheme was wiped. It was a scheme which did much for areas such as the one I represent in the outer western suburbs of Sydney.

Mr Howe:

– And Melbourne.

Mr ARMITAGE:

– And Melbourne; I quite agree with the honourable member. It was a scheme which could do something for the quality of life in those regions where, heaven knows, it was needed. Nevertheless, it was scrubbed by the Prime Minister, who gave a firm undertaking in 1975 to keep it. The Prime Minister said that he would delete the tax surcharge on 30 June this year. We know what that statement says: The surcharge is to be maintained. We should not kid ourselves, because it will be maintained in the future. The tax surcharge in reality has been increased from 1.5 per cent to 2.57 per cent. In this coming financial year the Government will collect $ 1,320m as a result of that increase instead of the $880m it received last financial year. The Prime Minister said that he would retain tax indexation. He promised tax indexation. Last year he gave us half indexation. He now refuses to indicate whether he will give full indexation this coming financial year. There is no doubt that he will settle for something around half indexation or thereabouts this coming financial year as well. That will be another broken promise.

He said that he would maintain the children’s services program. That program has been utterly decimated. Instead of having a decent child care and pre-school kindergarten program today we have only a few odd grants which are made mainly in Liberal Party electorates to pad up the sitting members. He said that he would not interfere with the home loan interest program. Honourable members will remember the promise made in 1975 in relation to the home loan interest deductibility scheme. It has been scrubbed as well. He said that he would introduce a homes savings grant scheme for first home owners. Already that scheme has been limited in these proposals. A house will have to be valued at $35,000 to attract the maximum grant and the grant will be phased out at $40,000. What about the coal export levy? He said that he would get rid of the coal export levy. But today he is retaining it.

What did Sir Robert Askin have to say about these matters? He said that he has given the Government away. Sir Robert Askin was the shrewdest politician in this country. He was the shrewdest political man in New South Wales before Neville Wran. He was equal only to possibly Joe Cahill and Neville Wran, the last two mentioned men being on the Labor side of politics and Sir Robert being on the Liberal side of politics. But he said that he has given the Government away. Sir Robert Askin said: ‘They are inviting disaster’. Let us look at the disaster the Government will attract. In New South Wales alone the Australian Labor Party will win at the next election the seats of Barton, St George, Phillip, Macarthur, Macquarie, Cook, EdenMonaro, Lowe and Calare. A 10 per cent swing to Labor is indicated in Queensland electorates before this latest mini-Budget was announced, the Gallup Polls Queensland showed. What is to come in the future?

The Prime Minister of this country said that he would introduce integrity into government. How many members of the Government are still prepared to support that proposal? The facts are that this Government is the most distrustful, untruthful, corrupt- there has been one scandal after the other, as the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Mr Lynch) and the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party, who is sitting in this chamber tonight would know- and discredited Government that this country has ever known. The Government is led by a deceitful and dishonourable Prime Minister. That Prime Minister stated in 1975 that he would reintroduce integrity into government. Which member of the Government is prepared to support that statement today, including those millionaires such as the honourable member for Barton (Mr Bradfield) or any of the other 2,472 millionaires in this country? I think the honourable member for Barton made his fortune from tyres, did he not?

Finally, I would like to predict what will happen in the new Budget in August. The Government has predicted a Budget deficit, on present estimates, of $4,600m. Out of the measures announced last week alone it will collect from the public $ 1 ,300m which will bring the deficit down to $3,300m. I think that it will keep the surcharge in operation for a full year after 30 June and give half indexation, which will give the Government another $ 1,020m.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

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

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

– The statement made by the Treasurer (Mr Howard) last Thursday deserves the support of this House and the country. I believe it represents a responsible step in the national interest. Tonight I do not apologise for the package of measures which the Treasurer has brought down. Indeed, I warmly endorse and applaud the Treasurer’s statement. Circumstances have changed since the last Budget and this Government has responded appropriately to them. The package is a balanced and responsible approach to controlling the Budget deficit. It combines increased revenue with expenditure cuts, and it specifically seeks to avoid imposing a greater burden on the disadvantaged. The revenue measures announced involve personal taxation and increased levies on business along with significant reductions in expenditure. There could be no fairer way in which to achieve the necessary reduction in the projected deficit and there is no responsible alternative to reducing the deficit.

We have seen in the not so distant past what happens when the Federal Government fails to relate revenue to expenditure. The last Labor Government created a text- book example of the effects of an irresponsible approach to fiscal policy. When we came to Government at the end of 1975, we inherited an economy in which the year-on-year rate of inflation had reached 16.7 per cent in 1974-75; an economy in which real capital expenditure by the manufacturing sector was stagnant and in which manufacturing employment had declined by over 6 per cent between December 1972 and December 1975. Since taking office, our objective has been to create an environment which fosters sustained, noninflationary economic growth- growth which creates employment and which increases the tax base so that the burden on individuals can be reduced. The economy as a whole and industry in particular have responded to our policies, and responded handsomely. Real growth of gross domestic product this financial year will easily achieve and is expected to surpass that forecast at the time of the last August Budget. Business investment has recovered strongly and private fixed capital expenditure on plant and equipment rose by 13 per cent in real terms between the December quarters of 1 977 and 1 978.

Employment levels are rising. After allowing for seasonal factors, civilian employment has risen steadily since mid- 1 978, growing 1.2 per cent between June of last year and March 1979. The balance of trade is strengthening, between the December quarter 1978 and March quarter 1979 exports rose over 18 per cent while imports declined by nearly 5 per cent on a seasonally adjusted basis, and this strengthening of the trade balance was sustained in April.

More generally, there has been a striking revival of business confidence and optimism as regards future prospects because of the economic policies pursued by this Government. The March survey of industrial trends conducted by the Confederation of Australian Industry and Bank of New South Wales found that for the first time in six years, a majority of respondents predicted an improvement in the general business situation. Foreign investors are also looking to Australia with renewed interest, and this is certainly reflected in the strengthening inflow of private capital to Australia.

These are some of the hard-won gains our policies have secured- gains which have done much to overcome the consequences of the follies of the last Labor Government. They are the tangible results of consistent, responsible economic management. By curbing the growth in the money supply and government expenditure, we have succeeded in halving the rate of inflation. We have recognised from the outset that, in shaping the Budget for the coming year, the Government would be faced with difficult choices in order to maintain responsible economic management. Cost and price pressures have not yet been eliminated from the economic system, indeed in some areas they have been renewed.

The welcome rise in rural incomes has had less welcome consequences in terms of food prices. There has been an unwelcome resurgence of wage pressures. Against this background, the Government is determined to maintain the maximum downward pressure on inflation through control of the money supply and a responsible approach to the Budget deficit. In the 1979-80 Budget we have been urged by some to fritter away the hard won gains of the past 3V4 years and indulge in the failed Labor Government policies of 1972 to 1975. 1 have already indicated that the Government will not be following this road to economic disaster. We will continue to pursue unremittingly the strategy which has put the economy on its feet again. This must entail a continuation of rigorous control over public spending and the size of the Budget deficit. In this task we inevitably have had to take difficult decisions. I do not for one moment deny that the need for the additional revenue measures announced by the Treasurer in his statement last week was a severe disappointment to a Government committed to taxation reduction and reform. However, in framing these revenue measures and significant expenditure cuts, we have sought to avoid penalising particular groups in the community to the benefit of others. Rather our approach has been to ensure that all sections of the Australian community, including the business sector, bear their fare share of the short term sacrifices required in the interests of longer term economic prosperity and growth. We are confident of understanding and support from the business community.

In pre-Budget consultations which Ministers have held over the last few weeks with community groups, industry representatives have all stressed that containing inflationary expectations is essential to continuation of this recovery. Some of the decisions found necessary to achieve this objective, such as the abolition of the trading stock valuation adjustment and the introduction of the special 2 per cent customs levy on duty free imports will, I have no doubt, be a disappointment to industry. However, it is the Government’s view that the sacrifices necessary in the fight against inflation must be shared equitably between all sections of the community and these decisions need to be seen in this perspective. It will be remembered that TSVA was introduced following a report by the Mathews Committee of Inquiry into Inflation and Taxation in order to relieve the serious liquidity problems confronting business at a time of double digit inflation. Given the solid improvement in business conditions and outlook, it was considered that the cost of the scheme to the taxpayer- a scheme which discriminated markedly between industries in terms of the benefits it bestowed- must now be judged in different circumstances.

The Government was also influenced in its decision by the fact that many companies appear to have treated the stock valuation adjustment as a taxation concession rather than as a means of financing working capital. The decision to introduce from 1 July a special 2 per cent ad valorem customs duty on a range of products currently entering duty free has been taken solely for revenue purposes. In the extremely tight budgetary environment dictated by the continuing attack upon inflation, the estimated $80m contributed by this measure will help ease pressures which must otherwise apply to other expenditure or revenue raising items. The modest size of the levy ensures that it will not significantly disturb existing levels of protection. Of course, there is no such thing as a popular tax. Criticism of the package brought down by the Treasurer and other measures announced in his statement was to be expected. The Opposition would have us believe that there was an alternative. It has proposed a resources rent tax aimed at reducing the profitability of our oil and mining industries. At this critical point in Australia’s history, it wants to return to the days of very low levels of exploration and development in those industries which existed at the end of the Opposition’s period in government. It is clear that the Opposition has not learned much from its disastrous term in government. It still advocates big government, big spending and big deficits. It describes itself as a high taxation party. Every Australian taxpayer who remembers its time in government needs no reminding about that. This Government has announced a responsible, balanced package of measures which will ensure that Australia continues along the path it has begun, that is the path to economic stability, the path to lower inflation, the path to sustained growth and the path to rising employment. I have no hesitation in commending the Treasurer’s statement to the House.

Mr HOWE:
Batman

-Of course, it is a privilege to follow the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party, the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Mr Lynch) in this debate. One remembers that he was the first Treasurer in the Fraser Government. Most of us will remember that he was the Tresurer who was going to sort out all those problems that supposedly were inherited from the Labor Government. Inflation was to be brought down, unemployment was to be resolved- not within three or four years, but within a matter of months. This man was to be the miracle worker. Now here he is tonight as the apologist for present Government policy, which is still basically the same sort of policy as he introduced as Treasurer. The policy is still failing but it is now operating within the context of where the trends are absolutely the reverse of what the Government promised .in 1975. People around Australia who are listening to this parliamentary broadcast tonight are not particularly interested in the ancient history in which so many Government speakers have indulged. People are not particularly interested in how many runs the Australian Labor Party may have scored between 1972 and 1975, but they are very interested in the runs that this Government has been putting on the board in terms of increasing unemployment and rising inflation. People all around this nation of Australia are currently enduring hardship because of the policies of the Fraser Government. They well remember that in 1975 the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser), then the Leader of the Opposition, was prepared to leave no stone unturned. First of all he knifed his leader in the back, then he thrust himself into the leadership of the Liberal Party and then he went out to the country and said: ‘The problems of 1973 and 1974 were not problems related to a world international economic crisis’- as the Treasurer (Mr Howard) on the front bench knows. He went on: ‘They were not part of the problems of world economic crisis during 1973 and 1974, but they were problems peculiar to Australia, of short run economic management.’ The Prime Minister told the Australian people in 1975 that all they needed to do was to put the Liberal-National Country Party coalition into power and all would be well. The people of Australia listening to this radio broadcast know that nearly four years later things are far from well. They know what this particular miniBudget signifies. It signifies that this Government ‘s economic policy is now in such disarray.

Mr Bourchier:

– We are showing responsible economic management.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

– Order! The honourable member for Bendigo will remain silent.

Mr HOWE:

-The honourable member for Bendigo represents an electorate which is suffering severely from the recessionary policies of this Government. The people who will be voting in the next Bendigo election will be removing the honourable member who is there at the moment, Mr Bourchier, and they will be electing a Labor Party member because they know that the Australian Labor Party traditionally has been concerned about full employment. The Australian Labor Party has always sought to apply policies to achieve that objective. One might say that the fundamental objective of economic policy right throughout the post-war period in Australia was the creation and maintenance of full employment. There was no other objective that was regarded as more important by the Chifley Labor Government or by the subsequent Menzies Governments during the 1950s and the 1 960s. Consistently throughout that period it was affirmed by committees of economic inquiry such as the Vernon inquiry that if it was a matter of a choice between -

Mr Bourchier:

– When did unemployment start to rise?

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-Order! I have asked the honourable member for Bendigo to remain silent. If he persists with his interjections he will leave me no option but to deal with him.

Mr Holding:

– Hear, hear!

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

– I remind the honourable member for Melbourne Ports, who is not occupying his proper place, that the same rationale applies to him.

Mr HOWE:

- Mr Acting Speaker, one can understand the disquiet and the concern that is being expressed at present by government members. It has been a long time in Australia’s history since we have had a government that has promised so much over a period and which has delivered so little, a government that has been prepared to go to the kinds of lengths to which Malcolm Fraser went in 1975- the blocking of Supply in the Senate, the raping of the Australian Constitution and conventions -

Mr Bourchier:

- Mr Acting Speaker, I take a point of order. It is not proper for a member of the House to address the Prime Minister by his name. He should be addressed as the Prime Minister, not as Malcolm Fraser.

Mr Holding:

– He is a liar. That is what he is, and everyone knows it.

Mr Bourchier:

- Mr Acting Speaker, will you ask that little com from Melbourne Ports to withdraw?

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Batman will resume his seat. I ask the honourable member for Melbourne Ports to withdraw the remark he made about the Prime Minister.

Mr Holding:

– What, that he is a liar?

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-The honourable member will withdraw.

Mr Holding:

-What, that he is a liar? I withdraw.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-Order! If the honourable member for Melbourne Ports insists on trifling with the authority of the Chair, he can only expect the action that would logically follow. If the honourable member persists in emphasising his misdemeanour, as he has done, he will get no sympathy whatsoever from the Chair. The honourable member for Batman is alleged to have referred to the Prime Minister other than by his proper title. The Chair was distracted with conversation with the relieving Deputy Speaker. If the honourable member for Batman is guilty of the offence, I require him from here on to address the Prime Minister by his correct title.

Mr HOWE:

-The Prime Minister of Australia, the honourable member for Wannon, sought to take politics off the front pages of the newspapers of Australia. Perhaps his name is not as well known now as it was some time ago. I remind people that he was the Prime Minister of

Australia at the end of 1975 and in 1976 when policies were introduced which produced what can only be described as a catastrophic condition in Australia. I think you would agree, Mr Acting Speaker, that a government has a responsibility, to honour the promises that it has made. It has a responsibility when elected on the basis of certain undertakings and certain promises, to go ahead and to put into legislation what it said it would do. This mini-Budget that has been introduced underlines the fact that the Government is not to be trusted. There is a gap between what the Government said it was going to do in 1975, what it reaffirmed it was on about in 1977 and what it is now doing. One has to affirm and to say again and again that the Government, when it talked about tax indexation in the context of elections, did not equivocate. It did not talk about half indexation. It did not talk about surcharges. It talked about governments being responsible and, as a way of achieving that level of responsibility, it said that within the context of inflation, full tax indexation would be maintained. The Government talked about full indexation, not half indexation or half indexation plus surcharge.

Taxpayers across the country to whom I am speaking tonight know that as from 1 July this year they will be paying $6 more than they would have been paying if the Prime Minister had honoured his promise. They know also that, just nine months after new health insurance arrangements were introduced as part of the August Budget, they will be paying, out of their pockets, an additional $5 a week. Just think of the incredible dishonesty of this Government! I ask honourable members to remember when the Labor Party was struggling to implement its program, which in 1972- it was elected to implement. That mandate was reaffirmed in 1974. The Opposition at that time, the present LiberalNational Country Party Government, used all the resources it could to ensure that that program would not get through. At the end of 1975, just after Medibank had been introduced, what did the Leader of the Opposition at that time, the present Prime Minister, say? He said: ‘We will maintain Medibank. We will ensure that that program of free, comprehensive, universal health insurance will continue to be implemented in the way in which it was conceived by Bill Hayden and the Labor Government of the time’. But what has happened? Between 1975 and the present we have seen a myriad of changes in the health insurance system, all of which have had the net effect of destroying people’s confidence in universal health insurance and which inevitably have had the effect of taking more money out of the individual’s pocket. The latest arrangements that were announced in this mini-Budget are designed to take money out of the pockets of people who, in a real sense, can least afford it.

Government members interjecting-

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Giles:
WAKEFIELD, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

-Order! The honourable member will resume his seat. The honourable member can do without any assistance from honourable members on my right who are entitled to make their own remarks at a later stage.

Mr HOWE:

– These arrangements are particularly directed towards people who are chronically ill and who are in constant need of medical attention. It is those people, who already face serious health problems, who are going to face a severe financial problem. They are going to face this severe financial problem -

Mr Bourchier:

- Mr Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order. The honourable member for Batman is telling fibs because he knows that the needy and the pensioners will not suffer under any changes set out in the recent statement.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:
Mr Bourchier:

– My point of order is quite explicit, Mr Deputy Speaker. The honourable member is not telling the truth.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-There is no point of order. The honourable member is entitled to his opinion, whether it is right or wrong.

Mr HOWE:

– The people in the Bendigo electorate will be well aware that the money for the costs that will be incurred will have to come out of the pockets of the chronically ill in that particular electorate as a result of this particular change that has been introduced. Of course, honourable members on the Government side are being disruptive because there is a deep and profound embarrassment on the Government side. Over the last few weeks again and again we have seen people being sent into the House to deliver cheering up speeches for the Treasurer (Mr Howard) so that he will be assured that he is taking the right line. Tonight we had the former Treasurer come in and give the present Treasurer his unequivocal support.

Mr Young:

– The poor man’s L. J. Hooker.

Mr HOWE:

-We know all about the poor man’s L. J. Hooker. We know all about his performance as Treasurer. We know that he left that particular position in dubious circumstances. We also know that he left that position because the

Prime Minister knew that he had failed as Treasurer.

Mr Bourchier:

- Mr Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order. I take great offence at the honourable member for Batman describing the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Hayden) as a miniature L. J. Hooker.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– I am afraid that I did not draw that inference.

Mr Bourchier:

– Well, I am sure that that is who he was talking about.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Perhaps the honourable member for Batman should watch his parliamentary language. I think that is the least I can say.

Mr HOWE:

- Mr Deputy Speaker, I was, of course, referring to the former Treasurer, the honourable member for Flinders, who is well known for his interests in property, both in Victoria and in Queensland. I think it is an unfortunate thing for this country that debate about economic policy in Australia is constantly debased by the failure of the Government to address the economic issues that are facing this nation. Again and again we move towards the kind of ad hockery in terms of economic policy which, one would have to say, was very much one of the hallmarks of the Menzies years and of the successive Liberal-Country Party governments that followed. There is, on the part of this Government, no commitment to economic planning. There is no commitment to planning in respect of the resources and priorities of this nation. So tonight we are debating a whole series of measures in relation to this mini-Budget that cut across planning within such fields as health, education and transport- all crucial and important areas for the welfare of people all around Australia.

The cut-backs in the urban public transport system allocation were absolutely monstrous and disastrous when one considers that this government says that it is framing a national energy policy. If one says that one is setting about to conserve energy, what system within our society would be more crucial than the system of urban public transport? There is no greater user of energy in this country than the transport system and the only way in which that system can be designed to bring about genuine improvements in terms of the use of energy is by spending more money on public transport. That is the area that the Government singles out for cut-backs of a miserly $20m. The Government is seeking to save that miserly amount of money simply because it has lost all sense of direction. It has lost any sense of where it is going. It is led by a latter day Bligh on a ship which is rudderless and out of action. The circumstances are such that the captain of the ship has been forced to become more and more repressive to keep the troops in line. In every one of the cases where there have been cut-backs it is quite clear that they have been against the will of the Minister concerned. They are not based on the priorities of the Minister for Health (Mr Hunt), the Minister for Education (Senator Carrick) or the Minister for Social Security (Senator Guilfoyle). They are based on the priorities of the Prime Minister, who has his running boy, the Treasurer (Mr Howard), come into the House and give his latest instructions.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Giles:

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

Mr PORTER:
Barker

– I rarely feel sorry that a Labor member of parliament has departed from this House but having heard the speech from the newly-arrived socialist Left honourable member for Batman (Mr Howe), I feel that many people in Victoria would be very disappointed at the loss of the previous honourable member for Batman, Horrie Garrick.

Mr Young:

– You don’t look as good as Jim Forbes, either.

Mr PORTER:

-Unfortunately, the Australian Labor Party members of this Parliament do not realise that there is a world trend against socialist Left governments.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Port Adelaide might not look as good as the previous member for Port Adelaide.

Mr PORTER:

-With that curly hair, the honourable member for Port Adelaide can come into my electorate at any time and they will give him a decent crutching

Mr Young:

– There is no crutching where you live- at St Peters.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Giles:

-Order! I think that this has gone far enough. Honourable members will kindly maintain their sense of equilibrium. The honourable member for Barker ought to be heard as other honourable members have been heard.

Mr PORTER:

-Tonight I want to talk about the Government’s policy as it has been implemented so far and the need for the measures which were announced by the Treasurer (Mr Howard) on Thursday night. There seems to be a lack of understanding by the general public about the way in which this

Government’s indexation has been implemented. Unlike the Labor Government, when this Government came to office it introduced tax indexation in its first year. It might well be remembered by the House that this action was different from the actions of the previous Government. In 1972 the then Leader of the Opposition made it clear how the Labor Party would obtain funds for its proposed programs by what he called the ‘automatic and inevitable massive growth in Commonwealth revenues’.

Mr Bourchier:

– Or breakfasts at Tiffiany’s

Mr PORTER:

-Or breakfasts with Arabs or whatever. After only two Labor Budgets personal income tax collections had increased by 89 per cent. In its second Budget this Government further reformed the personal income tax scales by the introduction of a standard rate of taxation.

I think it is worth noting the changes that have taken place by referring to the actual tax scales. In 1 975-76 people earning under $2,000 a year paid tax at the rate of 20c in the dollar. Of course, that amount could be varied by rebates but in the year of the Hayden Budget the tax rate for those earning $2,000 a year was 20c in the dollar. In the first year of office of the present Government the amount on which the minimum rate of 20c in the dollar was paid in tax was increased to $2,506. I am talking about the low income earners, earning under $2,000 in 1975 and under $2,506 in the next year. These are the people whom the Labor Party supposedly wants to help. In 1977-78 we increased the basic amount to $3,750. Not only did we increase it but also we abolished the payment of tax of 20c in the dollar on that amount. No longer do people have to pay $400 or $500 tax on that amount. They pay nothing on it. That is what this Government has done in realistic terms for the people about whom the Labor Party is supposed to be concerned. In the last Budget that figure was increased to $3,893. No tax is paid on that amount. The Labor Party says that it is worried about the low-income earners but it was a Labor government which taxed them most.

It is not only income tax about which the Government has to be concerned; it also has to be concerned about expenditure. The difference between revenue collected through tax, be it income tax, company tax or other forms of tax and expenditure, has become crucial. In the three years to 1972-73 the Commonwealth Government had a Budget deficit which averaged 0.69 per cent of the gross domestic product. As a result of the last Labor Budget that deficit rose to slightly more than 5 per cent of the gross domestic product. That was an enormous increase. This year the anticipated Budget deficit will be about 2.8 per cent of the gross domestic product. That is a large reduction as a percentage of the overall wealth in this country.

The Government has a further problem because it has been honest and indexed taxation. Personal income tax receipts are decreasing whereas social welfare payments, which this Government, unlike the previous one, has indexed, are increasing. There is a gap in the middle. That, of course, is the Budget deficit. It is generally acknowledged that the deficit has to be brought down. That is the reason why the Treasurer made his statement and took the moves on behalf of the Government to reduce that deficit in order to maintain economic growth in this country. It is fairly generally recognised among economically responsible people that the deficit in the present situation ought not to be too large. Unfortunately, members of the Opposition do not agree with that. I shall quote one line from the editorial of the Australian Financial Review of last Friday morning. It stated:

The heartening aspect of last night’s mini-Budget is that it faced up to the realities of the deficit target in both revenue and expenditure terms.

The editor of that newspaper clearly believes that the deficit must be kept under control in order to maintain the economic recovery of this country and create more jobs in the private sector. The size of the public sector must be limited. The Treasurer made his statement on Thursday night in order to try to overcome some of the problems caused by the growing deficit. It is not all over yet. It is quite clear that the deficit is not the only problem we have. It is not the only factor that contributes to inflation. A number of factors contribute to inflation. The money supply is obviously one of them. However, from the beginning of the next financial year the steps taken will reduce the deficit from the expected deficit of about $4,500m. The moves that were announced on Thursday night will reduce that amount by about $ 1,000m through increases in revenue and decreases in expenditure. At this stage the deficit will probably be about $3,500m. I believe that it has to come down further. Unfortunately, it appears that the Opposition does not agree with that although I think a wealth of economic opinion does agree with it.

Clearly there is a need to control the other factors which affect inflation. The deficit is one of them and the money supply is another. There has been an increase in the money supply which has meant that the Government has not been able to bring interest rates down as much as it would have liked but the increase in the money supply from the targeted figure of a growth of 6 per cent to 8 per cent to the current figure of something over 10 per cent is not of too great concern. There has been a fairly large increase in balance of payments in our favour. There has been a fairly large increase in the non-farm gross domestic product which of course is welcomed by the farming sector, especially those people in my area who have been affected by droughts in the past three years resulting in low returns. These things have in fact meant that the money supply has risen but the larger than expected increase in the money supply is required to take account of the larger than budgeted growth in the gross domestic product. So the money supply is not an enormous problem. I believe that the Treasurer’s statement is realistic and will help to continue the progress which has been made on the inflation front in Australia.

The Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) and the Treasurer have been absolutely honest with the Australian public. They have said it will not be easy and we will not be able to solve the problems overnight. It will be hard to bring inflation down as fast as the Government has been reducing it to date. Bear in mind that it was 16 per cent and it has come down to just over 8 per centhalved in 3V4 years. It will be harder to reduce it a couple of per cent further but it will happen as long as we can keep control of the economy. That is a bit different from what the Leader of the Opposition and Labor Party supporters are saying. I think it is important to note what was said on the television program Nationwide on Thursday night after the Treasurer’s statement was presented in this place. The Treasurer and the Leader of the Opposition appeared on that program. The Leader of the Opposition was asked what economic steps he would take but he did not given an answer’. All he said was: ‘I would not have got into the problem ‘.

Mr Holding:

-That ‘s right.

Mr PORTER:

-You say: ‘That’s right’. What would he have done? It is interesting to have a look at the Hayden alternative tax proposals that were announced to the public just after this Government’s Budget was presented last year. Those proposals would not have got Labor into the problem much! He proposed a capital gains tax, a resources rent tax a tax of some sort on family trusts and a restructuring of the tax scales for upper income levels.

Mr Holding:

– That is what you say he wants.

Mr PORTER:

– I can read -

Mr Holding:

– That is what you are saying.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Giles:

-Order! The honourable member for Melbourne Ports has yet to make his own speech.

Mr PORTER:

-It will be interesting to hear it. Obviously he has a view that is different from that held by the Leader of the Opposition. He does not believe me. He should read the statement of the Leader of the Opposition of 15 March to the National Press Club.

Mr Holding:

– I think Malcolm has crutched that is the problem.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-The honourable member for Melbourne Ports will keep quiet. He should not talk in those terms anyway.

Mr PORTER:

-Perhaps I should just tell the honourable member for Melbourne Ports -

Mr Bryant:

– Yes, tell him too. He needs instruction.

Mr PORTER:

– He needs more than instruction. He obviously disagrees with his Leader. The proposals of the Leader of the Opposition are somewhat unclear. Maybe that is the reason the honourable member is disputing that his Leader wants them. If the Labor Party in government were to restore the maximum marginal rate to the 65 per cent level- I think as most honourable members would know, especially the honourable member for Melbourne Ports after his $200,000 payout following service in another Parliament, the rate on the higher income bracket is now over 60 per cent- it would bring in Government revenue of about $50m. That would make a lot of difference! The Government’s deficit is about $3, 500m and one of Labor’s proposals would increase revenue by $50m. Perhaps that is not enough. Perhaps the honourable member for Melbourne Ports would be willing to pay more on the $200,000 he received. If the marginal rate went up to the unprecedented level of 70 per cent- that is, out of every dollar over about $30,000, 70c would go in tax, which is the sort of thing that the Leader of the Opposition wants- it would bring in $100m. It is like a drop in the bucket. They are Labor’s great alternative tax proposals. They would get us an enormous way. The Leader of the Opposition seemed to be a little confused. Last September he said:

The 1 980s will be a decade of despair.

On 20 November 1 978 he said:

The decade of the 1 980s will be a decade of gloom.

Then on 26 November 1 978 he said:

The decade of the 1980s can be a period of fulfilment, a period of great achievement.

Then just before Christmas, full of Christmas spirit, he said:

There has been too much despair and depression recently.

He is a very changeable man. He obviously kicks with the wind. This Government is prepared to take the hard decisions and has made the right ones.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

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

Mr BRYANT:
Wills

-The approach of the honourable member for Barker (Mr Porter) to this question was not all that exhilarating. But I must say that the statement by the Treasurer (Mr Howard) has created a bonanza for the jargon spinners. I do not think that in my whole career in this place I have listened to more nonsense than that which came from some of the distinguished speakers on the other side, particularly the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Anthony). It is only the long and close relationship that I have had with the Minister for Defence (Mr Killen) which prevents me from putting him in the same class. The honourable member for Barker seems to be obsessed with percentages. It does not really matter what is happening to the people at the end of the line. If the rate which used to go up 8 per cent has gone up by only 6 per cent it does not matter even though there are probably more people out of work, more people on the poverty line and real wages have gone down. We are all obsessed with pieces of arithmetic and we do not seem to be concerned at all about what is happening to the nation or to the people comprising it.

The honourable member for Barker talked about taxation and its details. I think we live in a matter of fact, commonsense country in which if a government can give satisfactory reasons to the public for the need to raise money the people will front up and pay. I am pretty confident from my experience in this country and what I know of the people that that is the general case. If governments are not able to explain satisfactorily to the people of Australia what is being done for education, for the Aboriginal people and in the area of health and the people reject our proposals then I suppose we would have to mend our ways. But no one can tell me that there is anybody in this country who thinks there is any advantage to this nation by reducing the quality and the quantity of our health services, by putting a stopper on the advancement of educational programs or by reducing the misery of the Aboriginal people even further. I do not believe that is the Australian attitude at all. I am appealing here tonight for people to apply themselves more thoroughly to the mythology expressed by the economic spokesmen of the other side and by some outside this place, by the Press and by the world academics. People should start to apply themselves to the fact that this is 1979 and that the mysticism of the past which passes for economic theory will not work.

First of all there have been great social and economic changes in the whole of the world and particularly in this country. Australia is different in so many ways from other countries. The difference between the top salaries paid in Australia and the lower wages in Australia is less than in most countries. I think the difference is probably the least in the world and I like it that way. I am not working towards a country with greater inequalities where some people have enormous wealth and some are on the bread line. I think that most Australians feel the way I do. I want to look at the whole scene to see how far we are getting towards that objective. I am afraid that the policies of honourable members opposite are reversing that trend.

There is a certain amount of mythology around as regards 1975 and what Labor in government is alleged to have done to the Australian economy. I refer to what the Deputy Prime Minister had to say on this matter. He used these very terms ‘wild expenditure’ and ‘bankruptcy’. What utter rot! How could Australia go bankrupt? It cannot go bankrupt even under this Government. It is not going to happen under any government. The Government does not even know what the country would be like if it were bankrupt. Would we be put up for sale? Would the Chinese turn up here and say: ‘Well now, what have you got? Three million square miles, 6 million houses, 26,000 miles of railway line. We will give you $ 100,000m for the lot.’ As a matter of fact, it might be worth taking, the way things are going. Of course that is not going to happen. We are using the cliches of ordinary chain store philosophy when in fact we are talking about a nation and all its ways and works.

The facts are that during the Labor Government’s term of office there was a massive transfer of real wealth from the corporate sector to the private household and to the work force. That is the reason why I was elected, and it is one of the objectives I had when I was elected. It is one of the objectives I will retain, no matter what the academicians of the economic faculties care to say: The Labor Government made a substantial change in the standard of living of the ordinary people of Australia, and nothing honourable members opposite do can destroy that completely, although they have gone a long way towards doing so. I believe there are some unrealised factors. For instance, Australian manufacturing industry has been built basically on the payment of a ‘reasonably’ paid work force. I will not say that at every stage since the introduction in 1907 of the minimum wage and those who get big salaries; it has been reasonable in relation to the rest of the community but the facts are that very little of Australian manufacturing industry has been built upon selling its products to the rest of the world. It has been built upon selling them basically to Australians. If we interfere with that we destroy the possibility of the expansion of manufacturing industry and its stability.

I remind honourable members that by 1975, when somebody said that they took over- in fact they seized- the government of this country, exports were greater than imports. Our overseas reserves were high. Our unemployment rate was lower than it is now, and the country on the whole was doing better than it had ever done before. I challenge honourable members opposite to stand up and tell us one single element of public life and public activity in Australia that is now better off or better done than it was in 1 975. 1 see that the Minister for Health (Mr Hunt) is in the House tonight. One should consider the situation in 1975 under the previously existing health scheme known as Medibank and the tangle into which he has managed to get it. I recall that the honourable member for Barker (Mr Porter) mentioned the high inflation rate of 1975. 1 suggest that he has a look at the actual inflation rate in the September quarter of 1975.

Mr Baillieu:

– It was 16 percent.

Mr BRYANT:

– No, it was not. Have a look at the inflation rate, the actual rise in the cost of living in the September quarter of 1975. The honourable member should look it up and see for himself. He can try to explain it away, but the facts of life are that it was one of the lowest rates for the previous six or seven years. I want people, even honourable members opposite, to start to examine the economic theories with which we are beset. We are told that an increase in the money supply has a close relationship with the inflation rate. We are told that public expenditure is inflationary, and the corollary of that is that private expenditure is not inflationary. How do we prove that? We are told that the deficit creates an inflationary pressure. Nobody produces any particular reasons as to why that should be so. We are told that high wages are destroying the structure of the Australian economy. That, I believe, is utter rubbish. We are told that welfare expenditure is creating a community in which people are waiting for handouts, and that too is rubbish.

I want to take a few figures to sow the seeds of what one might call a bit of philosophical agnosticism in regard to these theories. Instead of believing things and trotting out cliche after cliche after cliche, we should sit down and really examine them. The economic theories upon which much of our argument is based are really developed around the economies of North America and Europe. I do not think those models are relevant to the Australian scene. Australia is one of the few countries with the capacity practically to survive on its own account. If the rest of the world were to sink we would miss them all. We would have nobody to beat at cricket, or nobody to come along and beat us perhaps, but we could still do very nicely. We might have problems in getting the Treasurer (Mr Howard) to find out how to redistribute the wealth if the cheques were not coming in from overseas for our minerals, but we would get along quite nicely. My recent visit to Rhodesia showed exactly what a country could do when faced with a siege economy.

I will take first of all the idea that the size of the deficit is closely related to the increase in the inflation rate, and there are some figures I have gathered today. They are not extensive examples, just a couple of examples in each case. In Canada the inflation rate in 1975 was 10.8 per cent; in 1976, 7.5 per cent; in 1977, 8 per cent; and in 1978, 9 per cent. The Government deficts in those years, as a percentage of the Budget, were 16.8 per cent, 12 per cent and 1 9.4 per cent. While their inflation rate came down their deficit as a percentage of the Budget went up. In Belgium in the period about which I am talking the inflation rate was falling- 12.8 per cent; 9.2 per cent; 7.1 per cent; and 4.5 per cent- and the deficit as a percentage of government expenditure was rising- 15.7 per cent; 16.7 per cent and 18. 1 per cent. Unless actual facts and figures can be produced which show a relationship and a correlation between these various factors it is unreal to build a theory on them. I do not know what the alternative theories are. I do not have enough time tonight to explain them. We might all have some theories and it might be just as well to put them into the ring to let people think about them. But let us stop talking about things we cannot prove or which under examination can be shown to be likely to be false.

Another example is the growth in the money supply. The previous Treasurer, the right honourable member for Flinders (Mr Lynch), was always talking about this. One might say that he almost had it under the bed. The growth in the money supply as a percentage each year apparently is supposed to be inexorably creating inflationary pressures. Looking at West Germany, its inflation rate in 1975 was 6 per cent; in 1976 it was 4.5 per cent; in 1977 it was 3.9 per cent; and in 1978 it was 2.6 per cent. The growth in the money supply in the last three years for which the figures are available was 3.9 per cent, 1 1.3 per cent and 14.3 per cent. So the inflation rate was going down and the growth in the money supply was going up. In the United Kingdom the situation was much the same. In 1975 the inflation rate was 24.2 per cent and it fell gradually through 16 per cent and 15 per cent to 8 per cent. The money supply, on the other hand, went up in 1976 by 1 1.2 per cent, 20.5 per cent and 15 per cent. In New Zealand the inflation rate stayed steady at 14.7 per cent, 16 per cent, 14 per cent and 12 per cent. The money supply went from 18 per cent to 1 2 per cent and up to 2 1 per cent. Again, as I have said, there is no apparent relationship.

In relation to inflation and unemployment, in Germany inflation has been falling and unemployment has been steady. In the United States of America they have both been falling. If a relationship cannot be shown between these things the theory cannot be proved. It may be one of the factors, but we have listened year after year to so many absolutes. I am absolutely certain, because I know nearly all of the people who are talking this way, that very few people get all the figures out and examine all the factors to see whether the theory is true. They should try ringing up the economic experts who make these statements and asking them. I have done it. Nobody yet has come forward and said, ‘I will let you have a statement in clear and precise terms as to why each one of those factors produces that result and that can be demonstrated from an examination of the situation around the world ‘.

This afternoon I have listened to people saying that the economy is showing real growth. What is meant by that? As far as I can determine from the figures, we manufactured more motor vehicles in 1975 than we did in the last 12 months. The figures show that we built more houses in 1974-75 than we are likely to build in the next 12 months. The figures show that Australia, in almost all areas of textiles, manufactured more in 1974-75 than it is manufacturing now. I am interested to find out what honourable members mean by productivity and all the rest of it.

Let me remind the House of another example of figures being used in a phoney way. Honourable members opposite and Ministers say that the number of people in employment has gone up. The number might have risen since last August. However, the population of Australia has gone up by 750,000 since 1974 and the number of people employed in the civilian part of the work force has fallen by 14,000. In fact, 200,000 more people should be in the work force. All I ask is that people apply themselves to this problem with some sort of intellectual integrity. Nobody knows the real answers. I think that the wealth of this country can sustain even this Government, but I believe that the time has come to throw out the mediaeval mysticism which passes for economic theory and which is used by the Treasurer and his colleagues. We should start to examine the real facts of life in the Australian scene. I do not think that the theories of North America and Europe are applicable.

Mr McVEIGH:
Darling Downs

-One has to admit that the statement delivered by the Treasurer (Mr Howard) last Thursday night has been unpopular. It ought not to be. That view is a mere superficial analysis of the economic life of our country. To me the statement is a straightforward and clear exposition of the measures that are necessary to ensure that we can look forward to a stable future. The statement must be analysed and seen in that light. It appears to me that a government is not worthy of calling itself a government if, when faced with the alternative of departing from stated intentions and acting in a resolute and responsible manner, it does not opt for the latter course. It is regrettable that some members of the Press- those wily fabricators of the scare tactics and cataracts of crisis and tumult- have endeavoured to inculcate in the hearts and minds of the Australian people the fact that the Government has departed from its planned program. I pay tribute to some members of the Press who have stripped the bark from the tree and have got to the wood of the matter. It is necessary therefore to set the record straight.

It is true that there was an expectation in the minds of the Australian people that after 30 June this year they would have a greater take home pay packet. It would be untrue to say otherwise. However, it is equally untrue that there will be a decrease in their take home pay packet through changed taxation policies. That is just not true. Exactly the same position will apply as that which applied previously. There will be the added bonus that the policies contained in the Treasurer’s statement- policies of consistent strength and strategy- will lead to what we all want, namely, a better future. Unfortunately, economics is not an absolute science. It is subject to changing situations. It can lay down guidelines on what should happen in a given set of circumstances. But in the final analysis it must be subject to change, and change has occurred. Our strategy therefore has had to be changed. I compliment the Government for having the real courage to make those changes.

What are these changes? Unfortunately Australia has had years of budgeting for deficits. In the last decade we have had deficits totalling $ 16,000m. It is true that previous administrations have restored to the artful and deceitful manoeuvre of employing printing presses to overcome their problems. If governments try to run away from their problems they will still get caught up. Years of consistently budgeting for large deficits have had the result of forcing up interest rates, inflation and unemployment and destroying investment and business confidence.

I pay tribute to the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) and to the Treasurer. They perceived the signs that the forthcoming Budget deficit could be intolerably high- of the order of $4,600m. The Government was not prepared to sugar the pill of popularity in the short term and to see the future of our nation destroyed by the frailty of weak men. Our policies have put us well on the road to economic strength. It would be absolutely wrong to turn back when the battle is almost won. The Australian people have to be made to realise that if the nation wants more government input it must be prepared to give the Government more revenue. I reject that ethos. Australia wants less taxation and less government spending. I know that such a policy is opposite to that of the Australian Labor Party. It has a policy of high taxation. It has a policy of the Government doing things for people and not allowing them to do what they want with their own hard-earned money.

It appears to me that this is an appropriate time to return to the pioneering spirit of Australia- the rugged insular outlook of looking after oneself. Of course, we subscribe to the proposition within that general context that it is necessary to give help where it is needed. I support fully the call of my leader, the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Anthony) of this country, for security for the poor, the handicapped and the unfortunate. Those people are safeguarded by what is contained in the policy statement. That document appears to me to be a sensible mix of obtaining additional revenue and containing expenditure. It is a balance between the Government’s stated intentions and its obligation to govern. The Labor Party talks a great deal about overcoming the problems of those people who seek to evade tax. It is appropriate to remind the Parliament and the people of Australia that the Labor Party, during its term in office, did absolutely nothing about tax evasion.

Some people talk about the disadvantages of the oil levy. The Treasurer was quite specific and definite in his statement. It will make no difference whatsoever to the man in the street. I believe that it is absolutely appropriate for any government which is looking for revenue and which wants to leave the Australian taxpayer with more of his own money to take money from the oil companies rather than from the Australian people. If there was a choice in that situation the Government did what was eminently just and reasonable. We have laid out our plans, and the specifications will be spelt out in the August Budget. We believe in good, honest and decent government and a policy of security for the Australian people so that they can plan their own programs.

One has a wry smile when one listens to the speeches of honourable members of the Opposition. I say to them simply that they are wonderful generals when the battle is over. The Government made decisions in good faith. Circumstances changed and we are meeting the challenge. That challenge, simply spelt out, is to be or not to be the Government. We have opted for being the Government. Why was there a need for change? The Prime Minister, who was absolutely on top in Question Time this morning, enumerated those changes, such as the Iranian oil situation, the Indo-China conflict, the record wheat crop and the rise in cattle prices. All these matters have necessitated change. The meaningless platitudes uttered by Opposition members when we listen to them are like recurring lights in neon signs. They would not have the intestinal fortitude to do what the Treasurer did last Thursday night. They opted for the easy way out. They took the cash and let the credit grow. They did not worry about the sayings of the old Persian poet. They increased spending by 1 15 per cent in three years.

Mr Corbett:

– They caused record inflation.

Mr McVEIGH:

– The honourable member for Maranoa touches on inflation. We remind the Australian people that if the Hayden Budget was still the norm in Australia, the Australian taxpayers would be paying $3,000m more in tax than they are paying under this Government. We talk about expenditure. The total health bill in Australia is of the order of $8,000m and is continuously escalating. We do not believe in an open cheque for health. I applaud the Minister for Health (Mr Hunt) for introducing an initiative in supplying $500,000 to make the Australian people aware of the necessity to be health conscious and not to adopt an attitude of running to the doctor at every pretext. He has brought responsibility into health administration. There will be savings in medical costs of $ 150m for the remainder of this year and $2 10m in a full year. Money for health costs, of course, came from the Australian taxpayer. The Minister for Health has realised that it is necessary to contain hospital costs. This was an excellent democratic, statesmanlike initiative. He deserves our full support and our praise in a difficult portfolio and in an area of great emotion where responsibility and, I submit, not popularity, is required.

I am proud to stand in this Parliament as a member of the National Country Party and to fully support the outstanding statements of my own Leader, the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Anthony) made over the weekend concerning unemployment benefits. Let us put accurately on the record what he said. He indicated that the Government is a government of sympathy and concern. People who are genuinely unemployed will have no fear. Our utmost sympathy goes out to them, not in charity but in justice. But those who have adopted a cult of idleness and the proposition that society owes them a debt will be brought to justice. For too long these people have been able to stroll around Australia adopting an attitude that the taxpayers, the hard workers of Australia, will foot the bill to allow them to live a life of luxury and non-productive enterprise. There has been a total allocation of $750m in Australia for unemployment benefits in the year 1978-79. We listened to honourable members opposite. They do not really understand that if we want more jobs in Australia, the Australian worker has to participate on equal terms with the productivity rates of our overseas competitors. What is the use of the Australian farming community being among the most economic in the world when it sees its hard-earned dollars being whittled away by people who are irresponsible. We have a record number of people employed in Australia. As at the end of March, 4,772,700 civilians were in employment which is an increase of 19,600 over the figure in February.

I am disappointed to note that some of our farm leaders have indicated that primary industry has been singled out for special attention.

That is just not true. Let us state the situation. Our policy has always been a practical one. We realise, as sons of the soil, that primary industry in Australia has a series of ups and downs. Our policy has been simple. When we are going through our down period we get an input of government assistance. When we are on the up that assistance is withdrawn. At the present time primary industry is going through a stable state. As a user of nitrogenous fertiliser I am not happy with the withdrawal of the subsidy to $20 a tonne. But I say that if it was not for the actions of the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair) that nitrogenous fertiliser subsidy would have been phased out 12 months ago. I pay tribute to his efforts. Notwithstanding the stated intention of the Government to phase it out as of last year, it still continued. That is a bonus.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Giles:

-Order The honourable member’s time has expired.

Mr HOLDING:
Melbourne Ports

– It is appropriate that the honourable member for Darling Downs (Mr McVeigh) should finish his somewhat eloquent speech on behalf of the Government by talking about fertiliser. When we listened to the honourable gentleman he told us that all these problems were caused by the Iranians and the unemployed. Of course, that slotted in very nicely with the position of other spokesmen who have spoken on behalf of the Government and who have, in turn, blamed the operation of western capitalism, the trade unions or any other person in this society. The only people they have not been prepared to blame are, of course, the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) and the members of his Government.

There are two issues in this debate apart from the principles enunciated by the Treasurer (Mr Howard). The first concerns the question of the credibility of this Government and second concerns its economic management. There has been an odd development in political morality in this debate because what we are told by those few spokesmen whom the Government can force into standing up to defend the statement made by the Treasurer is, of course, that we must all pay plaudits to this Treasurer for his honesty, for his integrity, but above all, for his courage. It is an interesting and novel concept. Who in this House would get up and say that of a businessman who falsely advertised his goods, or a director who wilfully misled in his prospectus, or a salesman who, in making a sale, gave undertakings that, at the time he made them he knew he could not possibly keep? Which honourable member would get up in this House and state ‘But at least you have to admire their courage.’ The same morality applies in this matter with this Government. Let it not be forgotten, as pointed out by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Hayden), that we have a Prime Minister who has now been in power in both Houses of Parliament for four years. He has had four years to pursue and implement those policies that he proclaimed to the people of Australia; he has had four years to implement his economic strategy. He has had four years which is the longest period for a Prime Minister in office- again as the Leader of the Opposition pointed out- since Sir Robert Menzies was Prime Minister. It is a longer period than Mr Holt was Prime Minister and longer than the period Mr Gorton and Sir William McMahon were Prime Ministers. It is longer than Mr Whitlam was Prime Minister. Now four years with a working majority in both Houses should give any government all the time that is necessary to implement its economic strategies and to carry out its promises. But what have we seen from this Prime Minister? No Prime Minister in Australian history created more expectations among the people of Australia. No Prime Minister came in with as large a majority. And on the basis of what? That he could be trusted to run the economy! Whatever else the people of Australia were led to believe, these people opposite were said to be the sound, economic managers. It was really as simple as turning on a light. All you had to do was go and turn it on and it would all come good.

Four years later, with power in both Houses, what was the input of the Minister’s statement last Thursday? This new and novel Fraserian concept of economic responsibility really means that one can say one thing one day and do another thing tomorrow. It is the credo of the political prostitutes and the political frauds.

Mr Hunt:

– Oh, stop it.

Mr HOLDING:

– Look, I know it is no good talking to the Minister for Health about political morality. He has never pursued it in the party room and when speaking of it in this House he has been a hypocrite. In terms of political morality -

Mr Hunt:

– I rise on a point of order. Mr Deputy Speaker, I will not be spoken of as a hypocrite in this House by the honourable member.

Mr Howard:

– Certainly not by the honourable member for Melbourne Ports.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Armitage)The Treasurer will resume his seat. I understand that the honourable member for Melbourne Ports called the Minister for Health a hypocrite.

Mr HOLDING:

– I said he acted like a hypocrite.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-That is an unparliamentary remark. I ask the honourable member to withdraw the remark.

Mr HOLDING:

– Being unparliamentary, I certainly withdraw the remark.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– You withdraw the remark?

Mr HOLDING:

– I withdraw the remark. I simply say that the honourable member, who has spoken in this House so often on the question of Medibank, is the final undertaker of Medibank. He can nod his head, he can weave and twist, but the fact is that he was elected and became part of a government on the pledge of his leader and on the pledge of the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser), to maintain Medibank. That was the pledge upon which the honourable gentleman stood. It is the statement from which he has crawled away. If he does not like terms which he regards as unparliamentary I will not use them. But the people of Australia will make their own judgment about this Minister for Health, the undertaker of Medibank. This message boy, the Treasurer (Mr Howard), who carries out the Prime Minister’s bidding- the message boy of the Prime Minister -

Mr Bourchier:

– The greatest disaster that the Labor Party -

Mr HOLDING:

– I do not want to deal with the Government Whip. I said on a previous occasion that as a Whip he is a disgrace to the national parliament. He would not get a job serving drunks in a massage parlour.

Mr Bourchier:

– Excuse me. Would the member who often attends massage parlours please explain to this Parliament what he is talking about. I have never been to one. I am sure he would know what he is talking about.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-The honourable member for Bendigo will withdraw that remark about the honourable member for Melbourne Ports.

Mr Bourchier:

- Mr Deputy Speaker -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-The honourable member for Bendigo will withdraw that remark about the honourable member for Melbourne Ports.

Mr Bourchier:

– Which remark?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-The honourable member for Bendigo knows full well the remark that he just passed about the honourable member for Melbourne Ports.

Mr Bourchier:

– If you think it is offensive, Mr Deputy Speaker, I withdraw the remark.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– It is very offensive and the honourable member will withdraw the remark.

Mr Howard:

– A point of order. I put it to you that if the remark made by the honourable member for Bendigo was offensive then the remark of the honourable member for Melbourne Ports which provoked that response was doubly offensive.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! If the Treasurer or the Minister for Health take offence at the remark of the honourable member for Melbourne Ports -

Mr Howard:

– I do not take offence.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The Treasurer will please behave himself a little bit. The remark made by the honourable member for Melbourne Ports is offensive. He will please withdraw it.

Mr HOLDING:

– If it makes him happy, I say the honourable member for Bendigo is good enough to get a job serving drunks in a massage parlour.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Will the honourable member for Melbourne Ports withdraw the remark?

Mr HOLDING:

-I just did.

Mr Bourchier:

– I rise on a point of order. I ask the honourable member for Melbourne Ports to withdraw again. I take offence at that remark.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-The last words the honourable member for Melbourne Ports uttered to me were that he withdrew the remark. That is in order.

Mr HOLDING:

– The Prime Minister was asked what this economic strategy promised the people of Australia. We should remember that this government has held office for about four years. In a television interview the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Hayden) predicted- he put this quite squarely to the Treasurer- that by Christmas there would be 500,000 Australians unemployed. The Treasurer was asked: ‘Do you deny that or do you have another figure?’ The Treasurer was not prepared to deny it and he did not have another figure. Equally, when it was put to the Prime Minister and to the Treasurer, these great economic managers that, as a result of this economically responsible package, interest rates will go up into double figures by the end of the year, did the Treasurer say: ‘No, I have an alternative. The Treasury advisers have all sorts of figures. ‘ Was it denied?

Mr Howard:

– I did not mention interest rates.

Mr HOLDING:

– Interest rates were mentioned. If the Treasurer wants to give the House a categorical assurance and say that he will resign his position as Treasurer if interest rates go up as a result of this economic package, I will yield my time to him here and now. He can stand up and say it. It is a matter for the Treasurer. I invite him to get into the debate and say that, according to his information, interest rates will not go above what they are now. I invite him to stake his reputation as Treasurer on the matter and submit his resignation if interest rates do go above that figure.

Mr Howard:

– I will wait until you finish.

Mr HOLDING:

– When the media put to the Prime Minister that inflation rates will go back into double figures, was that denied? Not at all. So, at the end of four years of the Fraser Government, after promise after promise has been broken, what we are given is an economic package which promises nothing but more hardship for the people of Australia. The worst aspect of the package is that it involves the destruction of the confidence that Australian people are entitled to have in any government, even this government. How can the Prime Minister, elected four years ago on the promise that there will be jobs for all who want to work, walk honourably amongst the Australian people?

The Prime Minister had all the economic advice he wanted. He knew the nature of the problems of government he was taking on but that was his promise. It was given freely. No one had his arm up his back. The promise was that there would be jobs for all who want to work. Does anybody believe that there are jobs in Australia today for all who want to work? Does anybody believe that as a result of this economic package there will be jobs for all who want to work? During the course of the last six months, and during the course of this debate, the unemployed have been blamed for their own predicament. That promise of employment has been transmuted into a set of directives to make life as hard as possible for the unemployed.

One even gets the monstrous assertion from the honourable member for Canberra (Mr Haslem) that anybody who is under 25 and unemployed should not receive unemployment payments. That may be all right for those who live on Mugga Way. It may be all right if you are a restauranteur or real estate speculator. But young kids find that there are 100 other applicants for every job. That is the position. What we are getting from this Government, because it is unable to fulfil promises it freely gave to the Australian people, is a reversion to the dole bludger syndrome. That syndrome is running hard and fast through the back bench of this Government and through the ministry. No concept is more vile and more reprehensible in Australian society than the concept that the many hundreds of thousands of young Australians who want to work and will take work are some kind of imposition on society. They are dole bludgers in the concept and the imagination of this Government.

The Prime Minister and the Government said that they would provide work for all who wanted it. They have not fulfilled that promise. Every supporter of the Government knows that; every member of this House knows it. Nothing in this economic package will provide full employment or anything like full employment for those in our community who are unemployed. Does anybody seriously believe that the concepts involved in the destruction of Medibank will aid the ill and the infirm in our community? The National Times pointed out in a very responsible article that if one is young and healthy one is better off staying out of Medibank. The article contains a table which proves that. That means that the burden of keeping the health funds going will fall on the aged and infirm, which will mean an increase in rates and therefore in the consumer price index. These are the facts facing this Government. This package is an economic fraud. If a director of a company tried to sell it as part of a prospectus he would be locked up in gaol. All the terminology and nonsense about economic responsibility that we have heard from the Government side of the House does not answer the charge of the Opposition that this Government’s credibility is in tatters. It has failed to honour its election promises to the people of Australia. It has failed in terms of its economic strategy.

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

Mr HOWARD:
Treasurer · Bennelong · LP

-Mr Deputy Speaker, I claim to have been misrepresented by the honourable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr Holding).

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

Does the Treasurer wish to make a personal explanation?

Mr HOWARD:

-I do, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thought I used the correct parliamentary terminology.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– I think the Treasurer should first request leave to make a personal explanation.

Mr HOWARD:

-I am sorry, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thought the correct terminology was ‘I claim to have been misrepresented ‘.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– It is in order to proceed and the Treasurer may proceed.

Mr HOWARD:

-I would not want to offend the sensitivities of anybody on that. The honourable member for Melbourne Ports referred during the course of his remarks to a debate I had with the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Hayden) last Thursday night. I do not mind one bit his referring to that debate but he incorrectly stated what was said by, I think, his leader and me about unemployment. The Leader of the Opposition claimed that in the early part of next year unemployment would rise to a figure of approximately 550,000. 1 disagreed with that.

Mr Holding:

– I will look at the transcript.

Mr HOWARD:

– If the honourable member for Melbourne Ports wants to check the transcript, I do not mind. I am not suggesting that what he did was done maliciously but I think the record ought to be put straight.

Mr Holding:

– What do you think it will be?

Mr HOWARD:

– If the honourable member will just keep quiet for a moment and be a little more courteous he might get a reply to that. I indicated that it was my belief that it would be of the order of the peak in unemployment earlier this year or perhaps a little higher. I used the word ‘perhaps’ on that occasion. I do not take those words back. My recollection is that the question of the impact of my statement of last Thursday night on the level of interest rates was not raised. I think the honourable member for Melbourne Ports has confused interest rates with inflation.

Mr BRADFIELD:
Barton

-We have already proceeded a considerable way through this debate and it is interesting to note that the Opposition has been completely negative in its attack. Not one positive suggestion has been made by the Opposition members who have spoken. Considering that more than 10 members of the Opposition- 30 per cent of its strengthhave spoken in this debate and that their attitude to such an important issue is so negative, is it any wonder that not many consider it to be an alternative government. There are examples of that everywhere. The honourable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr Holding) challenged the Government to say what part of this package guarantees full employment. No part of this package guarantees full employment but the package in itself guarantees increased employment.

Mr Holding:

– Ha, ha!

Mr BRADFIELD:

-The honourable member for Melbourne Ports laughs. I challenge him and other honourable members opposite who have spoken in this debate to say what there is in what they have said that would guarantee full employment for Australia. Their whole argument has been completely negative. As I have said, it amounts to nothing. It is unfortunate that the Government has had to come forward with a package such as this. But it spreads the burden amongst the people and will lead to brighter economic prospects. The 1979-80 Budget will be a brighter budget and an extremely brighter Budget will be introduced in 1980-81. Both Budgets will be brighter because they will have the benefit of the sound foundation which was given to the economy of Australia last Thursday night by the Treasurer ( Mr Howard ).

I talk about the package being even-handed because it places a small burden on all sections of the Australian community. It hits the business community. Alterations have been made to the stock valuation account. Alterations have been made concerning carry forward losses. That will put a small burden on the business community. It will also put a small burden on the mining community. The coal export levy has been extended and the crude oil levies have been increased. The package hits at public expenditure. The Treasurer has stated that governments should be prepared to spend less of the taxpayers money. The package hit at the rural community. It withdrew certain privileges and financial advantages from that community. Of course, it hit at us all through the extension of the personal income tax levy of 1.5c in the dollar- not 1.5 per cent, as many members of the Opposition have said.

I know that 1 .5c in the dollar represents almost a 5 per cent increase in income tax. But I would like to explain, as honourable members of the Opposition are misrepresenting the Government’s package, that it does not mean that any member of the Australian public will have to pay more tax over the five months from July to November. The tax rates will be the same and the amount of deductions from pay packets will be the same. No one will be paying an increased amount of tax a week between July and November.

Mr West:

– You said you would end it from 30 June.

Mr BRADFIELD:

– Never mind about what I said. If the honourable member listens to what I am saying he will find that I am correctly stating the position. Let us talk about the Australian Labor Party’s record. I hate to be negative and talk about its record but it is necessary to point out, as the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) mentioned this morning in answer to a question, that the Labor Party increased income tax by 125 per cent in the three years in which it was in office. The Opposition almost had record inflation. Inflation for the same period was only 50 per cent. So look at the deal that the Opposition gave to the Australian public. There was increase in income tax of 125 per cent over three years and an increase in inflation over those three years of only 50 per cent.

Mr Hunt:

– No wonder they are touchy.

Mr BRADFIELD:

– Opposition members are touchy alright. They are also touchy about tax avoidance. The Treasurer (Mr Howard) who is sitting there at the table knows the tremendous amount of work that we have done on tax avoidance. What did members of the Australian Labor Party do? Nothing at all. But they sit there and say that we do nothing. This Government has been a great government of tax reform and it has done its duty to the Australian people in regard to tax avoidance. I have a table here showing some of this Government’s tax record. It brought in personal income tax indexation, the standard rate of taxation and much of the antiavoidance tax legislation. At the same time the record of this Government clearly shows that the amount of personal income tax collection, as a percentage increase over the previous year, has declined. The table shows personal income tax increases over the last 10 years. Of course, honourable members will see that in the year 1973-74- we know which government was in office in that year- personal income tax collections increased by 20. 1 per cent over the previous year. In 1974-75- once again we know who was in government at that time- personal income tax collections increased by 19.9 per cent. I seek leave to incorporate this table, prepared by the Treasury, in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The table read as follows-

  1. ) Collections of PA YE and other individuals income tax less PA YE refunds (Statement No. 6 attached to the Budget Speech ).
  2. Budget Paper 9 and Australian National Accounts, 1976-77.
  3. Budget estimate of collections. Deflator assumes a 7.0 per cent increase in line with the discussion in Statement No. 2 attached to the Budget Speech.
Mr BRADFIELD:

– I thank the House. I move now to some of the reasons for necessity of the package which was brought down last Thursday night. I think it is fair to mention the selfishness of many sections of the Australian community. It is also fair to mention that the desires of all the different sections of the Australian community cannot possibly be satisfied. Perhaps it is time that we should sit down and think of all those sections of the Australian community that needfinancial assistance. I do not deny their need for it, but I want to point out the impossibility of satisfying all of the financial desires of the Australian community. Let us start by mentioning a few of those sections of the community, not necessarily in order.

Recently the Australian Broadcasting Commission informed us that it wants more funds. I do not deny it these funds. Students want freedom from university fees to continue. They want more generous tertiary education assistance. Let us look at education generally which is administered by the States. The States want additional funds for better facilities and reductions in student/teacher ratios. Let us take a look at health. People want free health benefits, more money for hospitals and a continuation of funds for regional health centres. The aged is a group in the community that I have great sympathy for. As we all know, the aged want the restoration of twice yearly pension rises and pensions increased to 30 per cent of average weekly earnings. The Public Service wants staff ceilings abolished. Those people who support overseas aid want overseas aid to disadvantaged countries increased to 2 per cent of total Budget spending. Those people concerned with defence of our nation want defence expenditure increased to 3.5 per cent of the gross domestic product, an increase in expenditure of $ 1 billion per annum. Local government wants us to honour our promise- I hope we will- to increase its share of personal income tax collections from 1.52 per cent to 2 per cent. But if that is granted it will want 5 per cent. Taxpayers want removal of the surcharge and the implementation of full indexation. Businesses want the removal of division 7 tax. I sympathise with all these desires of the community, but I put them forward just to show the absolute impossibility of any government to provide the needs of the community, whether it is a Liberal government or a Labor government- God help us. There is no way in which any government can fully provide the needs of the community. That is why I am pleased that this Government has come down with a package that is economically sound because it is best for the Australian community. Let me talk about the increase in confidence in the Australian economy. Most of the economic package revolves around increasing confidence. Much of the argument put up by the Opposition would indicate that there is no confidence at all in the Australian community at the moment. That is absolute rubbish. The Opposition knows it is rubbish because all of the indicators that are coming forward at the moment fully disclose that the Australian economy is on the verge of very rapid recovery.

Mr Bryant:

– Which indicator is that?

Mr BRADFIELD:

– I will talk about indicators, as the honourable member for Wills asks. Let us talk about the indicators of manufacturing forecasts. They forecast the most improved conditions seen for the last 10 years. Let us talk about improved retail sales. The figures show that the December quarter was a record quarter and that the March quarter was a record quarter. I wonder if the honourable member for Wills reads the Australian Bureau of Statistics report. Look at our improved trade balances. Let us talk about the stability of interest rates, and they are stable. Does the honourable member for Wills deny that interest rates are now lower than when the Labor Government was in office between 1972 and 1975? Let us consider another sore point. The Opposition talks about unemployment. I sympathise with the unemployed, but has the Opposition recently looked at the figures of those people who are employed? Has the Opposition looked at the increased employment figures? For may years the number of those employed in the manufacturing industries, the number one indicator, has substantially increased. In the March quarter building approvals for home dwellings increased substantially. And the honourable member for Wills asks: ‘Which indicators show an increase and an improved economy?’ I tell the honourable member for Wills that there are countless numbers of indicators that show that the economy is on the mend. I come to the employment figures that he challenged me on. Only today the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs (Mr Viner) released statement 54/79. It reads:

The number of civilian employees in March 1979 was estimated to be 4,772,700 persons- an increase of 19,600 persons over the February 1979 figure. In seasonally adjusted terms, there was an increase of 8, 100 . . .

In the same statement in relation to employment it is stated:

Since June 1978 the total rise, in seasonally adjusted terms, has been 56,200.

Members of the Australian Labor Party ask: ‘What indicators show an improved economy?’ The people of Australia listening to this debate will know that the indicators of the economy paint a rosy picture. They will remember the negative speeches of 30 per cent of Opposition speakers earlier tonight. I challenge those honourable members who follow me to mention at least one thing of a positive nature.

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

Debate (on motion by Mr West) adjourned.

page 2480

LIVE-STOCK SLAUGHTER (EXPORT INSPECTION CHARGE) BILL 1979

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

Second Reading

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

– I move:

The purpose of this Bill is to allow for the introduction from 1 July 1979 of charges to recoup part- and I stress part only- of the cost to the Commonwealth of inspecting meat for export. This is the first of a series of Bills covering partial recovery of costs involved in export inspection of certain agricultural commodities. Export inspection is designed to ensure that export products meet specific standards of quality, hygiene and presentation.

The Treasurer (Mr Howard), in the 1978-79 Budget Speech announced that the Government would review the question of charging for the export inspection of meat during 1 978-79 in the light of the economic situation of the cattle industry. Associated Budget statements indicated that the review would also encompass the question of cost recovery from other export industries subject to inspection. The outcome of these reviews was announced in the Treasurer’s statement to the House on 24 May 1 979.

The Government has decided that meat producers and grain exporters should bear approximately 50 per cent of the cost to them of the inspection services rendered by the Commonwealth in their respective industries. The Government proposes further that fees aimed at a similar level of recovery should be imposed for the service provided by the Australian Wool Measurement Standards Authority. Recovery of part of the costs of inspection and animal health certification for live animal exports is also intended. The Government will move to introduce fees for these services when the necessary arrangements have been finalised.

Turning now to the specifics of this Bill, honourable members will see that it provides for recovery of meat inspection costs to be achieved through charges on livestock slaughtering at registered export establishments. The Bill provides for the owner of the livestock at the point of slaughter to be liable to pay the charge. Exemption from charge is provided in cases where carcasses are condemned or rejected by an inspector.

Provision is made for charge to be applied to the slaughtering of all the classes of livestock commonly slaughtered for meat production. Horses, donkeys and mules are also included because there have been instances of abattoirs being registered specifically to slaughter such animals for export. Provision is also made for charge to be applied to other classes of animals which may be prescribed. This provision may be needed in the event that it should become necessary to provide export inspection services for the slaughter of deer, kangaroos or other species.

To achieve the 50 per cent cost recovery objective it appears that the Government will need to propose the following rates to the GovernorGeneral for promulgation in regulations:

Cattle, buffaloes, horses, $ 1.80 a head.

If one compares the inspection charges levied for cattle, it is interesting to note that that $1.80 charged by the Commonwealth is comparable with the $1.50 charged by New South Wales, the $2.08 charged by Victoria and the $1.06 charged by Queensland.

Bobby calves to 40 kg dressed weight, sheep, lambs, goats, 1 8c a head-

Calves 40 to 90 kg dressed weight, and pigs, 60c a head.

Again, for calves the inspection fee charged by the Commonwealth is 60c and 18c a head compared with the 70c charged by New South Wales, 65c and 26c charged by Victoria, and 65c and 32c charged by Queensland. For sheep, an 1 8c a head inspection fee is charged by the Commonwealth, whereas New South Wales charges 25c a head; Victoria 26c, and Queensland 15c. For lambs, the Commonwealth charges 18c a head; New South Wales 25c a head; Victoria 26c, and Queensland 15c. For pigs, the Commonwealth charges 60c a head while New South Wales charges 150c; Victoria 65c and 104c, and Queensland 65c.

On current estimates of slaughterings for 1979-80 charges at these rates are estimated to yield $ 16.25m in a full year. I commend the Bill to honourable members.

Debate (on motion by Mr Young) adjourned.

page 2481

LIVE-STOCK SLAUGHTER (EXPORT INSPECTION CHARGE) COLLECTION BILL 1979

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

Second Reading

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

– I move:

This Bill is related to the Live-stock Slaughter (Export Inspection Charge) Bill 1979 just introduced. It is designed to provide for the collection of charges proposed in that Bill. It follows closely the provisions for the collection of levies in other livestock slaughter levy legislation. Specifically, provision is made for abattoir proprietors to pay charges due to the Commonwealth and to recover the amounts from the persons who owned the livestock at the time of slaughter. I commend the Bill to honourable members.

Debate (on motion by Mr Morris) adjourned.

page 2481

GRAIN (EXPORT INSPECTION CHARGE) BILL 1979

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

Second Reading

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

– I move:

This Bill is associated with other Bills just introduced. The purpose of this Bill is to allow charges for the export inspection of the grains of wheat, oats, barley and sorghum. Charges are to apply to exporters of the products in question, the aim being to recover approximately half of total inspection costs of these products in 1979-80.

The rates of charging proposed for 1979-80 exports will be specified in regulations along with specific arrangements for the collection of such charges. It is proposed that rates of the following order for 1979-80 be suggested to the Governor-General for promulgation in regulations:

Bulk grains, not loaded into shipping containers- 4.5 cents per tonne

Bagged grains, not loaded into shipping containers- 25.0 cents per tonne

Bulk or bagged grains, loaded into shipping containers- $5.00 per container

On current export estimates for 1979-80 charges at these rates are estimated to yield $656,000 in a full year. I commend the Bill to honourable members.

Debate (on motion by Mr Morris) adjourned.

page 2482

GRAIN (EXPORT INSPECTION CHARGE) COLLECTION BILL 1979

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

Second Reading

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

– I move:

This Bill is associated with the Grain (Export Inspection Charge) Bill 1979 just introduced. It is designed to provide for the collection of charges proposed in that Bill. I commend the Bill to honourable members.

Debate (on motion by Mr Morris) adjourned.

page 2482

WOOL INDUSTRY AMENDMENT BILL (No. 2) 1979

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

Second Reading

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

– I move:

This Bill is associated with other Bills just introduced to allow charging for the inspection of meat and grain for export. Its purpose is to provide machinery to recover approximately half of the costs of the Australian Wool Measurement Standards Authority established within the Department of Primary Industry.

The service for which fees are proposed is that provided by the Australian Wool Measurement Standards Authority in monitoring and registering wool sampling sites. The costs of providing that service at a particular sampling site reflects the number of samples drawn at the site. Fees would apply only to those sampling sites from which samples are drawn for testing by the Australian Wool Testing Authority, an instrumentality established under the Wool Industry Act 1972.

The Bill provides that the Australian Wool Testing Authority would provide pre-sale test certificates only for samples drawn from sample sites registered and inspected by the Australian Wool Measurement Standards Authority. The Bill further provides for regulations covering matters relating to registration and inspection, including appropriate fees. It is envisaged that an annual registration fee for 1979-80, calculated on the basis of the order of 53c per lot sampled with a minimum annual fee of $100 in respect of any one sampling site will be proposed to the Governor-General for promulgation into regulations. On current estimates for 1979-80 charges at these rates are estimated to yield $ 1 67,500 in a full year. I commend the Bill to honourable members.

Debate (on motion by Mr Morris) adjourned.

page 2482

LIVE-STOCK SLAUGHTER LEVY AMENDMENT BILL 1979

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

Second Reading

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

– I move:

The purpose of this Bill is to amend the Livestock Slaughter Levy Act 1964 to increase the maximum rates of levy which may be prescribed for cattle disease eradication and to provide for the introduction of levies on the slaughter of two categories of calves. The introduction of this Bill follows legislation that was introduced into this chamber and accepted by the Parliament the year before last to establish the beef industry incentive payment scheme. That scheme assisted just short of 90,000 cattlemen by a total amount of $117,579,000. This Bill, of course, is in a different bracket but it demonstrates the manner by which this Government is prepared, able and willing to support those who have, for one reason or another, a particular need to receive assistance from the Commonwealth. The beef industry incentive payment scheme was introduced specifically, to overcome- the real problems of a shortfall in capital by those in the beef industry. This Bill, on the other hand, has been introduced so that those who are receiving a distinct, demonstrable and necessary benefit from disease eradication can contribute towards it.

The importance of animal disease control emerged as a result of an Industries Assistance Commission inquiry. It was determined as a result of the IAC report that it was necessary for animal disease control to be introduced to secure the future of the Australian cattle industry. Its importance cannot be too highly stressed. Our major export market, the United States of America, the European Economic Community and a number of other countries which are either markets or competitors for Australian beef are well on the way to tuberculosis and brucellosis eradication. In these circumstances the tempo of the Australian campaign must be maintained. It is, however, a very costly business and as the IAC said on an early occasion, the demonstrable benefit from the scheme is for those who are cattle producers.

In the three years to June 1979 the Government will have provided grants totalling some $8.5m for the compulsory slaughter of reactor animals. Over the same period, the Government has advanced $47m for campaign operations. Recoveries from the disease eradication components of slaughter levies and export charges are estimated at $28m. Thus, net advances to the industry over the period have approximated $19m. The Government has decided that such outstanding advances should bear interest at the long term bond rate from 1 July 1979. For 1979-80, the Government has agreed to an allocation of $22m for operations and $3.6m for compensation towards a Commonwealth-States program totalling $36.4m. Needless to say, that is the largest program yet embraced by any government for disease eradication in the livestock industries. The Treasurer, in the 1978-79 Budget Speech announced that the Government would be reviewing the industry’s financial contribution to the campaign. The outcome of that review was announced by the Treasurer in his statement to the House on 24 May.

Given the marked improvement in returns to the cattle industry in the past year, it has been decided that the industry’s rate of contribution to brucellosis and TB eradication can be stepped up. The Bill reflects that decision and provides for the maximum disease eradication levy on cattle slaughter to be increased from $1 to $3 per head. The Government has agreed to a request from the Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation to introduce levies on the slaughter of calves. Until now, calves under 90 kg dressed weight have been exempt from levy. The industry sector producing calves does receive substantial benefit, however, from the marketing and promotional activity of the AMLC and from the research funded from the slaughter levies and matching Commonwealth contributions. At the request of the dairy industry, provision has been made for a special category of bobby calves. These are intended to be levied at 10 per cent of the rate for cattle. The rate proposed for heavier calves is approximately 35 per cent of the cattle rate. For disease eradication, the proposed maxima are respectively 30c and $1 per head. The Government proposes to recommend to the Governor-General that regulations be promulgated setting the disease eradication components of cattle, calf and bobby calf slaughter levies as from 1 July 1979 at the maximum levels provided in the Bill- namely $3, $1, and 30c per head respectively. On projected 1979-80 slaughterings the resulting revenue for cattle disease eradication is estimated at $23.26m in a full year.

I turn now to a summary of the specific provisions of the Bill before the House. Clause 3 provides for amendments to definitions to reflect the inclusion of the two additional categories of bobby calf and calf. Clause 4 deletes from subsection 5 (2) (b) of the Act the provision that levy is not payable on the slaughter of cattle the dressed weights of which do not exceed 90 kg. This results from the proposal that calves should become subject to levy. Clause 4 also provides for amendment of sub-section 5 (2) (a) of the Act. The purpose of this is to achieve consistency with a similar provision included in the Livestock Slaughter (Export Inspection Charge) Bill. It was considered necessary to use the amended form of words in that Bill to ensure that charge could be imposed on the slaughter of horses notwithstanding that horsemeat cannot be used for human consumption in any Australian State.

Clause 5 provides for the maximum amount of the disease eradication component of the cattle slaughter levy to be amended from $ 1 per head to $3 per head. Clause 6 provides for the same amendment in relation to the slaughter of buffaloes. Clause 7 provides for levies to be payable on the slaughter of bobby calves and calves. The levy components provided for in each case are the same as those for cattle. Clause 8 relates to the requirement for certain bodies to be consulted before recommendations are made on amounts of levy to be prescribed. The amendment proposed in this clause extends these requirements to apply also to recommendations for rates of levy on calves and bobby calves. I commend the Bill to honourable members.

Debate (on motion by Mr Morris) adjourned.

page 2483

LIVE-STOCK SLAUGHTER LEVY COLLECTION AMENDMENT BILL 1979

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

Second Reading

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

– I move:

The purpose of this Bill is to amend the Principal Act as to take account of the proposed introduction of levies on the slaughter of bobby calves and calves under the Live-stock Slaughter Levy

Act 1964. The amendment is to authorise payment into the National Cattle Disease Eradication Trust Account of the proceeds of the disease eradication components of bobby calf and calf slaughter levies. I commend the Bill to honourable members.

Debate (on motion by Mr Morris) adjourned.

page 2484

LIVE-STOCK EXPORT CHARGE AMENDMENT BILL 1979

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

Second Reading

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

– I move:

The purpose of this Bill is to amend the Livestock Export Charge Act 1977 to increase the maximum rate which may be charged on live cattle and buffalo exports for the purposes of animal disease eradication from $ 1 to $3 per head. This matches the similar amendments provided in the Live-stock Slaughter Levy Amendment Bill just introduced. The Government proposes to seek the promulgation of regulations to increase the charge to $3 per head from 1 July 1 979. At this rate it is estimated to yield approximately $150,000 in a full year. I commend the Bill to honourable members.

Debate (on motion by Mr Morris) adjourned.

page 2484

HEALTH INSURANCE AMENDMENT BILL 1979

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

Second Reading

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

-I move:

The Bill proposes that long-term patients accommodated in hospitals who no longer require hospital treatment are to be reclassified as nursing home type patients and required to contribute part of their pension to their care and accommodation in the same way as patients in nursing homes. There is general agreement in principle between State Health Ministers and myself that action should be taken to reclassify long term patients in public hospitals whose situation is similar to nursing home patients. Discussions have been held with the National Standing Committee of Private Hospitals and the Australian Medical Association has also been consulted. The proposals contained in the legislation before the House are based on those discussions.

The Bill, in paragraph (b) of clause 3, defines a ‘nursing-home type patient’ as, briefly, an inpatient whose hospitalisation exceeds 60 days, unless a certificate has been issued in accordance with new section 3b, inserted by clause 4 of the Bill. The certificate may be issued at any time by a medical practitioner who certifies that the patient is in need of acute care; professional attention for an acute phase of the patient’s condition; active rehabilitation; or continued management, for medical reasons, as a hospital patient. I would emphasise that pensioners, or any other patients, who are required to enter hospital for an acute phase of illness will not be affected by the provisions of this Bill. These patients will be treated as normal hospital patients and will be entitled to receive hospital treatment as long as they are accommodated and require hospital treatment. They will not be required to contribute part of their pension towards their care and accommodation while such acute phase continues.

The Bill deals with the fees to be charged to nursing-home type patients in recognised hospitals covered under a hospital cost-sharing agreement between the Commonwealth and a State. The matter of the levels of hospital benefits payable by health insurance organisations in respect of nursing-home type patients is included in complementary provisions which amend the National Health Act 1953. 1 will deal with those proposals when introducing that legislation.

The proposal in relation to recognised hospitals, is that the agreement between the Commonwealth and a State is to be varied to provide for charges to be made in respect of nursing-home type patients in recognised hospitals which will be equal to, firstly, where the patient is not a hospital insured person- the patient contribution paid by nursing-home patients in the relevant State; and secondly, where the patient is a hospital insured person- the total of the patient contribution and the Commonwealth nursing home benefit payable in the relevant State. These levels of benefit vary from State to State, and presently range from $11.75 a day in Western Australia to $20.40 a day in Victoria. An additional benefit of $6 per day is payable for extensive care patients which will be reflected in the fees charged. Extensive care is the terminology.

Honourable members will note that the term ‘patient contribution’, for the purposes of the new arrangements, is defined in paragraph (c) of clause 3 of the Bill. Further, the amendment made by clause 10, varying the Heads of Agreement in Schedule 2 to the Health Insurance Act 1973, enables the appropriate patient contribution to be levied on patients who are not hospital insured.

The final amendment in the Bill relating to this matter is contained in clause 8. Certain private hospitals, conducted by religious and charitable organisations, have beds approved for the purposes of the payment of a supplementary daily bed payment, in addition to the private hospital bed day subsidy of $16 payable under section 33 of the Act. This supplementary payment relates to patients to whom care and treatment is provided without charge- They are in an identical position to hospital patients in recognised hospitals who are treated free of charge. The amendment in clause 8 places these patients, in respect of whom an approval is in force under section 34 of the Act, on the same basis as similar patients in recognised hospitals as regards the payment of a ‘patient contribution’, in the event they are classified as nursing-home type patients.

Honourable members will recall that in my statement to the House on 24 May advising details of the revised health insurance arrangements to operate from 1 September 1979, I stated that a key element would be the introduction of a universal medical guarantee for doctors’ fees over $20 for each schedule service. The proposal will be that Commonwealth medical benefit will be payable only for medical benefits schedule fees above $20 except in the case of pensioners with pensioner health benefit cards, entitlement cards and patients classified by their doctors as disadvantaged. The new rate of Commonwealth medical benefit will equal the amount by which the schedule fee exceeds $20. The amendments contained in clause 5 of the Bill give effect to this Government initiative. Clauses 6 and 7 are consequential amendments to the amendment made by clause 5. 1 would emphasise to honourable members that the provisions governing the payment of Commonwealth medical benefits for eligible pensioners and disadvantaged persons remain unchanged.

A further matter dealt with in the Bill is contained in clause 9. This provision enables Commonwealth medical benefits payments under the Health Insurance Act 1973 to be paid out of the National Welfare Fund, as are similar type commonwealth benefits, such as pharmaceutical benefits, and covers unforeseen circumstances such as large-scale epidemics. The amendment, together with those in Part III of the Bill, has the further effect of permitting the Department of Health to pay medical benefits which become payable in respect of services rendered before 1 November 1978, the date the current medical benefit arrangements came into effect, Presently, these payments are made by the Health Insurance Commission on behalf of the Commonwealth. The amendments in clause 9 and Part III of the Bill will commence operation on 1 July 1979. The amendment made by paragraph (a) of clause 3 of the Bill, together with the transitional provision in clause 15, provides for the Northern Territory to be an approved pathology practitioner, for the purposes of the pathology benefits arrangements. The amendment is operative from 1 January 1979 and is necessitated by the granting of self-government to the Territory from that date. The remaining provisions, in the Bill, clauses 13 and 14, are transitional provisions relating to the proposals for nursinghome type patients. I commend the Bil to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr Morris) adjourned.

page 2485

NATIONAL HEALTH AMENDMENT BILL 1979

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

Second Reading

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

That the Bill be now read a second time.

The Bill before the House contains provisions relating to three principal matters. Firstly, health insurance benefits payable under revised arrangements, secondly, amendments to procedures relating to the tabling of ministerial directions and revocations under the National Health Act and, thirdly, improvements to the isolated patients travel and accommodation assistance scheme.

The first group of provisions relating to health insurance benefits concerns the revised medical benefits arrangements to operate from 1 September 1979. The details of these arrangements were contained in my statement to the House on 24 May 1979. Honourable members will recall that at that time I advised that, under the Government’s revised medical benefits arrangements to operate from 1 September 1979, registered medical benefits organisations would be continued to be required to pay out of the basic medical benefits table, medical benefits of 75 per cent of the schedule fee with a maximum payment by the patient of $ 10 for each service where the schedule fee is charged.

The amendments contained in paragraphs (b), (c) and (d) of clause 3, which amend the definitions of ‘basic medical benefits table’ and ‘guaranteed medical benefit’ and insert a new definition of ‘prescribed professional service’, ensure that the appropriate medical benefit is paid by registered medical benefits organisations. As I further mentioned in my statement of 24 May 1979, a period of two months from 1 September 1979 will be allowed during which persons who enrol with registered medical benefits organisations for benefits from a basic or optional medical benefits table, will receive immediate entitlement to such benefits without any waiting period being applied.

Debate interrupted.

page 2486

ADJOURNMENT

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-Order! It being 10.30 p.m., I propose the question: That the House do now adjourn.

Mr Macphee:

– I require the question to be put forthwith without debate.

Question resolved in the negative.

page 2486

NATIONAL HEALTH AMENDMENT BILL 1979

Second Reading

Debate resumed.

Mr HUNT:
NCP/NP

– I would like to repeat that point for the benefit of those who may be interested. I had to rush in order to try to get the burden of that message across by 10.30 p.m. I mentioned in my statement of 24 May 1979 that a period of 2 months from 1 September 1979 will be allowed during which persons who enrol with registered medical benefits organisations for benefits from a basic or optional medical benefits table will receive immediate entitlement to such benefits without any waiting period being applied. The condition of registration specified in clause 15 provides accordingly.

The second group of provisions relating to health insurance benefits concerns the level of hospital benefits to be paid by registered hospital benefits organisations for nursing-home type patients. These provisions are complementary to provisions contained in the Health Insurance Amendment Bill 1979. 1 will not speak in detail of the provisions in that Bill, but I would draw the attention of honourable members on both sides of the House to the terms ‘nursing-home type patients’ and ‘patient contribution’ which are defined in the Health Insurance Amendment Bill 1979 and which were explained in my second reading speech on that legislation. These terms will have the same meaning for the purposes of the amendments made by the Bill now before the House. As I further mentioned in my second reading speech on the Health Insurance Amendment Bill 1979, the proposals in relation to nursing-home type patients envisage fees being charged, under Commonwealth-State hospital agreements, in recognised hospitals, related to these types of patients. For uninsured persons, this will be a fee equivalent to the patient contribution paid by nursing home patients in State government nursing homes in the relevant State. For hospital insured persons, the fees charged nursing-home type patients will again be subject to Commonwealth-State hospital agreements. These fees will be set at the level of the aggregate of the defined patient contribution, and the Commonwealth nursing home benefit payable in the relevant State. This benefit is specified in section 47 of the National Health Act and ranges from $11.75 a day in Western Australia to $20.40 a day in Victoria. A further nursing home benefit of $6 a day is payable in respect of extensive care patients, and this benefit will also be reflected in the fees charged such nursing-home type patients. Presently nursing home benefits payable under the National Health Act by registered hospital benefits organisations are specified in basic and optional hospital benefits tables operated by these organisations.

The Bill, in clause 3, amends the definition of ‘basic hospital benefits table’ by specifying the hospital benefits payable for nursing-home type patients in recognised and private hospitals in a State where provision for such patients is made in the Commonwealth-State Hospital Agreement. In brief, the benefit for insured nursinghome type patients in recognised hospitals will be an amount equal to the fees payable by the patient, less the patient contribution, as defined in the Health Insurance Amendment Bill 1979. The principle will be similar in private hospitals. However, the level of hospital benefits payable in private hospitals from the basic table will not exceed, at any time, the fees charged for sharedward accommodation in recognised hospitals, at present $40 a day. The benefit level could be reduced below that level having regard to the amount of the fee payable by the patient. The amendment made by paragraphs (a) and (b) of clause 10 of the Bill enables benefits for nursinghome type patients to be paid out of optional hospital benefits tables operated by registered organisations. Registered hospital benefits organisations will not be permitted to offer benefits from their basic or optional hospital benefits tables to cover the amount of the patient contribution. The condition of registration contained in clause 13 of the Bill ensures that the patient contribution, as denned in the Health Insurance Amendment Bill 1979, will also be payable by nursing-home type patients who insure for hospital benefits above the level payable under a basic or optional hospital benefits table. The concept of the patient being required to pay a personal contribution is consistent with the principle applying in nursing homes.

The second matter covered by the Bill before the house concerns the procedures involved in relation to ministerial directions and revocations. Section 73BE (2) of the National Health Act provides for the Minister to give a direction in relation to matters of discrimination and the level of medical and hospital benefits payable. Section 73E enables the Minister to revoke a declaration in relation to an optional table which satisfies guidelines determined by the Minister. The ministerial directions and revocations which I have just mentioned are presently subject to review by Parliament. Sections 73 BE and 73E provide for the Minister to place a copy of any direction or instrument of revocation before each House of Parliament. The direction or revocation does not take effect until the period of 15 sitting days specified for disallowance has passed. These provisions were based on a precedent contained in section 42 of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976.

During the debate in the Senate in November last year on the National Health Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1978, which inserted the relevant provisions into the National Health Act, it was pointed out that, although a motion upon notice for disallowance of the direction or instrument of revocation might be tabled, there is no obligation that such a motion be dealt with. In the event that the motion was not considered within the period of disallowance, the direction or revocation would automatically come into effect at the cessation of that period. At the time the provisions were inserted in the legislation it was intended that an effective review procedure would be provided. I have taken cognizance of the points made during the debate in the Senate on the National Health Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1978- the matter was raised by Senator Cavanagh- and accept that the procedure provided for was not suitable for the circumstances specified under the National Health Act. Accordingly, the Bill, in clauses 9 and 10, provides that a ministerial direction, under section 7 3 BE, and an instrument of revocation, under section 73E, having been tabled in both Houses of Parliament in accordance with those provisions, will not come into effect until any motion upon notice has been withdrawn or properly dealt with.

I turn now to the isolated patients travel and accommodation assistance scheme, an excellent scheme. This scheme, which commenced on 1 October 1978, provides financial assistance to help meet the travel and accommodation expenses incurred when people living in isolated areas need to travel long distances to receive specialist medical attention. Both sides of the Parliament welcomed the scheme, as have the residents of isolated areas who previously could have been faced with considerable expenses should they require specialist medical attention. However, experience has shown that there are certain anomalies in the scheme. Clauses 4 to 8 of this Bill, and regulations that are proposed to be made, will give effect to the changes to the scheme that I foreshadowed in this House on 24 May 1 979. The Bill will permit the exemption of residents of certain offshore islands from the requirement that applicants live more than 200 kilometres from the specialist to whom they are referred. Some residents of these islands have been excluded from the scheme because they live within 200 kilometres of the places of specialist treatment. However, the difficulties they ordinarily face in travelling to receive treatment are such that the Government considers that they should be eligible for assistance. The islands concerned are Kangaroo Island in South Australia-

Mr Porter:

– Hear, hear!

Mr HUNT:

– The honourable member for Barker, who has been listening to my speech, says ‘hear, hear’. He was one of the prime movers in this matter. Other islands concerned are Groote Eylandt, Melville Island, Bathurst Island, Elcho Island in the Northern Territory, Three Hummock Island, King Island and the Furneaux Group in Tasmania. Regulations being proposed would extend the scheme to these islands.

The Bill will also remove the requirement for patients to obtain departmental approval prior to their commencing the journey for treatment. This has not always been practicable and has resulted in some otherwise eligible persons being unable to receive benefits because of the bureaucratic problems associated with that arrangement. It has therefore been decided to delete the necessity for prior approval. However, patients will be required to lodge their applications within 6 months of the date of referral. The Act presently provides that financial assistance will be automatically approved for an adult person to accompany patients under the age of 14 years. In view of the obvious difficulties which can be experienced by young people travelling alone to capital cities, this Bill will raise this age limit from 14 years to 17 years.

The Government also proposes to make the scheme available to a greater number of people living outside metropolitan areas. The existing isolated areas are those local government areas having 50 per cent or more of their population at least 200 kilometres from the general post offices in the capital cities or the central post office of cities with a population of over 100,000. This has caused some difficulty where the required specialist treatment is available only in certain capital cities. For example, some patients with particular difficulties, such as spina bifida, who lived within 200 kilometres of cities with a population of over 100,000 were not eligible even though the required medical specialty was not available in those cities. It is proposed that nonisolated areas will be restricted to the metropolitan areas of the mainland capital cities other than Darwin and Canberra.

Mr Hodgman:

– Hear, hear!

Mr HUNT:

– This also means, as the honourable member would be pleased to know, that the residents of Tasmania will be eligible where the specialty is not available in Hobart or Launceston and they need to travel to Melbourne. The requirement that applicants travel at least 200 kilometres for treatment- with the exception of residents of certain off-shore islands, as previously mentioned- will remain.

The Government believes that the proposed changes will enhance an already excellent scheme which has been of considerable help to persons living in isloated areas. The changes that I have foreshadowed tonight will remove some of the red tape which has been associated with the scheme and will ensure that the scheme is directed at those for whom it was originally intended. The remaining provisions of the Bill are technical amendments which enable committees established under section 136 of the National Health Act to consider matters relevant to the Health Insurance Act and an amendment consequential upon the amendment made in clause 9 to section 73 BE. It is with pleasure that I commend the Bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr Morris) adjourned.

page 2488

EXCISE AMENDMENT BILL (No. 2) 1979

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

Second Reading

Mr MACPHEE:
Minister for Productivity · Balaclava · LP

– I move:

The purpose of this Bill is to enable the implementation of the Government’s decision, announced by the Treasurer (Mr Howard) in his speech to the Parliament on 24 May 1979, that from 1 July 1979 it will increase the existing $18.90 per kilolitre- ($3 per barrel)- excise levy on oil priced at import parity by an amount equal to the increase that will by then have occurred in the import parity price since 3 1 December 1978. As stated by the Treasurer, essentially this measure will provide a self-adjusting mechanism for setting the levy on import parity oil so that the public revenue rather than the Australian producers secure the gains which result from the induced price increases of the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries.

This measure, without making any allowance for future OPEC increases, will add an estimated $166m to the revenue in the next financial year without added expense to consumers. Since last year’s Budget the oil producers have paid $18.90 per kilolitre- $3 per barrel- excise duty on parity oil. Because this levy was not altered when import parity oil increased in price on 1 January 1979 the total increase benefited producers alone. This measure will enable the levy to increase so that the producers’ windfall gains since I January 1979 will not carry on past 1 July 1979. In effect the producers’ return for import parity oil will return to the level that existed as at 3 1 December 1978. Obviously, when the Government’s policy was set at the time of the last Budget the international events, which since then have greatly accelerated the world price of oil, were not anticipated. Whilst on the one hand the Government has said that the Australian consumer cannot be sheltered from the cost of oil on the world markets, nevertheless it cannot stand by and let windfall gains of the magnitude reflected by the world price increases all go to the Australian oil producers.

The amendment of section 77m of the Excise Act is to provide the necessary legal machinery whereby the rebate calculation, which currently provides that the producers of parity oil pay a levy fixed at $18.90 per kilolitre-$3 per barrelcan be prescribed by regulation so that the net levy can be adjusted complementary to changes in the import parity price. I commend the Bill to honourable members.

Debate (on motion by Mr Morris) adjourned.

page 2489

BILLS RETURNED FROM THE SENATE

The following Bills were returned from the Senate without amendment or requests:

Income Tax Assessment Amendment Bill (No. 2 ) 1979. Income Tax (Mining Withholding Tax) Bill 1979.

page 2489

ADJOURNMENT

Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport- Australia’s Growth Rate

Motion (by Mr Macphee) proposed:

That the House do now adjourn.

Mr Les McMahon:
SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Tonight I would like to discuss the most important issue that has affected my electorate for the last few years. I refer to the extension of the Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport. On Sunday, 27 May 1 979, 1, together with the Deputy Leader of the Australian Labor Party- the honourable member for Kingsford-Smith (Mr Lionel Bowen)- attended a protest meeting on that subject. Also in attendance were certain members of the New South Wales Parliament, namely, Mr Laurie Brereton, the honourable member for Heffron; Mr Brian Bannon, the honourable member for Rockdale; and Mr Tom Cahill, the honourable member for Marrickville. I am a bit disappointed that no Federal or State member of the Liberal Party of Australia was in attendance. I suppose that they are keeping out of the trouble spots but they will have to take sides sooner or later. Their electors will make their decisions and those members will have to be counted.

The protest meeting was at the Coronation Hall at Mascot. It was the fifth meeting on this subject that I and other members of the Labor Party have attended in the last seven months. As most honourable members would know, the meeting concerned the proposed extension of the runway at Sydney International Airport. Also in attendance at the meeting were over 2,000 residents. There were also many Mayors, or their representatives, of municipalities around Sydney. In attendance were the Mayors of Leichhardt, South Sydney, Marrickville, Botany, Rockdale, Hurstville, Drummoyne, Ashfield, Waverley and Kogarah. I could have missed out a few mayors or municipalities that were represented. That list is all I have. They represent approximately half a million ratepayers. The rates that those people pay amount to approximately $500m. The people in these municipalities live in the vicinity of the path of the proposed extension of the airport runway. The also live in the path of the existing extension.

With these few words I take umbrage at an editorial in the Sydney Morning Herald of 28

May 1979. It is headed ‘Airport hot air’. We all read the leaders of newspapers to find out what is going on around Sydney. I do not know if the reporter who reported this article is a new reporter or just a person who lives at Galston or on the north side of Sydney. In mentioning the Deputy Leader of the Australian Labor Party (Mr Bowen) who is the honourable member for Kingsford Smith, the editorial reads as follows:

His scare tactics in hinting at the possibility of a repetition, over Sydney, of the tragic crash at Chicago airport on Saturday were particularly regrettable. His remarks to the Mascot protest meeting were well below the level of responsibility expected of a senior ALP spokesman.

I am pleased that the editorial stated this. It continues:

Mr Bowen is, of course, entitled to his opinion about the desirability, or otherwise, of expanding the present airport at Mascot. Early this year, he called for the construction of a new airport outside Sydney. That is a defensible view. But he is not entitled to try to impose his opinion on everybody else by inciting industrial action.

He did not say anything about industrial action. I was at the meeting and I spoke also. The article continues:

Not all members of the unions potentially involved will be happy with the idea, especially in the depressed state of the construction industry. The future of Sydney as Australia’s most important international airport, with all that this implies, must also be taken into consideration.

It has to be remembered that Mascot, the site of yesterday’s protest meeting, is in the heart of Mr Bowen ‘s own Federal electorate of Kingsford Smith;

Why would he not look after the people he is representing? Why should he not go to a meeting to talk about a proposed extension? The article continues: and that all of the nine State seats in the vicinity of Sydney airport are held by Labor. It is inexcusable that Mr Bowen, and others of like mind or with the same political interests, should condone the performance of about 300 motorists -

I must say those motorists went out and made the decision to do what they did. Other members and I were looking after our electorates. The honourable member for Kingsford Smith and I made the decision that on the -

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

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

Mr HYDE:
Moore

-Australia is a vast land mass but in every other respect it is a relative small country lying, with New Zealand, at the southern extremity of east Asia. It lies close to that part of the world which, above all, is achieving spectacular growth. Yet, we are not sharing in that growth. If we compare real growth per head of population of the 5 years from 1971 to 1976 we see that the Australian economy has grown at an annual rate of 1.9 per cent while Japan has achieved 3.9 per cent; Hong

Kong, 6.9 per cent; South Korea, 9.2 per cent; the Philippines, 3.4 per cent; Thailand, 3.8 per cent; Singapore, 6.8 per cent and Indonesia 5.1 per cent. Taiwan and Malaysia, although not included in the United Nations Year Book figures, also did well. Because of living standards of the people of those countries are rising much faster than our own and because their capacity for aggression or defence is growing relative to our own, it is advisable to ask why. Do they possess some inherent advantage which we cannot share or do we have something to learn? It is not that they have access to valuable natural resources. Australia is far better endowed than all of them, with the exception perhaps of Indonesia which has oil.

It is true that as they are all building their growth from a lower base the opportunity to import technology which has been developed in other countries, notably the U.S, might account for some of their success. But Japan, Kong Kong, Singapore, Korea, and Taiwan in many respects, have technology superior to our own. It is therefore an opportunity which should also be available to us if only we could or would avail ourselves of it.

With the exception of Japan, these nations are all, in gross domestic product terms, quite small- in fact, of the same order as Australia. They all have at least one thing in common, that is, that a high proportion of their product and expenditure consists of traded goods or services. Most have become attractive homes for internationally mobile capital so they can afford to import a little more than they export. But in broad terms exports and imports must be of similar magnitude. Two other nations not of our region- Brazil and Spain- also have achieved spectacular growth and apparently have chosen international trade as their path to economic salvation. The secret of their success is possibly not entirely that they have accepted the truth of the principle of comparative advantage and, with its acceptance, have concentrated on doing some but not all things and doing those same things very well- selling internationally and at the same time buying from overseas goods better produced elsewhere. But the evidence says that trade is, at least, one key to economic success.

The secret of our relative failure might be that we have not been willing to accept that we should be prepared to purchase many of our needs from those who can provide them cheaper. No country can for very long sell more than it buys. Were it to try to do so the value of its currency would be driven up so that the domestic prices of both imports and exports would fall, in time causing imports to rise and exports to fall. Balance is restored. A barrier to imports is thus a barrier to exports. ‘Export now’ campaigns, trade commissioner services and export incentives may maintain the value of the Australian dollar at levels higher than it would otherwise settle, which may be good for national pride but they will do nothing to increase trade unless we are prepared at the same time to admit more imports.

Australia must be prepared to import and if we wish to stay relatively wealthy we must be prepared to import those things where our comparative advantage is least, that is, those commodities which at present must surmount the highest tariffs or most restrictive quotas, in particular, motor cars, clothing, textiles, footwear, paper products and fabricated metal products. The rapid growth of our region of the world presents us with a singular opportunity. Our own tariff and import quotas are shutting that opportunity out. It will be our children rather than our neighbours’ children who will lose most by our policy.

Mr Les McMahon:
SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I refer to the proposed extension of the Sydney (Kingsford Smith) Airport and to a letter from the Minister for Transport (Mr Nixon). He said:

Dear Mr McMahon,

The petition received by the House of Representatives on 3 May 1979, which you lodged on behalf of residents and workers in the Newtown area, has been passed to me for consideration.

As you are aware, a joint committee of Commonwealth and State officials is investigating the wide range of possible development and other options which could provide adequate air transport facilities in the Sydney region over the next 25 years. Under its terms of reference the joint committee is required to take into account all relevant factorseconomic, financial, social, technical, operational, environmental, land use and community attitudes. Moreover, the studies undertaken should satisfy the requirements of applicable Commonwealth and State environmental protection legislation.

The joint committee is now in the process of concluding its consideration of all the inputs to the Major Airport Needs of Sydney study, including submissions from the public.

The Committee will be submitting its recommendations to both the Commonwealth and New South Wales Governments. Action on any recommendation will, of course, be a matter for discussion and decision by the two Governments.

I have noted the concern of people in the Newtown area regarding the possible increase in noise and traffic as a result of new runway development at Kingsford Smith Airport, and have made the Commonwealth/State committee aware of the petition.

Your sincerely, PETER NIXON

I should like to read also an article ‘Protest Over Runway Plan’ which appeared in the Daily Telegraph on Monday, 28 May 1 979. It said:

The demonstrators were local residents protesting planned extensions to runways at Mascot.

Residents from all suburbs in the airport area had earlier attended a protest meeing at Coronation Hall, Mascot.

They agreed to again demonstrate at the airport on Sunday, 1 July.

The alternative to extending present runways is to build another airport.

A recommendation made at a meeting on Sunday was that Sydney airport be closed on Sunday, I July 1979.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

– It being 1 1 p.m. the debate is interrupted.

Mr Macphee:

– I require that the debate be extended.

Mr MACPHEE:
Minister for Productivity and Acting Minister for Transport · Balaclava · LP

– I think the quotation by the honourable member for Sydney (Mr Les McMahon) from the letter of the Minister of Transport (Mr Nixon) to the Deputy leader of the Opposition (Mr Lionel Bowen) really answers his allegations. If one can quote the Sydney Morning Herald, this debate and the contribution by the honourable member for Sydney certainly are airport hot air. To talk of industrial action when the letter from the Minister acknowledges that the report has not been received, let alone acted upon, is irresponsible in the extreme. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition has been quoted widely by the media in the last 24 hours as having said at yesterday’s meeting: … I understand a decision has been made by the Federal Government to build a parallel runway at Mascot.

He has also been quoted as saying: . . . The Government is delaying the announcement until after the federal by-election for Grayndler on June 23.

The Deputy Leader of the Opposition has also been reported as claiming that a similar aircraft accident to that which happened on Friday in Chicago could occur if Kingsford-Smith airport were extended. He is also reported as having said that there ought to be a trade union ban on the extension work. Certainly the honourable member for Sydney has confirmed that there is going to be further action on 1 July.

Mr Carlton:

– Disgraceful.

Mr MACPHEE:

– It is quite disgraceful because the honourable member for Sydney should know, as any member of this House is entitled to know, that the study being conducted at Sydney airport in respect of its future or an alternative is a joint study by the Commonwealth Government and the New South Wales Government. As indicated in the letter from the Minister to the

Deputy Leader of the Opposition, from which we have heard extracts, this joint study has gone out of its way to call public submissions and to arouse public interest, including trade union interest. There has been remarkably little in the way of constructive submissions to the inquiry. It is a joint study conducted by two governments. The report has not been received by either government. It is not a matter for unilateral action by this Government. There is no report before this Government; there is no report before the New South Wales Government. There is an obligation upon the two governments to consult as soon as they receive the report and then to decide how they will process it. That information is freely available to anybody who asks for it, and it ill becomes the honourable member for Sydney or the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to make wild statements.

Mr Morris:

– I rise on a point of order. My point of order relates to the courtesy followed in the extension of the adjournment debate to allow the Minister the opportunity to reply. As I understand the courtesy as it has been practised, when a matter that concerns a Minister or Acting Minister is raised by a member in the adjournment debate, the Minister has the opportunity to respond to that comment. The Minister is speaking to and about the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. I think it would be a fair and ordinary courtesy, if the Minister wishes to attack the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, to invite him to be present and to participate. The point relates to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, not the honourable member for Sydney.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-Order! There is no point or order. The Minister is not taking advantage of a courtesy. It is an entitlement under the orders of the House.

Mr MACPHEE:

– I wish to make it quite clear that if the Deputy Leader of the Opposition wishes to come in at any time to make a personal explanation I would be delighted to reply to him then. The fact is that the honourable member for Sydney expressly quoted the Sydney Morning Herald and referred to the remarks of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition.

Mr Morris:

– And expressed his own view.

Mr MACPHEE:

– And expressed his own view, having heard the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. Let me respond to the honourable member for Sydney, who quoted the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. I did not come in here with the intention of attacking the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, but he has exposed himself to attack. He has exposed himself to attack. The comment one has to make is that when the Sydney Morning Herald refers to ‘airport hot air’, it provides a service to the community, because it points out the failure-

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-The Minister’s time has expired. If no other Minister is seeking a call, the Minister for Productivity may speak again in the time remaining.

Mr MACPHEE:

-Thank you, Mr Acting Speaker. I would like to reinforce the views expressed by the Sydney Morning Herald in its editorial, when it says:

In calling yesterday for a total trade-union ban on any future work involving the expansion of Kingsford-Smith Airport, the Deputy Leader of the Federal Opposition, Mr Bowen, came alarmingly close to abandoning reason in favour of emotion-

Mr Les McMahon:
SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I raise a point of order. I was at the meeting and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition did not say that. It is a lie.

Mr Les McMahon:
SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I raise a point of order. I was at the meeting and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition did not say that. It is a lie.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

– That is not a point of order. The honourable member for Sydney will resume his seat.

Mr Morris:

– I also raise a point of order. In all fairness I put it to you again, Mr Acting Speaker, that the nature of the adjournment debate is to provide an opportunity for the Minister to reply. If you allow the Minister to follow the course that he is following, whether he realises it or not, he will, in fact, debase the tempo of this kind of debate. The response by the Minister is to enable him to reply to comments from an honourable member and, as the honourable member for Sydney has already pointed out, the remarks to which the Minister is adverting are remarks which were not made. He is acting on a newspaper report. 1 think this debases the whole debate.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-The honourable member for Shortland has taken his point of order. I rule that there is no substance to the point of order. The Chair understands that the Minister is addressing himself to the statements made in the speech of the honourable member for Sydney.

Mr Les McMahon:
SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I again raise a point of order, Mr Acting Speaker. You have said in relation to what I said tonight that the Minister has made his point. But I did not say that the member for Kingsford-Smith said that he would take direct action. I was quoting from an editorial in the Sydney Morning Herald.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member is not taking a point of order. He is claiming to have been misrepresented, which is a matter for another time. I call the Minister for Productivity.

Mr MACPHEE:

– Whether or not the Deputy Leader of the Opposition said what is attributed to him, there have been any amount of media reports in the past 24 hours on the subject. He has not sought to come into the House and disown them by way of a personal explanation. He would have a very strong right of action against some of the media people if he did not say what he is accused of saying. In this case a responsible newspaper is talking about the scare tactics of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition when he talks about a Chicago type crash at Sydney Airport when he knows- if he does not he can soon find out- that the joint committee which is to report to the two governments, the New South Wales Government and the Commonwealth Government has not reported, let alone been suppressed because of a by-election. It is really disgraceful conduct and I can only say that I agree with the Sydney Morning Herald when it says that his remarks to the Mascot protest meeting were well below the level of responsibility expected of a senior Australian Labor Party spokesman. The editorial went on to state:

It is inexcusable that Mr Bowen, and others of like mind or with the same political interests, should condone the performance of about 300 motorists who mounted, after the protest meeting, something very like a blockade of the international terminal at Mascot- thus, among other things, causing two passengers to miss their flights. Any further action of this kind will rebound sharply on the Labor Party.

I can only say that the Liberal candidate for the electorate of Grayndler must be delighted at this kind of conduct, and we can only hope that that sort of irrationality continues. In marked contrast to this, members such as the member for St George (Mr Neil) have repeatedly, constructively and rationally tried to cope with this problem which affects their constituents every bit as much as it affects the constituents of the Labor Party members to whom the honourable member for Sydney referred.

I think it is disgraceful that a statement is made alleging that this Government has a report, has made up its mind on the report and is suppressing it until some by-election is over. We do not have the report. When we do have it, in consultation with the New South Wales Government we will make up our minds what to do about it. In the meantime, it is a most serious failure on the part of the Opposition not to find out what the facts are.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-The debate having concluded, the House stands adjourned until 10.30 a.m. tomorrow.

House adjourned at 1 1.10 p.m.

page 2493

NOTICES

The following notices were given:

Mr Sinclair to present a Bill for an Act to amend the Meat Research Act 1960.

Mr Sinclair to present a Bill for an Act to amend the Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation Act 1977.

page 2494

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS UPON NOTICE

The following answers to questions upon notice were circulated:

Housing: Indicative Planning Council (Question No. 3141)

Mr Howe:

asked the Minister for Housing and Construction, upon notice, on 20 February 1979:

  1. 1 ) With regard to the Indicative Planning Council for the housing industry, and, in particular, the staffing of the secretariats of his Department in each State Office, is it a fact that the Public Service Board had approved a proposal for a staff of 4 Clerks ( 1 Class 8, 1 Class 6 and 2 Class 4) in each office and that on 1 1 November 1 975 only Executive Council approval was outstanding.
  2. If so, was this staffing proposal not proceeded with after the change of Government on that date.
  3. Did this decision result in the existing staff of 2, who were already fully engaged in housing research, having to carry the additional burdens imposed by the Council.
  4. Was the staff of each State Office reduced early in 1 978 to 1 Class 6 officer who was required to cope with the functions of the Council, housing research and in fact all housing matters that arose in that office.
  5. If the position is as stated, how does he explain these staff reductions in the light of the Housing Costs Inquiry’s recommendations that the Council should carry out more research and especially should provide for regional break-ups of data.
  6. How does he equate the reduction in staff to carry out research into the housing industry with his and the Government ‘s professed concern for the welfare of the industry.
  7. Does he intend to review this situation in light of the Housing Costs Inquiry’s recommendations.
Mr Groom:
Minister for Housing and Construction · BRADDON, TASMANIA · LP

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

  1. 1 ) The information is generally correct, although some classifications of positions were still to be determined.
  2. Yes. The staffing proposal was not proceeded with.
  3. and (4) Yes.
  4. The introduction of staff ceilings, as part of the Government’s policy of restraining public expenditure, required the former Department of Environment, Housing and Community Development to closely assess overall priorities. The decisions made regarding staffing to service the Indicative Planning Council in the States and in Canberra aimed to provide the highest possible service to the Council within the resource constraints.
  5. My Department is continuing to commit substantial staff resources to carry out research into the housing industry. With the creation of the Department of Housing and Construction, Regional Directors are able to provide additional support to the State Committees of the Indicative Planning Council when necessary.
  6. See 6.

Storage of Mustard Gas (Question No. 3148)

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 20 February 1979:

  1. 1 ) Are any documents available to his Department which establish whether a large number of 44 gallon drums containing mustard gas were deposited by the Army in a disused railway tunnel at Lapstone, NSW, during the 1939-45 war.
  2. If so, (a) how many drums were deposited, (b) from where were they taken to Lapstone and (c) on what date or dates were they transported to Lapstone.
  3. Were these drums of mustard gas moved from the railway tunnel.
  4. If so, (a) how many drums were removed, (b) on what date or dates and to which place or places were they removed, (c) what was the condition of both drums and gas at the time of removal and (d ) where are they now.
  5. Is the same railway tunnel now used as a commercial mushroom farm,
  6. If so, what action was taken to ensure that no deleterious effects would accrue either to farm employees, farm products and consumers, or persons working in the vicinity or the general environment.
Mr Killen:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) to (6) Examination has not revealed any Army records bearing on the question asked by the honourable member. His question may, however, relate to the RAAF No 1 Central Reserves Unit, Lithgow, which at various times over the period August 1942-December 1945 placed mustard gas in storage at localities in the general vicinity of Lithgow, including in disused railway tunnels. The records reveal a procedure of regular inspection and do not indicate that any untoward development occurred in relation to the stored mustard gas. They show that all the stocks remaining in the area at the end of the war were destroyed by burning in February-March 1946. The scientific advice I have is that there would not be any deleterious effects from either the storage of the gas or its destruction in this area 33 years ago.

Small Businesses: Rentals (Question No. 3292)

Dr Everingham:
CAPRICORNIA, QUEENSLAND

asked the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, upon notice, on 28 February 1979:

Will he investigate the possibility of trade practices legislation to limit or restrain the imposition on small businesses of rental loadings based on turnover.

Mr Fife:
LP

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

I have referred the matter raised in your question to the Trade Practices Consultative Committee to be considered in the context of the Committee’s general enquiry into the relationship between the restrictive trade practices provisions of the Trade Practices Act and small business whose terms of reference I announced on 9 March 1 979. As pan of its reference I asked the Committee to report whether any action can be taken in relation to the Act to improve the market position of small business.

Health: Genetic Disorders and Birth Abnormalities (Question No. 3510)

Mr Uren:
REID, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 27 March 1979:

Has there been any significant increase, on a national basis, in the incidence of any forms of genetic disorders, or birth abnormalities over the last 30 years; if so, (a) for which conditions has an increase been observed, (b) what is the extent of the increase and (c) what are the suspected causes.

Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

Over the last 30 years there have been considerable advances in the ability to diagnose genetic disorders and birth abnormalities and, concurrently, in the understanding of them. Consequently, there have been considerable changes over this period in terminology of, and in statistical classification of, these diseases. There have also been considerable advances in treatment which in turn have meant that many infants who formerly died now survive and that those who still die do so at later ages than formerly.

The only information from which incidence might be inferred, over all but the last few years of the period referred to in the question, is statistics of neonatal death. However, for the reasons given above, it would not be possible to answer the honourable member’s question without a detailed examination of how each of these factors might have influenced available statistics relating to each individual genetic disorder or birth abnormality. Resources to undertake this task are not yet available.

On 24 November 1978 I announced in Parliament that the Government was prepared to share with the States the costs of perinatal statistical collections that will provide much better information than has been available to date. I also announced the availability of funds for a National Perinatal Statistics Unit, a major role of which would be to examine these statistics. Applications for the Unit have been received and are being assessed.

Mr Renzo di Piramo (Question No. 3534)

Mr Jacobi:
HAWKER, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 27 March 1979:

  1. 1 ) Is it a fact that a sentence of S years imprisonment for bank frauds was imposed in absentia by the Swiss Federal Court on Mr Renzo di Piramo who, according to the Minister’s answer to question No. 744 on 25 May 1977 (Hansard, page 1903), was granted Australian citizenship and an Australian passport on 6 August 1 976.
  2. Are any of Mr di Piramo ‘s subsequent overseas movements known, and does he still hold Australian citizenship and an Australian passport.
Mr MacKellar:
LP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: (1)1 have no information that would support the allegation that Mr Renzo di Piramo was sentenced by the Swiss Federal Court in absentia to five years imprisonment for bank frauds.

Mr di Piramo arrived in Australia in 1973 and was given resident status in November 1973. He was granted citizenship on 6 August 1976 following completion of normal inquiries. Nothing was disclosed to give reason to doubt his eligibility.

  1. Passenger cards would show Mr di Piramo ‘s movements in and out of Australia subsequent to 6 August 1 976. To disclose details would seem unwarranted in the present circumstances, and could well be considered an intrusion on the individual’s privacy.

Mr di Piramo is still an Australian citizen. I am informed that he holds an Australian passport.

Earth Leakage Circuit Breakers (Question No. 3575)

Mr Humphreys:

asked the Minister for Housing and Construction, upon notice, on 3 April 1979:

  1. 1 ) To what extent are devices known as earth leakage circuit breakers installed in Commonwealth Government buildings.
  2. Has any inquiry been conducted into the benefits of using this device; if so, will he state what they are; if not, will he undertake to have such an inquiry carried out.
  3. If there are benefits to be gained from the use of these devices, will he consider their greater use in buildings under his control to ensure greater protection of employees in those buildings.
Mr Groom:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The Department of Housing and Construction installs earth leakage circuit breakers in Commonwealth premises where required under local legislation or in particularly vulnerable situations, e.g. hospital operating theatres.
  2. The Electricity Supply Association of Australia (ESAA) whose membership is representative of practically all electricity supply undertakings in Australia, has appointed various ad-hoc committees to provide advice to electricity users about the principles of operation, the advantages and disadvantages and the application of these devices. The latest report known as ‘Current Operated (CoreBalance) Earth Leakage Protection-D (b) 1 1/1976* is available from ESAA

The report does not press for their use in domestic installations but considers that in certain industrial and similar installations the devices can offer distinct advantages. However the report also draws attention to the availability of other improved safety measures, the problems of ‘nuisance tripping’ and the need for the regular and frequent testing for satisfactory operation.

  1. The expenditure of funds for providing safety measures for Commonwealth employees above those of the current general community standard is considered unwarranted.

Commonwealth Employment Service, Parramatta (Question No. 3709)

Mr John Brown:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on 1 May 1979:

How many ( a ) temporary and ( b ) permanent staff are currently located at the office of the Commonwealth Employment Service, 30 Darcy Street, Parramatta, New South Wales.

Mr Viner:
Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs · STIRLING, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

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

  1. a ) two temporary staff.
  2. b ) thirty-one permanent staff.

Department of Health and Medibank Offices, Parramatta (Question No. 3711) Mr John Brown asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 1 May 1979:

How many (a) temporary and (b) permanent staff are currently located at the office of (i) the Department of Health, 68 Macquarie Street, Parramatta, New South Wales, (ii) Medibank, 55 Phillip Street, Parramatta, and (Hi) Medibank, Westfield Shopping Town.

Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

  1. At the Department of Health Hearing Centre, 68 Macquarie Street, Parramatta, there are:
  2. Two full-time and 2 part-time staff; and

  3. b ) Eleven permanent staff.

    1. At Medibank ‘s regional and branch offices at 55 Phillip Street, Parramatta, there are:
  4. a ) Ninty-nine full-time staff and 22 pan-time staff; and

  5. b ) Seventy-eight permanent staff.

    1. At Medibank ‘s second Parramatta Branch Office at Westfield Shopping Town, there are:
  6. a ) Five pan-time staff; and
  7. Four permanent staff.

Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, Parramatta (Question No. 3713)

Mr John Brown:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 1 May 1979:

How many (a) temporary and (b) permanent staff are currently located at the office of the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, 23 George Street, Parramatta, N.S. W.

Mr MacKellar:
LP

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

  1. and (b) Two temporary and one permanent staff are currently employed on a continuing basis at the Parramatta Migrant Resource Centre. Additionally one temporary employee has been located at that office for a period of about seventeen weeks to deal with matters relating to the Special Youth Employment Training Program.

Asbestos (Question No. 3717)

Mr John Brown:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister for Housing and Construction, upon notice, on 1 May 1979:

  1. 1 ) Is it a fact that his Department insists on the use of asbestos in certain applications in laboratories in the Australian Capital Territory supposedly for its fire-retardant qualities.
  2. If so, has consideration been given to the use of alternative fire-retardant materials, given the serious health risks associated with the use of asbestos.
Mr Groom:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) My Department does not insist on the use of asbestos based materials for fire resistance purposes in laboratories, and where used, it is in the form of a highly compressed asbestos cement sheet coated with an epoxy glaze which is not a health hazard.
  2. My Department has been well aware of the hazard of sprayed asbestos and issued a Technical Directive in March 1977 which prohibits the further installation of sprayed asbestos and asbestos lagging in all government buildings and facilities. Since then the Department is progressively sealing previous installations of sprayed asbestos in all exposed situations, and is replacing sprayed asbestos and asbestos lagging in all situations with suitable alternative materials whenever major maintenance is required. This does not include asbestos cement sheeting which is not considered to be a health hazard. 1976 Census: Chinese Residents (Question No. 3728)
Mr Neil:
ST GEORGE, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 2 May 1979:

Is he now in a position to provide information relating to the number of persons of Chinese origin who were resident in (a) Australia and (b) the Electoral Division of St George at the time of the 1976 Census, referred to in his answer to Question No. 760 (Hansard, 3 1 May and 1 June 1977, page 2266).

Mr MacKellar:
LP

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

  1. At the 1976 Census, 36,638 persons describing themselves as of Chinese racial origin were resident in Australia.
  2. I am advised by the Australian Statistician that tabulations of 1976 Census data as currently planned up to September 1979 do not provide information on the numbers of persons of Chinese racial origin in individual electorates.

National Health and Medical Research Council (Question No. 3877)

Dr Klugman:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 8 May 1979:

What is the membership of the subcommittee of the National Health and Medical Research Council on health risks associated with exposure to asbestos and what are the qualifications of the members.

Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

Chairman:

Professor L. Davidson, Principal, School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine, N.S.W.

Employers:

Mining and Milling-Mr H. Robinson, Chrysotile Corporation of Australia Pry Ltd, N.S.W.

Manufacturers- Mr C. Russell, James Hardie and Coy Pty Ltd N.S.W.

Industry/Manufacturers- Mr 1. Crawford, BendixMintex (Melbourne).

Construction- Mr E. Morris, Morris Building Company, Smithfield, N.S.W.

Australian Council of Trade Unions:

Mr C. Oliver, Australian Workers’ Union (New South Wales Branch).

Mr J. Baird, Amalgamated Metal Workers’ and Shipwrights’ Union, N.S.W.

Mr i. Sheather, Building Workers’ Industry Union of Australia, N.S.W.

Mr C. Raper, Federal Miscellaneous Workers’ Union of Australia (New South Wales Branch).

Government:

Mr B. Virgona, Chairman, Workers’ Compensation and Dust Diseases Board, N.S.W.

Dr J. McNulty, Commissioner of Public Health, Western Australian Department of Public Health.

Dr J. Milne, Division of Industrial Hygiene, Victorian Health Commission.

Mr G. Major, Physicist, School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine, N.S.W.

Dr N. Mitchell, (Secretary /Convener) Medical Services Adviser- Occupational Health, Commonwealth Department of Health.

Deportations (Question No. 3905)

Mr Jull:
BOWMAN, QUEENSLAND

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

  1. 1 ) How many persons were deported from Australia, (a) during 1 978 and (b) in the first 3 months of 1979.
  2. How many persons referred to in part (1) had (a) overstayed visitors’ visa permits, (b) made illegal entries, and (c) been deported for other reasons.
Mr MacKellar:
LP

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

  1. (a)964;(b)222.
  2. Separate statistics relating to overstayed visitors are not maintained. The break-up of deportations effected is shown in broad terms in the following table.

Drug Abuse: Alcohol (Question No. 3911)

Dr Everingham:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 9 May 1 979:

What steps have been taken to implement recommendations of the Senate Standing Committee on Health and Welfare concerning drug abuse, in particular the adjustment of excise to ensure that the cost of beverage alcohol does not decrease relative to average consumer costs or incomes.

Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

The Report of the Senate Standing Committee on Social Welfare has been the subject of detailed consideration and 1 expect to make an announcement of the Government’s response to licit drugs aspects of the Senate Committee’s recommendations soon.

Indian Ocean Naval Movements (Question No. 3849)

Mr Jacobi:

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 3 May 1 979:

  1. 1 ) Will he bring up to date the information he gave on 9 May 1978 (Hansard page 2 109) on the movements of Naval ships in the Indian Ocean.
  2. ) Will be also provide information on the movements of Russian naval ships in the North, West and South Pacific.
Mr Killen:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Monthly class/day figures of Soviet naval and naval associated ships which operated in the Indian Ocean during the period 1 April 1 978 to 30 April 1 979 are shown in the following table.

There have been 45 transits by 33 ships through the Suez Canal from I April 1978 to 30 April 1979.

Indian Ocean ship day figures for the USSR, USA, UK and France are shown in the following table:

  1. The great majority of Soviet naval activity in the Pacific takes place in the far North West areas based on Vladivostok and includes the Sea of Okhotsk and the Sea of Japan. This is outside Australia ‘s immediate area of strategic concern and I am unable to provide the honourable member with detailed information on Soviet naval activity in this area. During the Vietnam/China conflict of February/March 1979 several large surface warships, submarines and supporting vessels were deployed in the China Sea area with some visits to Vietnamese ports. Activity in the Western Pacific is usually associated with deployments to the Indian Ocean via the Indonesian Archipelago. There is very little Soviet naval activity in the South Pacific; such as there is, usually is carried out by research vessels. Typical examples are the visits by the research ship Sobolvo and submarine Sirius to Hobart in January 1978 and the visit by the research ship Bogorov to Cairns in October 1978.

Mr Harry M. Miller (Question No. 3031)

Mr Armitage:

asked the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 24 November 1978:

  1. 1 ) Has the Government appointed Mr Harry M. Miller as a special advisor for work preparatory to the setting up of a national organisation to develop the bicentennial celebrations in 1988.
  2. Was Mr Miller at one time associated with a festival held in Canberra, known as ‘Festival Australia’, 1975; if so, (a) what were the precise terms of Mr Miller’s engagement with that festival and (b) what was the specific nature and extent of his contribution to the festival.
  3. Were the organisers of the festival completely satisfied with Mr Miller’s services.
  4. What payment did Mr Miller demand for his services, what did he receive and under what circumstances was the payment made.
  5. ) Was this sum agreed with Mr Miller at the outset and did payment occasion any embarrassment to the organisers of the festival.
  6. Does this more recent appointment as a special advisor mean that Mr Miller will be, or has been, appointed by the Government to take charge of all arrangements for the 1988 celebrations.
  7. Were applications called for this position.
  8. Are there other persons in the theatrical entrepreneurial field at least as equally capable as Mr Miller; if so, nave they been, or will they be, considered for the important task of organising the celebrations.
  9. Is this the same Mr Miller who is also a member of the Board of (a) Qantas and (b) the Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation; if so, when was he appointed to those Boards.
  10. Can he say whether Mr Miller is a constituent and a friend of the Minister for Primary Industry.
  11. 1 1 ) Is he able to say if the Minister for Primary Industry in any way contributed to the appointment of Mr Miller to (a) the Qantas Board, (b) the Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation or (c) any other Government instrumentality.
  12. 12) Is there any possibility of conflict of interest between Mr Miller’s private business operations and the Government appointments he now holds and those of the future.
Mr McLeay:
BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP

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

  1. Mr Miller was engaged in June 1978 as a special advisor for work preparatory to the setting up of a national organisation to develop the bicentennial celebrations. This engagement ended on 16 March 1979.
  2. Mr Miller was appointed in July 1974 as consultant to the Australia *75 Festival with responsibility for promotions and public relations activities which he directed from July 1974 to December 1974.
  3. The Chairman of the Festival’s Board of Governors (The Hon. Gordon Bryant, E.D., M.P., then Minister for the Capital Territory) issued a statement on 22 December 1974 in the following terms:

The Minister for the Capital Territory, Mr Bryant, announced tonight that Mr Harry M. Miller, who had been appointed Public Relations and Promotions Consultant to the forthcoming Australia ‘75 Festival, would not be continuing in that capacity.

Mr Miller had informed him with regret that he had now found he was not in the position to undertake the work entailed in promoting the Festival.

Mr Bryant said he regretted that Mr Miller was unable to continue with the Festival, particularly in view of the fine work he had previously done.

Mr Miller had told him his inability to continue was a great disappointment as he considered that because of its unique nature a festival of this type was worthwhile and greatly desirable and should be encouraged in the future. He would look forward with great interest to the outcome of the Festival and wished it every success.

  1. and (5 ) The original agreement with Mr Miller was for a fee of $7,500 plus 5 per cent of any gross ticket sales in excess of $200,000. When Mr Miller was unable to continue with the Festival, his negotiations with the Board of Governors resulted in payment of an agreed total sum of $10,000 in lieu of the previously agreed amounts.

As the payment finally agreed was $2,500 in excess of the initially budgeted figure of $7,500, the organisers had to fund this additional amount plus further expenditures for promotion work for the period from Mr Miller’s departure to the date of the Festival.

  1. No. As stated by the Prime Minister on 5 April 1979, Mr John Reid has agreed to serve as Chairman of the proposed Australian Bicentennial Authority.
  2. No.
  3. See answer to (6) above.
  4. (a) and (b) Yes. Mr Miller was appointed a member of the Qantas Board on 25 May 1976 and a member of the Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation on 18 November 1977. He resigned from both positions as from 16 March 1979.
  5. 10) Mr H. M. Miller is on the electoral roll for the Division of New England. As to whether he is a friend of the Minister for Primary Industry, attention is drawn to the Minister’s response to a question without notice on 16 November 1978 (Hansard, page 3017). The Minister said, in part: ‘I know Harry Miller. I would not say that I know him particularly well ‘.
  6. (a), (b) and (c). The Minister for Primary Industry, as a member of Cabinet, participates in Cabinet decisions on appointments to Government bodies of which Qantas and the Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation are two.
  7. 12) Provision exists in the Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation Act 1977 for the disclosure of a member’s pecuniary interests in any matters being considered. Insofar as Qantas is concerned, the duties of Directors are set out in the Queensland Companies Act and in the Qantas Articles of Association. In brief, they require Directors to declare an interest in a contract in which they have a direct or indirect interest.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 28 May 1979, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1979/19790528_reps_31_hor114/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant