House of Representatives
25 August 1971

27th Parliament · 2nd Session

  1. House of Representatives
  2. 27th Parliament
  3. 1971

Mr SPEAKER (Hon. Sir William Aston) took the chair at 2.30 p.m., and read prayers.

page 659

PETITIONS

Contraceptives

Mr PEACOCK:
Minister for the Army · KOOYONG, VICTORIA · LP

– I present the following petition:

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

That the sales tax on all forms of contraceptive devices is 27) per cent. (Sales Tax Exemptions and Classifications Act 1935-1967). Also that there is Customs Duty of up to 471/2 per cent on some contraceptive devices.

And that this is an unfair imposition on the human rights of all people who wish to prevent unwanted pregnancies. And furthermore that this imposition discriminates particularly against people on low incomes.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the sales tax on all forms of contraceptive devices be removed, so as to bring these items into line with other necessities such as food, upon which there is no sales tax. Also that customs duty be removed, and that all contraceptive devices be placed on the National Health Scheme Pharmaceutical Benefits List.

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

Petition received and read.

Social Services

Mr ARMITAGE:
CHIFLEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I present the following petition:

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

The serious decline in social services has intensified the hardships faced by pensioners and families on lower incomes.

Therefore as a matter of urgency the Commonwealth Government should immediately allocate extra finances to social services.

The petition of the undersigned urges your Government to increase immediately

Pensions - by $5.00 per week

Child Endowment - to $3.60 per week per child Maternity Allowance - to at least $117 for each child born.

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

Petition received and read.

Education

Mr ENDERBY:

– I present the following petition:

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of residents of the Division of the Australian Capiial Territory respectfully showeth -

That there is a likelihood that education in the Australian Capital Territory will in the foreseeable future be made independent of the New South Wales education system:

That the decentralisation of education systems throughout Australia is educationally and administratively desirable, and is now being studied by several State Government Departments:

That the Australian Capital Territory is a homogeneous and coherent unit especially favourable for such studies.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that a Committee of Enquiry, on which are represented the Department of Education and Science, institutions of tertiary education, practising educators, and the Canberra community, be instituted to enquire into the form that an Australian Capital Territory Education Authority should take, the educational principles and philosophy that should underlie it, and its mode of operation and administration.

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

Petition received and read.

Education

Mr KENNEDY:
BENDIGO, VICTORIA

– I present the following petition:

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of residents of the Division of the Australian Capital Territory respectfully showeth -

That there is a likelihood that education in the Australian Capital Territory will in the foreseeable future be made independent of the New South Wales education system:

That the decentralisation of education systems throughout Australia is educationally and administratively desirable, and is now being studied by several State Government Departments:

That the Australian Capital Territory is a homogeneous and coherent unit especially favourable for such studies.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that a Committee of Enquiry, on which are represented the Department of Education and Science, institutions of tertiary education, practising educator?, and the Canberra community, be instituted to enquire into the form that an Australian Capital Territory Education Authority should take, the educational principles and philosophy that should underlie it, and its mode of operation and administration.

And your petitioners, as in duty bound, willever pray.

Petition received.

Education

Dr KLUGMAN:
PROSPECT, NEW SOUTH WALES

-I present the following petition:

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of residents of the Division of the Australian Capital Territory respectfully showeth -

That there is a likelihood that education in the Australian Capital Territory will in the foreseeable future be made independent of the New South Wales education system:

That the decentralisation of education systems throughout Australia is educationally and administratively desirable, and is now being studied by several State Government Departments:

That the Australian Capital Territory is a homogeneous and coherent unit especially favourable for such studies.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that a Committee of Enquiry, on which are represented the Department of Education and Science, institutions of tertiary education, practising educators, and the Canberra community, be instituted to enquire into the form that an Australian Capital Territory Education Authority should take, the educational principles and philosophy that should underlie it, and its mode of operation and administration.

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

Petition received.

Australian Capital Territory Pharmacy Ordinance

Mr ENDERBY:

– I present the following petition:

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of citizens of the Division of the Australian Capital Territory respectfully showeth:

That the Australian Capital Territory Pharmacy Ordinances 1931-1959 Section 46, Subsection (1) states that ‘A person shall not publish any statement, whether by way of advertisement or otherwise, to promote the sale of any article as a medicine, instrument or appliance . . for preventing conception’.

And that this infringes upon each individual’s right as a human being to all available information about contraceptive devices in order to help prevent unwanted pregnancies.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the words ‘or for preventing conception’ be deleted from sub-section (1) of Section 46 of the Australian Capital Territory Pharmacy Ordinances.

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

Petition received and read.

National Service

Mr HURFORD:
ADELAIDE, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I present the following petition:

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

That Charles Martin, a 24 year old graduate in Building Technology is in Cadell Prison, in South Australia for failure to comply with the National Service Act, an Act which offends the conscience of many electors who are not directly touched by its provisions.

That his failure to comply with the Act was done as a matter of conscience, and that his imprisonment must therefore cause concern to all electors who oppose the National Service Act, and the decision to send conscripted troops to Vietnam.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled will repeal the National Service Act, and cause Charles Martin, and all others imprisoned under it, to be released.

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

Petition received and read.

National Service

Dr GUN:
KINGSTON, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I present the following petition:

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

That Charles Martin, a 24 year old graduate in Building Technology is in Cadell Prison, in South Australia for failure to comply with the National Service Act, an Act which offends the conscience of many electors who are not directly touched by its provisions.

That his failure to comply with the Act was done as a matter of conscience, and that his imprisonment must therefore cause concern to all electors who oppose the National Service Act, and the decision to send conscripted troops to Vietnam.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled will repeal the National Service Act. and cause Charles Martin, and all others imprisoned under it, to be released.

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

Petition received.

Petrol Price

Mr WALLIS:
GREY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I present the following petition:

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

That public reports that oil companies may again raise the price of petrol should be viewed with grave concern for such a rise would undoubtedly further inflate retail prices unless steps are taken to offset that rise.

That the 5 cents rise in the price of petrol emanating from the last 2 Budgets has inflated the cost structure of every strata of the community.

Your petitioners therefore pray that (a) if the oil companies increase the price of petrol the House press for a reduction by an equivalent amount through Government taxation measures and (b) the House take steps to have rescinded the 5 cents risein the price of petrol emanating from the last 2 Budgets.

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

Petition received.

National Service

Mr JACOBI:
HAWKER, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I present the following petition:

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The petition of the undersigned electors of the State of South Australia respectfully showeth:

That Charles Martin, a 24 year old graduatein building technology is in Cadell Prison, in South Australia for failure to comply with the National Service Act, an Act which offends the conscience of many electors who are not directly touched by its provisions.

That his failure to comply with the Act was done as a matter of conscience, and that his imprisonment must therefore cause concernto all electors who oppose the National Service Act, and the decision to send conscripted troops to Vietnam.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled will repeal the National Service Act, and cause Charles Martin, and all others imprisoned under it, to be released.

And your petitioners, asin duty bound, will ever pray.

Petition received.

Education

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-I present the following petition:

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

That the Australian Education Council’s report on the needs of State education services has established serious deficiencies in education.

That these can be summarised as lack of classroom accommodation, desperate teacher shortage, oversized classes and inadequate teaching aids.

That the additional sum of one thousand million dollars is required over the next 5 years by the States for these needs.

That without massive additional Federal finance the State school system will disintegrate.

That the provisions of the Handicapped Children’s Assistance Act 1970 should be amended to include all the country’s physically and mentally handicapped children.

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

Ensure that emergency finance from the Commonwealth will be given to the States for their public education services which provide schooling for seventy-eight per cent of Australia’s children.

And your petitioners, as In duty bound, will ever pray.

Petition received.

Education

Mr TURNER:
BRADFIELD, NEW SOUTH WALES

-I present the following petition:

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

Whereas -

  1. The Commonwealth Parliament has acted to remove someinadequacies in the Australian education system.
  2. A major inadequacy at present in Australian education is the lack of equal education opportunity for all.
  3. 200,000 students from universities, colleges of advanced education and other tertiary Institutions, and their parents suffer severe penalty frominadequacies in the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936-1968.
  4. Australia cannot affort to hinder the education of these 200,000 Australians.

Your petitioners request that your honourable House make legal provision for:

  1. The allowance of personal education expenses as a deduction from income for tax purposes.
  2. Removal of the present age limitin respect of the deduction for education expenses and the maintenance allowance for students.
  3. Increase in the amount of deduction allowable for tertiary education expenses.
  4. Increase in the maintenance allowance tor students.
  5. Exemption of non-bonded scholarships, for part-time students from income tax.

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

Petition received.

Education

Mr GRASSBY:
RIVERINA, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I present the following petition:

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

The Commonwealth Parliament has acted to remove some inadequacies in the Australian education system.

A major inadequacy at present in Australian education is the lack of equal education opportunity for all.

200,000 students from universities, colleges of advanced education and other tertiary institutions, and their parents suffer severe penalty from inadequacies in the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936-1968.

Australia cannot afford to hinder the education of these 200,000 Australians.

Your petitioners request that your honourable House make legal provision for:

The allowance of personal education expenses as a deduction from income for tax purposes.

Removal of the present age limit in respect of the deduction for education expenses and the maintenance allowance for students.

Increase in the amount of deduction allowable for tertiary education expenses.

Increase in the maintenance allowance for students.

Exemption of non-bonded scholarships, for part-time students from Income tax.

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

Petition received.

Chemical Agents of Warfare

Mr TURNER:

– I present the following petition:

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

That the United Nations General Assembly Resolution 2603 XXIV A (December 1969) declares that the Geneva Protocol of 1925, which Australia has ratified, prohibits the use in international armed conflict of any chemical agents of warfare- chemical substances whether gaseous, liquid or solid - employed for their direct toxic effects on man, animals or plants;

That the World Health Organisation Report (January 1970) confirms the above definition of chemical agents of warfare;

That the Australian Government does not accept this definition, but holds that the Geneva Protocol does not prevent the use in war of certain toxic chemical substances in the form of herbicides, defoliants and ‘riotcontrol’ agents.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray:

That the Parliament take note of the consensus of international political, scientific and humanitarian opinion; and

That honourable members urge upon the Government the desirability of revising its interpretation of the Geneva Protocol, and declaring that it regards all chemical substances employed for their toxic effects on man, animals or plants as being included in the prohibitions laid down by that Protocol.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will every pray.

Petition received.

Broadcasting and Television

Mr IRWIN:
MITCHELL, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I present the following petition:

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

That the Australian people both in metropolitan and rural areas should have the best of television programmes available to them and that television as a powerful means of communication should not be in the control of too few hands.

The increased quota for Australian dramatic productions should not be imposed by the Australian Broadcasting Control Board at the expense of Australian professional variety or Australian documentary or educational programmes, but directed more towards cutting down expenditure on the purchase of imported productions, thus effecting a considerable saving in Australia’s overseas balance of payments.

The Australian Parliament has a responsibility to encourage the development of our national identity, character and heritage and the promulgation, for the sake of our children, of an adequate picture of Australia, her standards, mores and way of life, particularly through the media of radio and television, which is in the immediate control of the Australian Government.

Until constructive and positive action is taken by the Australian Government to promote Australian culture and protect the employment and professional standards of Australian writers, artists and producers in Australia itself there is little likelihood of stopping the flow of Australian talent from Australia to other countries.

The Australian Broadcasting Control Board must insist that its new quota standards of Australian dramatic content on television are rigidly imposed and enforced on all commercial television stations.

Your petitioners most humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, should:

Cause the Australian Government to recognise the right of Australian professional people engaged in the creative and performing arts to further develop their skills and talents in Australia, and to be protected from overseas programmes in a way that will encourage an Australian television and radio industry that can reflect and contribute to our identity and growth asa nation.

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

Petition received.

Social Services

Mr HAYDEN:
OXLEY, QUEENSLAND

– I present the following petition:

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

The serious decline in social services has intensified the hardships faced by pensioners and families on lower incomes.

Therefore as a matter of urgency the Commonwealth Government should immediately allocate extra finances to social services.

The petition of the undersigned urges your Government to increase immediately

Pensions - by $5.00 per week

Child Endowment -to $3.60 per week per child

Maternity Allowance- to at least $117 for each child born.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will every pray.

Petition received and read.

page 663

MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS

Mr McMAHON:
Prime Minister · Lowe · LP

– I wish to inform the House that the Minister for Customs and Excise (Mr Chipp) will be absent for the rest of the week in order to represent Australia at the New Zealand international trade fair.

page 663

QUESTION

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

Mr WHITLAM:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the Minister for

Shipping and Transport a question. 1 am unable to verify the information but I nevertheless hazard a question. Is it a fact that he conferred this morning with a Mr Hawke concerning some industrial trouble in the Australian National Line, and was the trouble settled as a result of this meeting?

Mr NIXON:
Minister for Shipping and Transport · GIPPSLAND, VICTORIA · CP

– It is a fact that this morning I met with the President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, Mr Hawke, and representatives of the Professional Radio Employees Institute of Australasia and other maritime unions whose members are employed on the ‘Echuca’. The ‘Echuca’ has been a ship in dispute because it has not been carrying a radio operator. I met previously with Mr Hawke on 9th August and at that time I made an offer of certain conditions that I thought might overcome the problems being faced by the Professional Radio Employees Institute. Mr Hawke joined with me in a statement confirming that the offer was very fair-minded and, at that time, I think we were both led to the view that the problem would be resolved. In the event, it was not resolved.

As I understand it, at an executive meeting of the ACTU Mr Hawke was unable to resolve the differences between one union and another, so I agreed to meet again with him. That meeting was held this morning. I am hopeful that the problem will be resolved on this occasion. I have issued a statement reaffirming the offer that I made on 9th August. I understand that the Secretary of the Professional Radio Employees Institute will take this offer to his federal executive. It has become apparent that the other maritime unions do not agree that a safety issue is involved, and I am hopeful that the ‘Echuca’ will sail tomorrow on its job of carting backwards and forwards the important import and export cargo of the beleaguered State of Tasmania.

I should like to make one other comment. Last night, the Leader of the Opposition took an opportunity during the course of the Budget debate to describe the actions of Mr Hawke in some of these disputes as being similar to those of the gallant knight on a white charger, coming in to resolve industrial difficulties in the land. In his speech, he said that I was nodding my head in agreement on this matter. I think that if the Leader of the Opposition asks Mr Hawke he will find that Mr Hawke will agree that I was not unhelpful myself in resolving this dispute relating to the ‘Echuca’.

page 663

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN COUNCIL OF TRADE UNIONS

Mr BURY:
WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Treasurer. When Mr Hawke was first elected President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions and on a number of subsequent occasions, the last being only a few days ago, he announced that the ACTU was about to establish its own hire purchase organisation for the benefit of trade unionists. Can the Treasurer say whether, after all this talk, any business has actually been transacted, or would it be more correct to regard the proposal put forward as a mere public relations exercise designed to pull the wool over the eyes of unsuspecting trade unionists?

Mr SNEDDEN:
Treasurer · BRUCE, VICTORIA · LP

– I have seen newspaper comments to the effect that the Australian Council of Trade Unions wished to establish consumer credit buying and a number of other things. One of the interesting factors in this was the suggestion that the ACTU not only would welcome but also indeed was negotiating for financial aid for these activities from the West German trade union movement and from the Israeli trade union movement.

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

– Mr Speaker, I rise to take a point of order. As I understand the Standing Orders, Ministers may answer questions on matters that come under their jurisdiction. I ask you, Mr Speaker, whether the Australian Council of Trade Unions comes under the jurisdiction of the Treasurer.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The Australian Council of Trade Unions does not come under the jurisdiction of the Treasurer in relation to that part of the question mentioned by the honourable gentleman. But the establishment of the proposed organisation in which the ACTU is interested may have some bearing on the policy of the Government or of the Treasurer. The Chair would not be aware of that matter.

Mr SNEDDEN:

– This is a most interesting concept coming from a Party which, through its Leader last night, demonstrated a terror of the President of the ACTU. The degree to which the compliments were flowing in the presence of the man himself could have filled us only with the thought: Just why is this opportunity being taken in the time when the Leader of the Opposition should be stating the economic view of the Opposition? All he did was to devote the major part of his speech to extolling the virtues-

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I think that the Treasurer is getting away from the question.

Mr SNEDDEN:

- Mr Speaker, I take your point and confess that I was only emulating the Leader of the Opposition last night, who got away from the Budget. The specific question from the honourable member was: Have any transactions been transacted? So far as I am able to understand, the only transactions which have been put before the public concern the expectation of some financial aid and assistance from West Germany and from Israel. There is nothing that I have seen or heard which would indicate that there has been finality on any of them.

page 664

QUESTION

DEFENCE EXPENDITURE

Mr BARNARD:
BASS, TASMANIA

– The Minister for Defence will be aware that the Budget provides a total of S32.3m for maintaining Army and Air Force units overseas in 1971-72. Was this provision estimated on the basis that Australian units would be ;n Vietnam for the full year? If so, how will this amount be reduced by the completion of withdrawal from Vietnam early in 1972?

Mr FAIRBAIRN:
Minister for Defence · FARRER, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– I will check on this figure, but it is certainly my understanding that the figure took into account the fact that the troops would be withdrawn, as has been announced by the Government already.

page 664

QUESTION

VIETNAM: WITHDRAWAL OF TROOPS

Mr STALEY:
CHISHOLM, VICTORIA

– I refer the Minister for the Army to the planned withdrawal of Australian troops from South Vietnam and ask him whether the Civil Affairs Unit will be withdrawn this year. If so, what will happen to further civic aid programmes in the Phuoc Tuy province?

Mr PEACOCK:
LP

– The Civil Affairs Unit will be withdrawn from Vietnam together wilh other units during the latter part of this year. That Unit has been carrying out precisely what its designation indicates, lt has had a great effect, associated with the task force in Phuoc Tuy province, in carrying out a degree of military civic action over the period since the first Civil Affairs Unit went there in 1967. It has always been the aim of military civic action to work itself out of a role, and this is precisely what has occurred with the increasing progression of the handing over of the programmes to the Vietnamese and the increasing degree of Vietnamisation. This has been handled satisfactorily.

For example, earlier this year medical, dental and educational assistance was handed over to the Vietnamese at their request, as a consequence of their increasing confidence, ability and capacity to handle these matters. During the year, also, water reticulation schemes and the construction of schools and houses have continued. The overwhelming majority of projects handled by the Unit will be completed before the end of this year. In regard to any other matters relating to civic action or civil aid, as the Prime Minister mentioned in his statement last week, the $25m aid programme is a matter for government to government negotiation.

page 665

QUESTION

SECRET BALLOTS

Mr GARRICK:
BATMAN, VICTORIA

– I address my question to the Minister for Labour and National Service. Having regard to the Minister’s announced consideration of forcing unions to conduct secret ballots before taking strike action I ask: Firstly, is the Minister also considering requiring Australian companies to conduct secret ballots among their shareholders prior to increasing the price of their products or restricting the supply of those products? Secondly, will the cost of secret ballots be met by the Commonwealth Government?

Mr LYNCH:
Minister for Labour and National Service · FLINDERS, VICTORIA · LP

– The honourable gentleman is sadly misinformed concerning the contents of a statement I made in response to a question in the House yesterday. If he looks at the Hansard report he will see that there was no indication of any firm decision taken by the Government. The honourable member is seeking to interject. I suggest that he might contain his interest. The House will be aware that at present there is under way a comprehensive review of all aspects of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. The Government is taking into consideration a wide range of matters, and that to which the honourable member referred certainly will be one of them. If he checks the Hansard record he will see that he is misinformed.

page 665

QUESTION

ANIMAL QUARANTINE

Mr LLOYD:
MURRAY, VICTORIA

– I address a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Health. The Minister will be aware that the New Zealand Government intends to allow the importation of live cattle from countries in continental Europe where outbreaks of blue tongue and foot and mouth disease occur from time to time. I understand that the cattle are to be quarantined for some weeks at a new animal quarantine station on Soames Island in Wellington Harbour. This island is in close proximity to the mainland, with attendant danger of disease being transmitted to animals on the mainland. Once out of quarantine the animals, although not allowed to be exported to Australia, could easily come into contact with animals that could be exported to Australia. I ask: Do the present Australian regulations covering the importation of cattle from New Zealand provide sufficient safeguards to protect Australian livestock industries? Has pressure been applied by New Zealand to alter these regulations? Has New Zealand considered delaying importation of cattle from continental Europe?

Dr FORBES:
Minister for Immigration · BARKER, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP

– Cattle are to be imported by New Zealand from France. They will be quarantined on the new island quarantine station on Soames Island for, 1 believe, at least 9 months, which is a little longer than the few weeks mentioned by the honourable member. I am advised by the responsible Australian officials that the present Austraiian regulations concerning the importation of cattle from New Zealand are adequate to protect the Australian livestock industries from the introduction of disease. I understand that there has been no pressure from the New Zealand authorities to alter these regulations and, as far as I am aware, there is no intention to delay the import of the cattle from France to New Zealand. I can say from my experience when I was Minister for Health that there is complete, open and most frank discussion between New Zealand and Australia on all matters affecting quarantine, and both countries have great confidence in each other.

page 665

QUESTION

SOCIAL SERVICES

Mr Allan Fraser:
EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– 1 ask the Minister for Social Services: Is the $1.25 increase in pensions to be totally withheld from more than 150,000 pensioners? If not. from how many? Is only a small part of the increase to be paid to a further number of pensioners? If so, to how many? If this is so, and since no pensioners received this information from the Budget reports, will the Minister cause the facts to be publicised widely now so that there will not be the heartbreak which occurred recently when many pensioners found that they were shut out even from the 50c increase? Is the $1.25 an increase of 7 per cent in pensions? Is 7 per cent also the current rate of increase in prices? If so, when will the Government give a real increase to pensioners? As the Budget further reduces the ratio of the married rate pension to the standard pension, will the Minister, if he knows the answer, tell married pensioners how a married couple can live more cheaply than 2 brothers, 2 sisters or 2 friends living together, or 2 people living in sin? Finally, does he regard the promise made by the Prime Minister to give real help to the pensioners under this Budget as now having been honourably fulfilled?

Mr WENTWORTH:
Minister for Social Services · MACKELLAR, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– J am afraid that the honourable member has not read with sufficient attention the Budget Speech which the Treasurer delivered to this House last week.

Mr Allan Fraser:
EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I have read it, but the pensioners have had to rely only on newspaper reports.

Mr WENTWORTH:

– Perhaps I am overrating his intelligence. If he had read it carefully and understood it, he would have seen set out in that speech the answers to his first series of questions. With regard to price rises, I remind the House that the latest figures published for the year ended June last indicate that the rise in consumer prices has been a little less than 6 per cent. At the same time the rise in pensions has been about 11 per cent. I hope that the honourable member will be in the House tomorrow when I shall move the second reading of the Social Services Bill and when I will be able to answer in detail the questions that he has raised. If the honourable member will do the Treasurer the honour of looking at his Budget Speech he will see quite clearly stated there that the full increase of $1.25 a week is to go to those who are in receipt of the maximum rate of pension - that is, those whose means as assessed are SIO a week or less.

page 666

QUESTION

DARTMOUTH DAM

Mr WHITTORN:
BALACLAVA, VICTORIA

– I address a question to the Minister for National Development. Now that the Premier of South Australia has conceded at last that the Dartmouth Dam can proceed, what additional costs are involved because of this delay? If there is a 10 per cent variation in costs from the original estimates, will the Commonwealth Government exercise its right to renegotiate the agreement? Will the extra amounts, if any, be charged to South Australia?

Mr SWARTZ:
Minister for National Development · DARLING DOWNS, QUEENSLAND · LP

– Although I have had an opportunity of reading in the Press that the South Australian Government intends to proceed with the original agreement in relation to the construction of the Dartmouth Dam, which it had earlier rejected, I have not yet received any official advice regarding this matter. AH I know is what has been reported in the Press. However, I take it to be correct that the South Australian Government will introduce legislation to ratify the original agreement to which it was a subscriber in the first place with the Commonwealth and the governments of New South Wales and Victoria. This will open the way for consideration of the commencement of work on the construction of this new water conservation project at Dartmouth on the Murray system. In the agreement there is a condition that if the original estimate of cost, which was about $57m, has escalated by more than 10 per cent, the matter must be referred back to the governments concerned for review and consideration. I cannot indicate whether the cost will have escalated beyond 10 per cent, but it is important to state that the estimate of cost has to be reviewed if there has been an increase of more than 10 per cent. I would make it quite clear that any problems associated with delays, which are now quite considerable and which affect the State of South Australia vitally are due solely to the action of the Premier of South Australia.

page 666

QUESTION

NATIONAL SUPERANNUATION

Mr HAYDEN:

– I address my question to the Minister for Social Services and I refer to the latest rebuff by Cabinet of proposals from the Minister on national superannuation. Did his proposals bear any similarity to the 1949 national superannuation promises of the Menzies Government, apart from the fact that they too were never honoured? Is there any connection between his failure to impress his Cabinet colleagues on this proposal and his failure to provide his promised land rights for Gurindjis? Will this latest failure of his enter the great graveyard of unfulfilled Liberal Party promises to join, inter alia, the broken promise of 1971 on child minding centres? Will it be buried near the recent secret departmental report which reveals considerable poor standard housing and rent exploitation of pensioners? Can we take it that the Minister’s rebuff is the sole product of the trumpeted review to improve social welfare promised by the Prime Minister in March this year? Finally, as he has the confidence of neither the Cabinet nor the community–

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member is out of order. He is now making comment.

Mr HAYDEN:

– I ask whether the Minister would consider as a public duty resigning office?

Mr WENTWORTH:
LP

– There appears to be some contest between the honourable member for Eden-Monaro and the honourable member for Oxley as to who can ask the most complicated and rhetorical question without very much sense behind it. I am afraid I must award the palm to the honourable member for Oxley in this regard. It is not my practice to discuss in the House, or indeed anywhere else, what has happened in Cabinet or Party rooms and I adhere quite strictly to that rule. Honourable members opposite have so long been free from any experience of Cabinet rooms that they would not have any idea as regards the secrecy of those, but I understand that they have some experience of Party rooms where there is a very low standard of secrecy.

Mr Hayden:

– I rise to order. My question whether the Minister would be prepared to resign in the public interest has not yet been answered.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! There is no point of order.

Mr WENTWORTH:

– There is no point of substance or sense either, Sir.

page 667

QUESTION

HOUSING

Mr BUCHANAN:
MCMILLAN, VICTORIA

– My question is directed to the Minister for Housing. The Minister will be aware of criticism directed at the amount of finance offered by the Commonwealth for State housing in the Budget Will he indicate to the House how these offers compare with the amounts made available in previous budgets?

Mr Kevin Cairns:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

– I am aware of some criticism that has been offered in some quarters concerning the offer by the Commonwealth for State housing assistance which was contained in the Budget Speech. The criticism is unfounded because the offer of assistance by the Commonwealth is a very great increase over that which was made by the Commonwealth for State housing assistance in the past. It consists of 3 parts. The offer made by the Commonwealth is, firstly, by way of grants to contribute $2.75m a year for 30 years in respect of State housing activities for the next 5 years. In other words, for State housing activities undertaken over the next 5 years the Commonwealth intends to subvent over $410m. In the second place, there is a completely new form of assistance - rental assistance grants for those people in need of reduced rentals of $ 1.25m a year for 5 years. The third measure of assistance is to release the States from any obligation to assist in the finance or the advances for servicemen’s housing. That will release from State funds on the basis of their activities over the last 5 years something over $3m a year for other purposes. These are very generous offers greatly in advance of anything that has ever been offered in the past and we would hope that they would be accepted for what they are.

page 667

QUESTION

TELEVISION

Mr SHERRY:
FRANKLIN, TASMANIA

– My question is addressed to the Postmaster-General. I preface it by indicating that many people in Tasmania were disappointed at the restricted television coverage of the Apollo XV moon mission. I ask: Will the honourable gentleman indicate whether some change in the PostmasterGeneral’s Department’s attitude with regard to the cost of the use of the Bass Strait coaxial cable link will receive his sympathetic consideration? The PostmasterGeneral will be well aware that the rate is based on a radial mile and that, on this basis, the transmission of programmes of national and international significance would cost the commercial television station in Hobart approximately $1,500 for each programme of one hour’s duration, which would be out of the question economically.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I request the honourable member to ask his question.

Mr SHERRY:

– I am coming to it now. The company that is anxious to use this departmental revenue producing facility-

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! If the honourable member does not ask his question I will have to request him to resume his seat.

Mr SHERRY:

– Thank you, Sir. 1 will ask the question. Will the honourable gentleman indicate whether some change in the Department’s attitude with regard to the high cost of the use of the Bass Strait coaxial cable will receive sympathetic consideration from him so that this facility can be used to the benefit of the people of Australia?

Sir ALAN HULME:
Postmaster-General · PETRIE, QUEENSLAND · LP

– Honourable members will be aware that certain programmes of the Australian Broadcasting Commission are declared to be of national interest and the Government meets the total cost of providing the relay channels for those programmes. That was the situation in relation to the first moon landing, which was regarded as being a special occasion. The televising of subsequent moon landings has been a matter for individual stations or networks to undertake out of their own resources. The Australian Broadcasting Commission has undertaken some responsibility for televising them but some of the commercial stations have not. Commercial stations which desire to televise such a programme must in fact meet the costs of doing so. Those costs would include a charge in relation to the satellite segment of the telecast.

The honourable member for Franklin raised the question of the Bass Strait microwave system. I point out that arrangements are in fact made by some of the networks for the leasing of television relay channels from the Australian Post Office. The Australian Broadcasting Commission has such an arrangement between

Sydney and Melbourne and between other centres, but it does not have one between Melbourne and Hobart. It should be appreciated, .particularly in view of the White Paper that was presented to the House last week and the statement I made about the problems associated with financing the Post Office, that the Commission is not to be seen as an organisation which can on all or on many occasions make concessions, particularly concessions to organisations which charge for the time used by advertisers on their stations. It will be appreciated that the rental cost on a half-hourly or hourly basis is high, but it must also be realised that the amortisation of the capital cost together with the running cost of operating the microwave and broad band systems generally throughout Australia justify this high charge which does not yield an unnecessary profit to the Post Office.

page 668

QUESTION

DISALLOWED QUESTION

Mr SPEAKER:

– I call the honourable member for Murray.

Opposition members - His second question today!

Mr LLOYD:

– My question is directed to the Minister for Housing.

Mr Foster:

– He has had 2 calls today; we get the chance to ask one every 3 weeks.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I have called the honourable member for Murray and I have done so in accordance with the Standing Orders. (Mr Lloyd having addressed a question to the Minister for Housing.)

Mr Uren:

– Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. Is the honourable member permitted to ask a question in regard to a debate which is currently before the House?

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable member is referring to the Budget debate which covers a multitude of subjects. If honourable members want the Standing Orders applied specifically, I will have to apply them in all cases. I would remind the honourable member for Reid who took the point of order that the Budget covers almost any subject. So if honourable members want the Standing Orders applied specifically to question time, the opportunity to ask questions will be extremely limited.

Mr Beazley:

– Speaking to the point of order, I think the point about the question is not that it touched on one of the subjects of the Budget debate, but that it specifically referred to a statement by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam) and invited the Minister to debate it. If it is possible to debate a statement by the Leader of the Opposition at question time, outside of the Budget debate, will it be in order for us to question Ministers on statements that they have made in debate?

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I uphold the point of order. The question of the honourable member for Murray is out of order.

page 669

QUESTION

ABORIGINAL LAND RIGHTS

Mr ENDERBY:

– My question, which is directed to the Prime Minister, arises out of the tragic news that reached us at the end of last week from the Gazelle Peninsula and the reminder in it of the intensity of feeling about Aboriginal claims for land rights - whether they are made in Papua New Guinea or here in Australia. I refer to the delegation from Yirrkala and Gove that attended on the Prime Minister on 6th May of this year, when the spokesman for that group said that Aboriginals could not be satisfied with anything less than-

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I suggest to the honourable member that he should ask his question.

Mr ENDERBY:

– It is a preface.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable member’s preface is far too long.

Mr ENDERBY:

– On that occasion the Prime Minister announced the creation of a type of ministerial committee-

Mr SPEAKER:

-I have asked the honourable member to ask his question. Today we have had examples of very long prefaces to questions, and I would suggest that the honourable member should ask his question.

Mr ENDERBY:

– I ask the Prime Minister: Has that committee, which was asked to report urgently, yet met? If it has met, how many times has it met? Has it consid ered any of the questions that were referred to as being matters for it to consider, as indicated in the Prime Minister’s statement of 6th May? If so, will the committee’s recommendations be placed before this House? If so, when?

Mr McMAHON:
LP

– The committee has been established. Papers have been prepared and submitted to it. lt has met and it will meet again. As soon as the committee submits a report to me I will consider it and then decide what I will do with it.

page 669

QUESTION

FLOOD MITIGATION

Mr BONNETT:
HERBERT, QUEENSLAND

– My question is directed to the Minister for National Development. I refer to the New South Wales Grant (Flood Mitigation Bill) 1971. I ask the Minister: Why were the terms of financial assistance confined only to the river system of New South Wales and not extended to include flood mitigation projects in other States?

Mr SWARTZ:
LP

– The flood mitigation proposal, which has to be considered as an extension of the previous scheme, follows an arrangement which was made between the New South Wales Government and the Commonwealth some years ago to assist in flood mitigation on a number of rivers in the northern part of New South Wales. Some additional rivers have been included in this new proposal, and I am sure that all members welcomed the proposal when it came before the House. Subsequent to that-

Mr Whitlam:

– Mr Speaker, I rise to order. I submit that the honourable member for Herbert is reviving a subject which has been debated in the present session. Last Wednesday the honourable member for Herbert was one of those who voted against my motion that the question of flood mitigation and other natural disasters should be the subject of an inquiry by a parliamentary committee.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I suggest to the Leader of the Opposition that he make his point of order and not debate what the honourable member for Herbert said.

Mr SWARTZ:

- Mr Speaker, I will not take the opportunity to answer the Leader of the Opposition but I might say that he is dealing with a subject that really is only partly related to a matter that was raised in the debate on a message from the Senate last week. The point I was making is that it was indicated in this House that, under the National Water Resources Development Fund, flood mitigation is now a matter that can be considered. All States are now aware of this situation and it is my understanding that the Queensland Government will be looking into this matter. Although most of the programme for the present 5-year period has been considered I would not doubt that the Queensland Government at some stage will be submitting matters for inclusion in the current programme or a later programme.

page 670

QUESTION

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

Mr STEWART:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Has the Minister for External Territories drawn his attention to a motion adopted by the House of Assembly of Papua New Guinea over 2 months ago requesting the Australian Government to send a Commonwealth parliamentary committee to Papua on a fact finding tour or has any request been made direct to him by the Parliament of Papua New Guinea for such a visit? If so, will he, in view of the rapidly increasing tensions and rising pressures for self government and independence in Papua New Guinea, make an immediate and favourable decision on the request and so enable members of this Parliament to be better informed on the aspirations of the people of Papua New Guinea?

Mr McMAHON:
LP

– To the best of my knowledge no such request has been made to me. But it should be made clear to the House that if ever there was a party dedicated to the aspirations of the people of Papua New Guinea it is the LiberalCountry Party. Its efforts are very much in contrast with the troublemaking that occurred when some people on one of their unpremeditated and unthinking trips went there and caused the kind of trouble that induced us at that stage to have a special promulgation made in order to protect the Territory.

page 670

QUESTION

UNIVERSAL NATIONAL SERVICE

Mr MacKELLAR:
WARRINGAH, NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Minister for Defence. I refer him to the decision to reduce the period of full time national service from 2 years to 18 months. I ask: What ls considered to be the minimum period necessary for the adequate training of national servicemen? Has the Government considered the re-introduction of universal national service?

Mr PEACOCK:
LP

– If I may, I will answer this question as it comes within my Department. We had been continuing with 9 months as the period required for training up until the change that has been brought about by a reduction of the period of service announced by the Prime Minister last week. It is considered that the minimum period, which would include recruit training and some specialised corps training, could be 6 months, thereby leaving approximately 12 months for the Army to use those national servicemen who come within its command. As a consequence of the changes in training a programme will be worked out and determined over the months ahead. As to the second part of the question, the reason for national service training has been given before in this House. It is based on the best military advice available. It has been indicated to us that there is a need for a regular Army of approximately 40,000. With selective national service training we achieve this objective.

page 670

QUESTION

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

Mr WHITLAM:

– 1 ask the Prime Minister a question supplementary to that which was asked by the honourable member for Lang. I ask: When did he himself last pay a visit to Papua New Guinea, premeditated or not?

Mr McMAHON:
LP

– I have not paid a visit to Papua New Guinea for some time. I look forward with a great deal of interest to going there: When I go I hope I will be able to make constructive proposals and that I will be able to consult with the leaders of the people of Papua New Guinea. I hope that when I go I will be able to give them a message that will clearly indicate that we are anxious that they should have internal independence as soon as it is practicable. It is the wish of this Government not only that they should have internal independence but also that we shall play our part in trying to ensure that their standards of living are continually improved.

page 671

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

Mr GRASSBY:
Riverina

– I wish to make a personal explanation.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr GRASSBY:

– Yes. Late last night the honourable member for Hume (Mr Pettitt) mischievously misrepresented me. He stated - I quote from Hansard which was available to me this morning:

This is the man who weeps tears of blood for people in the country yet he has opposed every rural organisation … the Wool and Meat Producers Federation, the Australian Meat Board, the Australian Wool Commission and all the other woolgrower and farmer organisations.

This is mischievous nonsense, false in every respect, as is illustrated by the fact that I was the other day made an honorary life member of a major grower organisation in my own electorate; and I have in fact continuing and cordial links with every major farmer organisation in the nation. I have also sought to strengthen the Australian Wheat Board against the dead hand of Government credit control at every opportunity. The honourable member’s statement was a late night fantasy born of his desire to do mischief.

page 671

QUESTION

QUESTIONS

Mr FOSTER:
Sturt

– I rise on a matter of privilege that was raised the other day by the honourable member for Blaxland (Mr Keating). I realise, of course, that this matter was discussed the other day, but I draw your attention, Mr Speaker, to the fact that since the House commenced sitting last week the honourable member for Balaclava (Mr Whittorn) has had 4 questions, the honourable member for La Trobe (Mr Jess) has had 4, the honourable member for Wentworth (Mr Bury) has had 3, the honourable member for Murray (Mr Lloyd) has had 2 today, and the honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Irwin) has had 4.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! I point out that this is not a matter of privilege. This is a matter relating to the proceedings of the House. I remind the honourable member that the House has already passed a resolution to refer this matter to the Standing Orders Committee, and the matter will be so referred. But in the meantime question time will be conducted in accordance with the Standing Orders irrespective of the number of questions honourable members may have.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– When will I get a question?

Mr SPEAKER:

– It appears to me that numbers are embarrassing. This situation arises when the numbers on each side of the House change. I cannot answer the honourable member’s question because I do not know when he will get a question.

page 671

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

Mr Allan Fraser:
Monaro · EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I have a personal explanation to make.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr Allan Fraser:
EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Yes. The Minister for Social Services (Mr Wentworth) wrongly stated that I had failed in my duty by not reading the fine print in the Budget. I correct him. I did indeed read the fine print because I know the necessity of doing so when dealing with people who may not be scrupulously scrupulous. My request to him was to make known to pensioners a fact that they have had no means of knowing because this was not in the Budget reports published, namely, that many of them have been shut out of the pension increase.

page 671

QUESTION

QUESTIONS

Mr SPEAKER:

-I am not able to answer that.

page 671

NATIONAL DEBT SINKING FUND ACT

Mr SNEDDEN:
Treasurer · Bruce · LP

– Pursuant to section 18 of the National Debt Sinking Fund Act 1966-1967 I present the 48th Annual Report on the operations of the National Debt Commission for the year ended 30th June 1971.

page 672

LICENSING COURT

Mr HUNT:
Minister for the Interior · Gwydir · CP

– In accordance with my undertaking to the House on 7th May 1971, I present for the information of honourable members the transcript of proceedings in the Licensing Court, North Australia District, on the application of the Walkabout Hotel (Gove) Pty Ltd for a publican’s licence.

page 672

GRAFTON TO SOUTH BRISBANE RAILWAY

Ministerial Statement

Mr NIXON:
Minister for Shipping and Transport · Gippsland · CP

– by leave - Honourable members will be aware that the standard gauge rail connection to South Brisbane was constructed as a result of an agreement between the Commonwealth and the States of New South Wales and Queensland. The Commonwealth statute approving the agreement, the Grafton to South Brisbane Railway Act 1924-1930, provided for Commonwealth financial assistance by way of loan and Commonwealth participation in any profits from the operation of the railway. The Commonwealth provided all the initial finance and was to be repaid 43.9 per cent of the total cost. The repayments were incorporated ultimately in the 1927 financial agreement between the Commonwealth and the States and now form part of the general debt of the respective States. The profit sharing provisions, the only portion of the agreement remaining operative, provided for any excess of revenue to be distributed in accordance with a formula which provided for the Commonwealth to receive an amount equivalent to the interest on the whole amount it provided and for the balance of any remaining excess to be shared between the States of New South Wales and Queensland in proportions mutually agreed by them. There has been no surplus since 1952-53, and it appears highly improbable that there will be a surplus in the foreseeable future. In the light of this and of accounting difficulties associated with capital works undertaken by the respective States on the railway, the Commonwealth Government has agreed to waive its rights to share in the distribution of any surplus revenue or profit from the operation of the railway, and thus has enabled the agreement to be wholly discharged. The Government’s agreement to do this has been recorded by correspondence between the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) and the Premiers, and I take this opportunity to inform the House of the action taken. In due course, we will seek repeal of the Acts involved by insertion of a provision in a statute law revision Bill. I present the following paper:

Grafton to South Brisbane Railway - Ministerial Statement, 25th August 1971.

Mr CHARLES JONES:
Newcastle

– by leave - The Opposition welcomes the decision made by the Government to dispense with this legislation involving the construction of the Grafton to South Brisbane railway. There are a few points in the statement of the Minister for Shipping and Transport (Mr Nixon) to which attention should be drawn. He stated:

There has been no surplus since 1952-33 and it appears highly improbable that there will be a surplus in the foreseeable future.

The Minister also said that: . . the Commonwealth Government has agreed to waive its rights to share in the distribution of any surplus revenue or profit from the operation of the railway, and thus has enabled the agreement to be wholly discharged.

I ask this: What profits and what surpluses have been built up in this section of the New South Wales railways? Further, and probably most important of all, with regard to railways in particular and to public transport in general, what role does the Federal Government propose to adopt with respect to the Australian transport system as a whole?

If ever a need existed for some Commonwealth assistance and some very positive Commonwealth programme and policy on this matter, the time is ripe now for a declaration and an announcement of policy by the Government. For example, when one examines the finances of the New South Wales Department of Railways, one finds that over the past 20 years the debt incurred by the New South Wales railway system has increased by 8202.7m. I will give some factual figures to the House on this subject. At 30th June 1950 the outstanding debt of the New South Wales Railways was $359,056,000 and at 30th June 1970 the capital debt had increased to $561,823,000 which is an increase of 8202,767,000. In that same period it is unfortunate that the New South Wales Railways have been able to repay only $54. 8m of its outstanding debt. lt is important to bear these figures in mind and to take them into consideration when we deal with agreements such as the Grafton to South Brisbane Railway Agreement. In the same period, the interest repayments by the New South Wales Railways increased from $14,624,000 in the 1949-50 financial year to $35,637,000 in the financial year 1969-70. It must be obvious to honourable members that a need exists for the Federal Government to bring down some positive policy designed to assist the public transport system not only of New South Wales but also of all States. A position similar to that in New South Wales prevails in the railway system in each State of Australia. The Australian Labor Party believes that it is the responsibility of the Federal Government to do something about this situation. We on this side of the House are confident that in 12 months time, when we are the Government, we will be doing something to assist State railways to overcome their financial problems. It must be obvious that no railway system - in fact, no form of public transport - can continue to pay the exorbitant interest charges that railway systems today are required to pay. In 1969-70, the New South Wales Railways were required to pay from revenue $35m in interest alone. Surely, this is not good enough. No Minister and no government should tolerate this state of affairs. As 1 have said, the Opposition is clear on what its policy towards this matter will be when it forms the Government. The Opposition believes that the Federal Government should be giving financial assistance to the States not only to dispense and to liquidate some of their existing loans on non-productive work but also to provide funds for improving the public transport system. Transport represents roughly 25 per cent of the cost structure of this nation. It is our responsibility. I look forward to the day when the Commonwealth Government will be doing something positive to help the railways to reduce their burden of debt and their commitments in respect of interest repayments.

page 673

HOUSE COMMITTEE

Motion (by Mr Swartz) - by leave - agreed to:

That Mr Garland be discharged from attendance on the House Committee and that in his place Mr Jarman be appointed a member of the Committee.

page 673

CENTRAL SEWERAGE SCHEME

page 673

FOR DARWIN

Reference to Public Works Committee

Mr HUNT:
Minister for the Interior · Gwydir · CP

– I move:

That the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary, Standing Committee on Public Works for investigation and report: Central sewerage scheme for Darwin.

The proposal includes construction of sewers, pumping stations, rising mains, macerator station and deep sea outfall. The estimated cost of the proposed works is $3.2m.

I table the plan of the proposed works.

These works are referred because of the lapse of time since sewerage schemes for Darwin, covering the northern and central zones, were referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works in March 1969, and because of the concern of members of the Darwin community that a satisfactory standard of treatment should be achieved having regard to environmental factors. The completion of a central sewerage scheme for Darwin is an urgent and essential requirement to permit further development in this area of Darwin, and I seek the Committee’s cooperation in making it an objective to table its report during the present parliamentary session.

When the Committee sat in Darwin in March 1969 a few witnesses, including a representative of the Port Authority, spoke against the scheme. The Committee considered these representations, along with the body of technical evidence available to it, and concluded that the deep water marine outfall at East Point would be able satisfactorily to dispose of the sewage from the central zone, without nuisance or hazard to the public. The Committee acknowledged however that this view might not be shared by all; and that there would be some people mindful of the shortcomings of the present facilities, who would be apprehensive about the possible pollution of the water and foreshores of Darwin Harbour, and the resulting health risks.

Public criticism of the scheme has been particularly strong in Darwin in recent weeks. Following further consideration of the technical aspects of the scheme by officers of interested departments I visited Darwin in July. I said that it was intended to appoint a monitoring committee to make regular tests of water and to watch carefully for any fouling of beaches. It was envisaged that this committee would comprise representatives of the Departments of Health, Works and Interior. I said that if it appeared that Darwin Harbour was being contaminated I would seek immediate action by the Government to rectify the situation.

I also announced that to assist individuals and groups in Darwin to fully understand the nature and operation of the scheme I would arrange for technical experts to meet them in Darwin for a series of discussions. A week later the Assistant Director-General of the Hydraulics Division of the Department of Works and the Director of Health for the Northern Territory discussed the scheme with elected members of the Northern Territory Legislative Council, the Darwin City Corporation, trade unions, the Port Authority, Darwin doctors, the Darwin Chamber of Commerce, the National Council of Women and the Press.

Despite the assurances given and explanations of the scheme, public criticism continues and I consider it would be helpful for the people concerned to be given a further opportunity of putting forward their views, on oath, and being questioned by members of this Parliament. In saying this I should make it clear that in the Government’s view the present proposal represents the best balance between the desired effect and cost. It is my understanding that the alternative favoured by many Darwin people is piping the sewage to the Leanyer treatment plant, some 10 miles away. This would cost around $6m, or nearly double the present proposal. Its financing would of necessity be achieved at the expense of other works in the Territory. It would be for the committee however to evaluate the present proposal in the light of any new evidence put before it, and in accordance with its Act, to consider the suitability of the work for the stated purpose, and the most effective use of the money to be expended.

Mr CALDER:
Northern Territory

– I support the motion moved by the Minister for the Interior (Mr Hunt). I am pleased that my continued representations on behalf of so many individuals and public bodies in the Northern Territory have been instrumental in having the matter referred back to the Public Works Committee. When the scheme for putting raw though macerated sewage into the reaches of Darwin Harbour was questioned by members of the Darwin Port Authority, by almost every doctor in Darwin and by the very experienced Mr Carl Atkinson and many others, I was convinced that there was a very real case for the re-study of the effect of the scheme. Darwin’s growth rate, the mean temperatures of the waters into which it was proposed the sewage would be discharged and the currents in Beagle Bay must receive the most weighty consideration.

At the previous hearing of evidence on this subject by the Public Works Committee in Darwin few witnesses expressed doubts. This was because the vast number of citizens had not realised the possibilities of the implication. The reason for asking the Public Works Committee to listen to evidence again is that I now consider that ample submissions will be put to the Committee to give it the benefit of a much wider field of information than was previously the case. I trust that the citizens of Darwin will present sound and relevant evidence in support of the case for review and that the matter will proceed without delay. Darwin Harbour is currently being polluted by the existing outfalls, the undesirable features of which the central scheme was planned to relieve.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

APPROPRIATION BILL (No. 1) 1971-72 Second Reading (Budget Debate)

Debate resumed from 24 August (vide page 647), on motion by Mr Snedden:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Upon which Mr Whitlam had moved by way of amendment:

That all words after That’ be omitted with a view to inserting the following words in place thereof: ‘the House condemns the Budget because (a) it breaks the Prime Minister’s pledge to Parliament on taking office to bring into effect for 1971-72 a fundamental review of social services and of methods for adjusting them, (b) it contains no proposals to balance the finances and functions of the Commonwealth, the States and local government and (c) it produces no programmes for high national objectives of social welfare, economic strength and national security’.

Sir JOHN CRAMER:
Bennelong

– We are now in the second day of the debate on the Budget which was delivered by the Treasurer (Mr Snedden). I congratulate him upon his maiden effort. I hope that he will have the opportunity of producing many more budgets in the future and I think he will. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam) stated his Party’s case in relation to the Budget last night. I listened very attentively to what he said, but I heard very little of a constructive nature. His whole speech was a destructive exercise, together with the lauding of Mr Hawke, the President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions. One of the things which the Leader of the Opposition said and which was calculated to be quite damaging was that 100,000 people might be unemployed by the end of the year as a result of this Budget. Of course, this was an effort to try to frighten the people and to gain kudos for the Opposition.

No such possibility could occur, because of the way in which the Budget is framed. The Government has already given an undertaking not to allow unemployment of such a magnitude to occur in this country. The statements made by the Leader of the Opposition were destructive ones. The Budget, which is presented each year, is generally speaking a stocktaking. We find out how much money we have spent and then we assess what money we need in the future for our economic growth and our social development. The Government tries in a budget always to guide and guard the people’s activities for the coming year. With this in mind, it must assess taxation with which to pay for the things it proposes to do. Sometimes the word gets abroad that the Government has a lot of money. Of course, it has only the money which it takes out of the pockets of the people, and there are limitations on that. For this reason, no budget can be a popular one. It is always a case of either too much on the one hand or too little on the other hand, but this criticism is natural. The duty of a government is to be fair to all people, without discrimination. No Budget should discriminate between sections of the people. At all times the Government must preserve the economic stability of the country because in that way only can it benefit the people.

We must give incentives to production and development and we must protect our social security, educate our children and guard our national security and welfare. Within our capacity, I believe that this is precisely what this Budget does. It is a good Budget. I am not happy about certain factors of it or certain details of it, and I will mention some of these later, but I must concede that it is an honest Budget trying to achieve things for the betterment and the growth of Australia and the people living in Australia. I think that the Government has been honest in its approach to this Budget which deals with some of the most urgent problems as the Government sees them - and there are many now. I am sure that the Government is fully aware of what one might call certain deficiencies in the Budget. Every Budget will have deficiencies. However the Government realises that all problems cannot be cured in a Budget.

As I have said, the Budget structure leaves room to enable adjustments of matters that may arise in the future. What are Australia’s problems? Without doubt the outstanding problem is the danger of inflation to our economy. This is poohpoohed by the Leader of the Opposition. He rides lightly over this, but this is Australia’s outstanding problem, no matter what the Opposition thinks about it. True, many people do not understand the cause of inflation and do not realise the dread result of uncontrolled inflation. Fundamentally, of course, an excess of money in the hands of the people without a compensating increase in the production of goods and services creates an inflationary condition. The Leader of the Opposition screams out that the Government is criticising increasing wages and salaries in the hope of stopping such increases. Nevertheless it is true and cannot be denied, as the people know, that the vast increase in wages and salaries in recent years has been one of the major factors in the inflationary trend in Australia. I am speaking not only of the trade unions but of the whole pattern of wages and salaries, including Government employees in the Public Service. This inflationary condition has been brought about by varying factors. The awards granted under our arbitration system have been a principal factor. However these have been influenced largely by certain industrial agreements that have been entered into because of a condition of over-full employment in secondary industry. In order to carry on, some industries have entered into agreements which have contained excessive provisions. Agreements for increases have been presented to the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission and no awards have been made accordingly. Undoubtedly this situation has been operating for some time and unfortunately with over-full employment this has created a falling off in efficiency of production. In turn this has caused costs to rise and consequently prices to be increased. So we have inflation.

The public and the workers themselves complain about the dog chasing its tail in the quest for further increases in wages and salaries. Something must be done about this because it cannot go on forever. The trade union movement led, I say deliberately, by the arch enemy of Australia, Bob Hawke, is taking advantage of the position and is using the strike weapon to force wages up higher and at the same time to reduce production. All of this is fanning the flames of inflation. I believe it is all a deliberate plot to destroy private enterprise in Australia. If the people follow this line, that is precisely what will happen. The trade union movement is going far beyond its charter, which is to improve the conditions of labour in unions. It is calling for strikes against the law in a political sense - against laws made by a properly constituted government - and is entering into business on its own account in various fi elds. I have not the time to detail them. The trade union movement is trying to organise control of banking, credit, housing and all these things. The object, of course, is to create a socialist society under a dictatorship. Ultimately this ends in communism.

Since this Bob Hawke became President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions in 1969 - appointed to the position by the left wing element - trade unions have organised political strikes. I shall give some examples. In February 1970 there was the Moratorium strike. What has that to do with the trade union movement? In August 1970 there was a Budget strike over pensions. In February 1971 there was a social services strike. In July 1971 there was the union ban on the South African rugby tour. Again in July 1971 there was a strike for a $5 a week increase in pensions. It is evident from these strikes that the trade union movement has entrenched itself firmly in the political arena and has gone beyond its charter. I draw attention to some statements made by trade union leaders because I think these should be quoted in the House. Mr Hawke, the President himself, in June 1971, as reported in the Sydney Morning Herald’ said:

It is like a law of physics. It is inevitable. If there is a vacuum it will be filled.

That is his approach. According to the Australian’ of 12th April 1971 he said:

I can see no limit to the opportunities of the labour movement … to protect and advance the interests of the ordinary people.

Mr Egerton, the President of the Queensland Trades and Labour Council and President of the Queensland Australian Labor Party is reported as having said:

The trade union movement must insist on its right to be more than just an industrial body looking after the industrial demands of its members. Unions must make it clear that they have a right to interfere in the political movement of the nation.

It is now perfectly clear that the trade union movement has entered into the field of politics. Mr Bull of the Waterside Workers Federation has said:

The Government obviously can’t run the country properly. So the trade unions must move in.

That is perfectly clear. What 1 am trying to say is that the trade union movement has gone far beyond its charter and is now entering the political arena. What is the Labor Party doing about this? lt is encouraging and condoning the leaders of the left wing unions every time there is a demand for higher wages or a threat to strike. The Leader of the Opposition obviously is terrorised by the political power of Mr Hawke and the unions. I saw him on television and he was completely overwhelmed. He looked like a scared schoolboy. This is fairly evident and he feels that he must eulogise Mr Hawke in this House.

Labor’s only answer to inflation is government ownership and control and price control. Honourable members hear this claim made continually from the other side of the House. We hear the regular catchery that these things will cure the problem of inflation and rising prices, but they never will. They never will improve our standard of living or cure an inflationary trend. They are a deterrent to production. Increased production is what is needed in both goods and services. This is the only way to increase our standard of living and deal with inflation.

There are other problems besides those 1 have mentioned. The problem of our rural industries is of very great concern to us. New research must be conducted in this field and reconstruction of these industries must be carried out. We cannot continue forever subsidising uneconomic industries. I am a country man. I believe that we cannot let our country brothers down. We have to help them to reconstruct in the country and to see that they get a fair go. T am all for this. This Budget does a good deal to alleviate their position. I know that some of the increased charges imposed in the Budget arc quite distasteful. I mention such increases as those imposed on postal charges, television licence fees, chemists’ prescription charges and the company tax. But 1 am sure that if these sacrifices are made - after all, life is full of sacrifices - they will help us overcome the difficult period we are now experiencing. People will be contributing to help overcome the tragedies that are occurring in the community, such as in our rural industries.

Some of the benefits that flow from the Budget are very good. I think they deserve mention. Very big increases - the biggest in our history - have been made in social service and repatriation payments. These should be emphasised. They are worthwhile increases. I congratulate the Minister for Repatriation (Mr Holten) on the increased repatriation benefits. One outstanding feature is the attention that has been paid to child endowment, which has not been increased for years. This Government has seen fit to do something about it. lt has always given encouragement to the families. This is a direct opposite to the policy of the Labor Party. It is very interesting to look at some of the things that have been adopted as policy by the Australian Labor Party at its Federal Conference in Launceston. They include such proposals as:

A nation-wide network of clinics to provide free advice by experts on family planning, including contraception to anyone who so requests. Contraceptives to be supplied on the free pharmaceutical list

This is Labor Party policy. It will legalise the advertising of contraceptives. The Labor Party conference even went so far as to approve abortion on request. These are proposals of the once great Labor Party on family planning and family life. It is really a tragedy to read such proposals being adopted at this conference. The Labor Party says that a big problem in Australia is the attitude of the people that a woman will find ultimate satisfaction in housekeeping and child rearing. The Labor Party says that housekeeping does not fill in the time so they have to have another child to keep reasonably busy. It states that the national attitude must be changed so that women are encouraged to educate and retrain themselves for occupations outside the home. The Labor Party states that it is important to stress the selfishness of having another baby.

Mr Bury:

– Whose policies are these?

Sir JOHN CRAMER:

– These are Labor Party policies. The report of the conference continues:

Other problems to be overcome are the manufacturers of consumer goods and others who, through their advertisements, build up the myth of the perfect woman, having got her man and become a glamourous mum with 4 healthy kids.

Is this something to be discouraged? God help the Australian Labor Party if this is its attitude.

I said earlier that I was disappointed with some of the matters in the Budget. I am very disappointed that no increase whatever was made in the per capita grants to independent schools. I think this is a matter of tremendous importance. Perhaps we have not looked at this subject enough. I know that the Government has done something about it. I know that we have given certain additional finance to the States from which they will provide assistance to independent schools. New South Wales has already started to do this, and I hope that the other States will follow suit.

I was also very pleased to see the helpful increase in the concessional deduction in education expenses for income tax purposes. This will be helpful to many families. But I think that the Government must realise that the cost of education as far as the Commonwealth is concerned will be much greater than the allocation for independent schools in the Budget if many of them close their doors in the coming year. This is on the cards, because as I see it the money that is available to many of the independent schools will not be sufficient to keep them going without further assistance. This may be something with which the Government will have to deal when the trouble arises. I am disappointed that the position has been dealt with in this way. I would have liked to see the matter dealt with differently. As I said at the beginning of my remarks, one cannot always obtain everything one wants in a budget. These are difficult times. The Goverment is facing up to difficult conditions with changes in our international trade that will affect the country very greatly. More than at any other time, the country now needs stable government.

Mr MARTIN:
Banks

– I have no intention of replying to the red herrings drawn across the trail by that archconservative, the honourable member for Bennelong (Sir John Cramer) who was trying only to divert attention from the unholy mess caused by his own Government. 1 did agree with one thing the honourable member said. I will deal with that later in my speech but it is the only thing on which I agree with him.

In speaking to the Budget, it is important to attempt to ascertain in the first instance what the Government was seeking to achieve with its Budget. The Treasurer (Mr Snedden) in explaining the Budget strategy said:

We see it as a critically important objective of our policy to combat the inflationary forces now running in the economy.

Apparently, the overriding economic purpose of this Budget, as explained by the Treasurer, is to control inflation. The Government apparently saw the problem mainly as ‘a powerful upthrust of costs’. They are the words used by the Treasurer. Apparently the Government was also concerned at the possibility of demand pressures, particularly from a potential sharp rise in consumer spending. The budgetary method proposed by the Government to slow down the rate of price increase was to restrain total demand by a pruning of expenditure proposals from Commonwealth departments and to effect increases in certain direct and indirect taxes. The Government was hoping to ensure that the general demand type inflationary pressures would not be superimposed upon and exacerbate the present cost pressures. I concede that certain of the expenditure proposals by Commonwealth departments have been pruned. Whether they have been ruthlessly pruned, as stated by the Treasurer, is open to doubt. I point out that the estimate of Commonwealth expenditure for 1971-72 is still considerably higher than that for 1970- 71. Commonwealth expenditure in 1971- 72 is estimated to rise by 11.7 per cent. This compares with an increase of 14.9 per cent between 1969-70 and 1970- 71.

This Budget has imposed increases in the rates of personal income tax and company tax. Customs and excise duties on petroleum products and tobacco have been increased. The next question that arises is whether the Budget is likely to achieve the desired effect. It seems to me that this Budget is unlikely to succeed in reducing the rate of inflation significantly whilst it may further slow down the rate of growth of the economy and worsen unemployment. This Budget does nothing to combat cost inflation directly. In fact, this seems to be impossible to do via a Budget of the type put forward by the Treasurer. All that it does is to try to ensure that demand inflation does not also arise.

This Budget has even worsened the problem of cost inflation by raising indirect taxes and charges, for example, telephone and postal charges. This has the effect of directly raising the cost of living and, to a lesser extent, costs for businesses which are passed on, further spiralling the inflationary effect. Despite the Budget, cost inflation is likely to continue at recent rates in view of the fact that wage increases will be claimed by groups of workers who feel they have been left behind by the past wage and price inflation, and as businesses raise their prices to cover increased costs and try to restore or even increase their profit margins. This cost inflation might be slowed down if the level of demand fell sufficiently drastically but the level of unemployment necessary would probably be intolerably high. It is difficult to say how far demand will fall following this 1971-72 Budget. The Government was apparently concerned that the increase in retail sales between the March and June quarters of 1971 could be the beginning of a spending spree by consumers with the unusually high savings that they have built up. It is possible, however, that consumers wish to maintain a higher rate of savings in view of the problem times that are ahead and do not intend spending all their savings in the near future. However, this Budget may tend to confirm the pessimistic feeling of businessmen who have already indicated that their capital expenditure will be lower in future months.

The Budget Speech made no reference to the fact that most of the demand indicators were pointing downwards in recent months. It referred only to retail sales which may be rather erratic in their short term behaviour. I might add that recent increases in retail sales have been attributed by some observers merely to increases in prices and population rather than a change in consumer spending patterns. I think it is worthy of note that the impact of the tax increases will not tend to be felt until the latter half of 1971-72. so this Budget will not have any deflationary effect in the first half the year. It could have such an effect in the latter half of the year but then only towards the very end of that half, as taxation assessments are not due for payment until after 1st April 1972. If the pessimistic demand indicators which have been ignored by this Government continue in their present direction unemployment might then rise to unusually high levels, and this is a real danger. I suspect that this is the real intention of the Government, namely, the creation of a pool of unemployment. I would like to re-echo the words which have been used in days gone by about another Prime Minister: *You will be awfully cool in Billy’s pool’.

Now to some specific criticisms of the Budget. There is only one point on which I agree with the honourable member for Bennelong (Sir John Cramer) and that is the extent of Commonwealth assistance to non-government schools. I would like to quote from a statement made in this

House by the then Minister for Education and Science on 13th August 1969 when introducing the States Grants (Independent Schools) Act. He said:

It is our policy - that is the Government’s policy - to seek to work out ways of assisting independent schools so that, relying on their own efforts and supported by governments, they will be able in the future to provide places for that proportion of the school population which in the past has sought education in independent schools, lt is also important that the independent school system be able to develop in the future, not only in quantity but also in quality, more or less in line with the development of government schools.

The Minister further stated that the proportion of the school population which in the past has sought education in these independent schools amounted to nearly one quarter of the school population. He also said at that time that there were ominous signs of an impending contraction in the independent school system and that the Government favoured the continuation of both government and non-government independent schools on both educational and economic grounds. He continued:

There are economic advantages to the general taxpayers for if all children now enrolled in the independent schools were to transfer to the government schools … at least an additional Si 30m a year would be involved in the running costs of the government schools.

What was the amount that the Commonwealth Government paid out during the year to 30th June 1970 under the States Grants (Independent Schools) Act? A mere $24,272,000, compared to a saving of at least $130m on the maintenance of the independent school system. I have already quoted the remarks of the then Minister for Education and Science when introducing this legislation in 1969. But what did the then Treasurer say in the 1970 Budget? He said:

The Commonwealth continues to make a significant contribution to the expansion and improvement of Australia’s education services.

What additional contribution did he make to the non-government schools? Not one cent extra in the per capita grants. And what did the Treasurer (Mr Snedden) say in 1971 concerning education? The word education’ was not even mentioned. Education, possibly the most important item of expenditure in Australia, did not rate one mention in the Treasurer’s Budget Speech of 1971.

One of the problems that concerns me is the high dropout rate of secondary school students. I would like to quote some figures and contrast the dropout rate from the richer independent schools, the State schools and schools in the Catholic system. Of the children who commence secondary school, of those going to government schools only 25 per cent go right through to their sixth year: of those going to the Catholic schools only 32 per cent go through to their sixth year; while some 81 per cent of the pupils of the other private schools go right through to their sixth year. Those other private schools are what 1 class as the richer independent schools and the case that I am making today is not for them. I am presenting a case for the poorer section of the independent school system - the Catholic school system. I would like to quote some further facts and figures. These apply particularly to New South Wales and I think they show the magnitude of the effort which has been organised in the Catholic school system. In 1970 in New South Wales alone there were 535 Catholic primary schools teaching 123,000 children. There were 182 Catholic secondary schools teaching 65,000 children. There were 3,670 primary school teachers and 2,628 secondary school teachers. This gives us a total of 717 schools where 189,242 pupils were being taught by 6,298 teachers, a not inconsiderable education effort. It is an educational venture, I suggest, which cannot be said by anybody to be a splinter group activity for a divisive minority.

I would like to point out that the total enrolment in all schools in Western Australia in 1969 was 210,000 odd. This figure makes a useful comparison with the Catholic school enrolment of 196,000-odd in New South Wales in the same year. The total enrolment in all schools in Tasmania in 1969 was only 93,079. I repeat that the Catholic education involvement in New South Wales is a very substantial one. The proportions of children in New South Wales in 1969 who were being catered for by the various education channels are as follows: Government schools, 77.13 per cent; other non-government schools, 3.24 per cent; and Catholic schools 19.63 per cent. For pupils in the final 2 years of schooling the proportions were: Government schools, 69.4 per cent; Catholic schools, 19.69 per cent; and other non-government schools, 10.93 per cent. It is perhaps significant that in the area in which the greatest skills and resources are required and in which the largest strains on teachers are felt the non-government schools are making their greatest proportional effort.

An interesting aspect of the Catholic school population situation in New South Wales is the change in the distribution between, primary and secondary classes. Figures available for the 5-year period between 1966 and 1970 show a growth in the enrolment in secondary schools and a drop in the enrolment in primary schools. In the Archdiocese of Sydney primary school enrolments went from 76,523 in 1966 to 73,066 in 1970, which was a considerable drop, while secondary enrolments rose from 36,978 to 42,780. It is a fact that secondary school pupils cost more to educate than primary school pupils. The cost of the education system therefore would have increased by this additional factor. Notwithstanding that, the Government made no additional grants to the independent school system in the 1970-71 Budget nor has it made any additional grants in this Budget.

It should also be noted that there is evidence of a drop in the number of children attending Catholic schools. I do not think that this would be economically sound for any government. I think it would be more economically sound for a government to keep open the schools which educate children at a cost lower than that at which a government school can educate them. It is educationally sound that the Government should support variety and flexibility in schools, especially as that would allow the citizens the democratic right to choose the type of education they want their children to receive. I say in all honesty that the parents of children attending Catholic schools are not asking the Government to prop up a moribund school system. All they are asking for is sufficient of the public moneys of which they make a significant contribution to keep alive and improve a vital educational undertaking which provides a very fine service to a large section of the State’s population. I trust that the Government will take note of my remarks on this issue.

The Government stands condemned for its attitude to pensioners and to the little man. If it showed the same concern for the underprivileged sections of the community as it does for its friends in big business there would be no cause for complaint. Since coming into this Parliament I have consistently drawn the attention of the House and of Ministers, including the Treasurer and the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon), to the inequalities in the taxation system. After much prodding by myself the Government finally announced the closing of a gap in a tax avoidance scheme. On 28th April of this year the Treasurer announced that it was the Government’s intention to close a particular tax avoidance gap, but that intention has not been put into practice so far. I hope that the Government has not had second thoughts about the matter. I hope that its big business friends have not got at it. 1 noticed recently an indicator of how tax avoidance schemes have an effect on revenue. It was brought out during evidence given to the Senate Select Committee on Securities and Exchange and reported in the Press on Monday of this week. Mr Dowling, a director of the Patrick Corporation, is reported to have said in evidence he gave to the Committee that although the profits which were made by his own company amounted to $5,732,000 by various tax devices and avoidance schemes the amount of tax paid was only $34,000. That is all the tax that was paid on an income of $5m-odd. It is up to the Government to close up this type of gap and the other gaps that exist in our taxation laws. If it does not do so, it should not be in government.

Mr HAMER:
Isaacs

– Budgets have many purposes. Some Budgets try to be all things to all men. I am glad that this Budget has made no such attempt. It would appear from what the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam) has said that if he were ever to frame a Budget he would follow his usual policy of promising everything to everyone ?nd he would then perform the difficult anatomical feat of falling flat on his face in all directions simultaneously. Budgets have to be more responsible than the Leader of the Opposition realises. A wisely framed Budget, such as this one, can be an important short term regulator of the economy and, in the pre sent dangerous inflationary situation, we should examine this Budget to see how effective it will be in controlling the economy, for this must be the overriding purpose of this Budget.

Of course there is nothing new about inflation. Retail prices have been rising at an average rate of 2.8 per cent a year since federation. Between 1963 and 1970 the rises averaged 2.5 per cent. The trade unions, employers and the general public at large became adjusted to this rate of increase. The danger is that once a rate of inflation becomes accepted it is very difficult to break it, as Britain and America are now finding out. Now that our rate of inflation has risen to a quite unacceptable 6 per cent we must take urgent action to break the pattern before it becomes institutionalised.

All the elements of demand - pull inflation are here. Why has it not yet become effective? The answer seems to be that the rate of saving is surprisingly high. A cause of this high rate of savings would seem to be the interest rate and, perhaps even more, the feeling that interest rates have reached a peak and can only decline and therefore it is important to invest savings now. If this estimate is true, we may not see the present level of savings continue. We certainly should not push up interest rates any further. Therefore we must look elsewhere for controls on demand inflation. Restraints on Government expenditure will contain gross aggregate demand, but there is a severe limit to how much Government expenditure can be contained in the short term if we are not to suffer unacceptable damage to the quality of the services provided.

For the first time our balance of payments position enables us to consider using increased imports to balance our internal economic situation. With full employment, it is possible to increase our output only by increased productivity and a sharp rise in productivity is most unlikely in the near future. But increased imports could be achieved relatively quickly and easily by adjusting tariffs. I do not support the concept of an across the board cut in tariffs because it would be far too crude and, as the effects have never been investigated, we could inflict irreparable damage on important industries. But one step we could and should take straight away is to lower tariffs to the British preferential level for products where the British preference is the minimum of Ti per cent and where there are substantial British imports, that is, products in which Britain is competitive. The resulting increased inflow of goods would not only help to balance our economy, but it would tend to encourage Australian firms to consolidate into units of optimum size and also to discourage the ever ready granting of over-award wages or excessive salaries.

The Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission usually is painted as the villain in our present cost-push inflationary crisis, and certainly last year’s 6 per cent national wage rise was remarkably ill-judged. I hope that in the next national wage case the Commission will learn from the consequences of its earlier action and make wiser decisions. But unless the Commission is restructured, it does not seem that it will be able to make judgments that really reflect the needs of the economy, and this is a fact of life with which we have to live for the present.

But the Arbitration Commission is not really responsible for the present trouble which is caused by the wages drift, overaward payments by employers, either forced by ruthless use of union monopoly power, or by employers competing among themselves for scarce specialised labour. What can we do to control the alarming rise in the wages drift which, on top of the 6 per cent national wage rise, has caused our present inflationary crisis? According to the Treasury bulletin of July this year, weekly wage rates have risen by 9.5 per cent from the March quarter of last year to the March quarter of this year, but over the same period weekly earnings rose by no less than 13 per cent. Some of the wages drift undoubtedly is caused because the firms concerned know that they can pass the cost on to the consumer in the form of a price rise, and this type of inflation is perhaps better named ‘managedprice inflation’ rather than ‘cost-push inflation’.

Government policy can and is doing something about this type of inflation, through the enforcement of the legislation against restrictive trade practices. But beyond a certain point, increased forced internal competition may not be beneficial because it may result in the splintering of the industry into too many small high cost units. The admission of more imports through the lowering of tariffs, as I suggested a moment ago, does not have this disadvantage. However, we must not hope for too much from such measures, because there is evidence that prices are rising fastest in the non-manufacturing sectors of industry which would not be affected by tariff changes.

Other action which the Government is taking to restrain cost-push inflation, through competitive bidding up of wages for scarce specialist labour, is in labour training and retraining to eliminate scarcities, and in the migration programme, although in the immediate future I should like to see the latter programme more specifically and deliberately aimed at the areas of specialised labour shortage.But are these measures enough? The answer must be, I think, perhaps. Some honourable members opposite, with short memories, would like to see us institute price control. There are 3 difficulties in this. The first is that it would be illegal because it is beyond our constitutional power; the second is that it would be undesirable; and the third is that it would be ineffective.

If a price freeze were imposed, it would remove a key pointer to where we should be investing our resources, which would be folly in a capital hungry country. It would also be unfair to those industries which have done most to absorb their rises in labour costs, and reward those which have been ruthless in passing their costs on to the community. Further, price control would be quite ineffective without quality control, and the policing of these 2 activities would involve an enormous bureaucracy - a great misallocation of our resources. The argument that if wages are controlled, therefore prices should be controlled, is totally falacious as has been shown by the extent of the wages drift. Wages are not controlled. Only minimum wages are controlled. Therefore, the true parallel would be to control minimum prices, which would be an economic absurdity.

Some honourable members opposite seem to have a phobia about profits, I think largely because they confuse profits with profitability. It must always be remembered that 47i per cent of industrial profit goes into the Commonwealth Treasury, and from the remainder must be found the cash to plough back into new investment and sufficient dividends so that the industry can attract scarce capital. A disturbing thing is the falling trend in profitability in manufacturing industry. According to a recent P.A. survey, the median return has dropped from 8.9 per cent in 1969 to 8.3 per cent in 1970, and is expected to drop even further in 1971.

At the same time as manufacturing profitability is falling, profitability in nonmanufacturing industry seems to be rising, and this trend is likely to continue because many of our manufacturing industries face heavy costs for environmental control measures. This is one reason why the investment allowance for plant and equipment is so important, and I hope that the Treasurer (Mr Snedden) will soon be able to restore it. But if this cost-push inflation continues at its present alarming rate, and even more, if the rates increase, we cannot merely sit back and wait for long-term effects. I think that the Government should be prepared to consider decisive action to reduce the wages drift. We must break the present pattern of inflation before it becomes set.

There is some evidence, which was examined in the latest ‘Australian Economic Review’, that salaries have been rising faster than wages, and that the Commonwealth Public Service has been setting the pace in some areas. It seems to me to be intolerable, at a time when the Government is exhorting everyone to hold down wage and price increases, that the Commonwealth’s own employees have been setting the pace in wage rises. The Parliament has set an excellent example. Parliamentary pay has been static since 1968, although the pay of the civil servants with whom we were aligned then has since increased by more than 32 per cent. These figures were provided to me by Mr Pro Bono Publico with whom honourable members no doubt are familiar. Although we dislike this situation, I must say that I applaud this restraint by Parliament. But unfortunately the Public Service Board has not taken the lead. As it has not taken the lead, I think that it must be told publicly that average incomes in the Public Service must not rise by more than 5 per cent during 1971-72.

Only by a decisive action such as this can the Government give the necessary lead to the nation’s employers. If the nation’s employers find it difficult to take this lead, I suggest that we should consider taking comparable action in the private sector. One way of achieving this would be to make new over-award wage agreements not tax deductible by employers, and any increase in salaries in excess of 5 per cent during the year should similarly not be tax deductible. I believe that this would provide a strong emergency disincentive to the wages drift. Whatever the drawback of these actions, I believe that they are less than that of rampaging inflation, and I think we should be prepared to take a difficult decision such as this if inflation does not soon dampen down.

What does the Opposition offer? The Leader of the Opposition offers a 35-hour week and an extra week’s annual leave, which would add sharply to the cost-push, and he would like to superimpose demandpull inflation on top of cost-push inflation by increasing Government expenditure in nearly every area. Of course, he suggests that Government expenditure would not increase if the measures which he proposed were adopted, claiming that control by a central Canberra bureaucracy would reduce costs. This is nonsense, and I am sure that he knows it is nonsense. I suggest that the Leader of the Opposition should listen to his economic adviser and speech writer, or, if he has been listening to him, he should sack him. A case can be made for increased taxation to provide increased Government services to the community but it is significant that the Leader of the Opposition does not dare to make it. He did indulge in a lot of scare talk about unemployment. In fact the most probable increase in unemployed after the next election will be the present Leader of the Opposition though I doubt whether that would be important statistically.

There is a very important step taken in the Budget, a step that seems to have passed largely unnoticed. There has always been a conflict over the interest rate, between the need to adjust it for economic purposes and the desire to keep it artificially low for social purposes, such as low income housing. 1 have long believed that it would be more sensible to make direct grants for these social purposes rather than to distort the interest rate, and this has been done in the new CommonwealthState Housing Agreement. If the Treasurer follows this principle to the logical conclusion he will provide himself with an interest rate which is a far more flexible instrument for monetary control. I hope too that he will then feel able to allow the trading banks more freedom in setting their own interest rates. The present interest rate in a country chronically short of capital makes for very conservative bank lending policies. More interest rate flexibility would encourage banks to lend to more speculative ventures and would make for better distribution of our scarce capital resources.

Of course, the control of inflation is not the only purpose of this Budget. Because of the need to restrain Government spending the possibility for new social initiatives is very limited. Nevertheless, I am glad to see the rise in child endowment and in pensions although I should have liked to have seen some form of automatic cost of living adjustment for pensioners, for pensioners of all people have the least margin to absorb increases. When we consider the effect of the Budget on productivity and growth we must also consider the effects on the environment. Australia is one of the few countries which has the opportunity to control pollution but that chance will not last much longer. We must face up to the economic consequences of pollution control. The broad principle must be to impose on both industry and consumers the full costs of the pollution they create. We must face the fact that a reduction in the amount of pollution caused by secondary industry will cost money. Tackling the simple problems first is not necessarily the best long term course and we must realise that hasty changes can have unacceptable long term effects. In other words, this is an area where keeping cool and thinking first are justified.

I realise of course that, because of our peculiar Constitution, control of the environment rests chiefly with the States. Nevertheless, this House must be concerned because of the very substantial economic effects and because of the diversion of resources which environmental control will cause. There is an alarming amount .of emotion and also alarmingly few facts on what is involved. The first report of tha Standing Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution in Britain is an absorbing document. I wish we had such a Standing Royal Commission here. The British Royal Commission makes an attempt to analyse the problems of pollution control in terms of costs and benefits. It admits that there is no completely scientific and objective means of making such an analysis, but that these difficulties must not prevent us from reaching decisions about the benefits of cleaner air and water, less noise and a pleasant countryside, compared with the benefits which might result in meeting claims on resources in such fields as houses, health and education. We need such a study here, and as the decision is ultimately an economic one, I hope the Treasurer will initiate it.

The final aspect of the Budget which I should like to tackle is whether parliamentary control is adequate. I do not think it is in regard to taxation which Ls not really scrutinised at all during Budget debates. In fact, debate in this House is a most unsuitable means of examining a subject such as taxation with its intricate detail and obscure consequences. There are, in my opinion, many defects in our present tax system which could and should be rectified. [ have spoken in this House on several occasions on the shortcomings of income taxation deductions, many of which I believe are unjustified. The rest are either inadequate or apply in the wrong way. There are many problems which are crying out for examination by a select committee of this House. It is true that they are presumably examined by the Treasury and the Commissioner of Taxation but these are instruments of the Executive and their deliberations are in secret and do not absolve this House as the legislative body from its responsibility of examining them publicly.

I am aware of the dangers in setting up too many committees - a trap into which the Senate has fallen - but I believe that probably the most important single committee this House could have is a standing committee on taxation, which would examine all tax measures and investigate anomalies. The ultimate decision, of course, on which tax measures to apply would still rest with the Government which has the responsibility to raise the money and to bear the political odium. Yet an examination by a standing committee of this House would, in many ways, ease the task of government in making taxation reforms and in any case it is the responsibility of this House to examine the tax structure regularly, a duty which it is nor carrying out now and it has not done as far back as I can trace. This failure should be rectified.

Mr WALLIS:
Grey

– I rise to support the Opposition’s condemnation of and the amendment it has moved to the provisions of the 1971-72 Budget brought before the House last week. We read in the newspapers the early reports attributed to the Federal Treasurer (Mr Snedden) that the Budget would be tough. He certainly was not joking, as the provisions of the Budget clearly point out. Whilst pensioners would welcome the SI. 25 a week rise for the standard rate pensioner, and the increase in the married rate and the increase in the repatriation pensions, the amounts granted still leave a great gap between what the pensioner receives and what are the real needs of these people. We heard some paper talk prior to the presentation of the Budget that the Government was examining proposals to have pensions adjusted at regular intervals to compensate for movements in the cost of living. However, this received no mention in the Budget.

It leaves the social services and repatriation pensioner in the position where any adjustment to his income is left solely to the whim of the Government in power, with the manipulation according to whether there is a possible election forthcoming. Surely the time has come when we must get away from the present system. The policy of the Australian Labor Party is well known: it advocates the introduction of a national superannuation scheme. It is about time that a system such as this was introduced and the sooner the belter. It is also noted that there has been some talk about the Government examining such a scheme but apparently it has rejected this idea.

Returning to the increases included in the Budget, I refer to the Si increase granted to wives of pensioners when the wife is under 60 years of age and has an incapacitated husband or has children under her care. Surely the Government realises the complete inadequacy of this amount, and the economic hardship it places on married couples who are in this position. All honourable members will be aware of cases where a husband has reached 65 years of age, is in reasonable health but had to retire and because his wife is under the age of 60 years they are therefore entitled to nothing for her. I have personally been approached on a number of occasions by married couples placed in this invidious position, anc! I have had to tell them of their social service entitlements. It is certainly a shock to many of these couples to learn that, to maintain anything like a decent standard of living, the wife has to look around for a job at 57 or 58 years of age. This to me is a shocking thing when it is realised that a woman who has raised a family cared for a home for many years and is getting on in years, suddenly finds herself in a position of having to look around for some work to augment the family income. The only other alternative is for the husband to continue working after 65 years of age, but here again problems arise as in many industries retirement at 65 years of age is compulsory, and opportunities for employment for people over 65 years of age are very limited. Surely the time has arrived for the married rate pension to be paid to the wife of an age or invalid pensioner irrespective of the age of the wife. This was part of the policy enunciated by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam) at the Federal election of 1969.

We heard no mention of the easing of the means test, a system that is working against those who have made great sacrifices during their working life to provide for their old age by taking out insurance, joining superannuation schemes and so on, only to find themselves disadvantaged when their old age arrives. Surely, the time is ripe for a further easing of the means test to enable those who sacrificed during their working life to get full benefit. Here again, this should be compared with Labor’s policy to abolish the mear> ’.. completely over the life of 2 Parliaments.

One other matter not mentioned in the Budget brought down by the Treasurer is the matter of assistance to hospitals in the maintenance of pensioner payments, now standing at $5 a day. Throughout my electorate are 4 State Government run hospitals and 9 or 10 small community hospitals run by local district organisations. I have been approached by the Eyre Peninsula branch of the South Australian Hospitals Association which is seeking my assistance in having the amount allowed for treatment of pensioner patients increased from the present $5 a day to the actual cost or alternatively to $10 a day. From the figures given to me, the actual cost in most cases is in excess of $16 a day and costs are increasing. I made approaches to the appropriate Minister, who stated that the matter would receive consideration, but mention of this in the Budget was conspicuous by its absence. Surely these small hospitals were entitled to receive better treatment from the Budget than they received. They are all small hospitals, run by members of the community and relying to a great extent on the efforts of the community in which they are situated. They are all feeling the economic pinch and are finding the ever increasing cost of keeping these patients, with the limited resources the small hospitals have at their disposal, an increasing economic burden. Surely, the Government can accept a greater responsibility in this particular problem.

I refer to the increase in excise on motor spirits and other fuels. As the representative of one of the larger electorates, I can only anticipate the effect these rises in the cost of fuel will have on prices. These extra charges will penetrate to every section of the community and particularly to those living in the rural and outback areas of the electorate who are already under great economic pressures. This increase follows increases in the price of motor spirit and other fuels last year and can only result in increases in prices generally, as the whole of this extra cost will be passed on to the consumer. The increase in prices will also show in the consumer index with the result that it will in itself be inflationary.

The increase in the cost of pharmaceutical benefits by 100 per cent will certainly not win the Government any friends. The steepness of this increase certainly strikes at the whole community, and in particular the lower paid family man. The Government has certainly granted increases in child endowment to families with more than 2 children but this increase can be completely absorbed by increased pharmaceutical benefit charges when sickness strikes, so it is another case of the Government giving with one hand and taking with the other. To those families with fewer than 2 children it is not just another increased charge but a 100 per cent increase in a charge, an increase that the Government is asking the lower paid family man to bear.

I refer to the treatment that education received in the Budget. The plight of the States’ primary and secondary education systems is widely known. They are under a great economic pressure to carry out the functions allocated to them. Certainly there have been increases in the number of Commonwealth scholarships, but figures have shown that the chances of receiving one of these scholarships are much greater if one attends one of the more affluent private schools. It is obvious that the grass roots area of our State education system is the area that is most neglected in the considerations given to education, that is, in the primary and secondary level. It is in these areas that we find the over-largs classes, the shortages of trained teachers and the inadequate buildings. On a recent tour of my electorate I took the opportunity of calling into every school that it was possible to visit. These schools varied from high schools, area schools and special Aboriginal schools to rural primary schools, and apart from other deficiencies the need for the replacement of old school buildings was most pressing. Whilst the State Labor Government in South Australia is doing the utmost to carry out a programme of providing decent modern school buildings its efforts are restricted by lack of adequate finance, and the only place from which this finance can come is the Federal Government.

Whilst the Government found it convenient to promise that something would be done on the national survey on educational needs prior to the last election, it appears that it has allowed this to fall into the background. The future needs in education for Australia’s children are surely of sufficient priority to make the Government realise its obligations in this field so that the full potential of this nation can be realised. As clearly pointed out by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam), the increase in taxation concessions for educational expenses from $300 to $400 will certainly give some relief - to the more privileged sections of the community. It was also interesting to note the figures for the grants given to independent schools. Some of Australia’s top prestige schools received sums amounting to many thousands of dollars. By comparison, I also happened to notice the sums allocated to 2 schools within my electorate, both special schools for Aboriginals. Ernabella Mission school received $1,312.50 and Fregon Mission school received $315. By comparison, St Peter’s College in Adelaide received $46,460.

It is also noted that in the Budget there is an increase in the amount allocated for Aboriginal advancement to $ 14.35m, mainly for special grants for education, health and housing, but when one can see how much really needs to be done in this field one is convinced that not enough is being done. Whilst I fully agree with the principle of the expenditure on study and grants for the secondary education of Aboriginal children, I also feel that insufficient is being done for the education of Aboriginal children at the primary and pre-school level. As I stated, there is nothing wrong with the secondary education grants system in principle but far too many Aboriginal children do not have the opportunity, for various reasons, to avail themselves of these grants. I recently had a conversation with a headmaster at one Aboriginal school in my electorate, and in answer to a question of mine he informed me that because of the circumstances the children would be educated only to the 4th grade primary standard, so it is obvious that very few, if any, of these children will be able to avail themselves of the assistance being given at the secondary level.

I am strongly of the opinion that we are tackling the special problems affecting the Aboriginal people in only a half hearted manner. We are going from Budget to Budget, allocating percentage increases each year. There is a need for a full inves tigation into what is required to allow the Aboriginal people to take advantage of what society has to offer them and for them to be able to live in the best of conditions in the manner that they themselves desire. Those who hold any consideration for Aboriginal people must be deeply concerned about reports on child mortality among these people in the centra] part of Australia, where the rate is many times the rate for white children. It was estimated by one person I had met, who works amongst these people, that of 50 children bom 11 will die in childhood. Surely this is a blot on our society and emphasises that a much greater effort must be put into solving these problems.

In the Alice Springs area the Aboriginal child mortality rate is apparently particularly high. This has an effect on my electorate because people in the north west of South Australia, where there is a considerable Aboriginal population, rely on the Alice Springs Hospital for attention. An inquiry is to be held into the mortality rate of Aboriginal children in the Alice Springs area. If one were interested, one could have a look at the transcript of the evidence given before the Public Works Committee on the Alice Springs Hospital project.

Here again, great efforts are being made by the Government of South Australia, but with limited resources, it cannot do all that it would like to do. State Government health officers are working through the areas where the Aboriginal population is large but their duties keep them fully taxed and it is impossible for them to do all that needs to be done. There is a great need for trained people to be available solely for the purpose of health education. Of course, coupled with this is the need for suitable housing for the Aboriginal people, and where possible, employment opportunities. Whilst I and other members of this House are aware of the problems they are not of such magnitude that they cannot be solved by a sincere application to them and by the Federal Government’s accepting a greater financial responsibility. After all, the people of Australia gave the Commonwealth the necessary powers to accept such responsibility.

Both the Treasurer and the Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr Lynch) have made comments concerning the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission and reference has been made to a review of the arbitration system. As pointed out by the Leader of the Opposition, the vast majority of the Australian work force is working under awards or agreements, and wherever employees have gone outside the system in an effort to improve their wages and conditions they have been told to come back to the Commission or industrial tribunal. But when the decisions of the tribunals do not agree with Government policy we see the influence of the Government used in an effort to alter the policy of the Commission. Let us have a look at what has happened since the Menzies Government was elected to power in 1949 on a policy of putting value back into the £1. The first 3 years saw the worst example of galloping inflation due to Government policies. As a means of overcoming the inflationary problem the then Government supported the abolition of the quarterly cost of living adjustments, and was successful. It threw the main burden of overcoming inflation on the lower and middle income earners at that time. It supported the abolition of the 2-part wage structure of basic wage and margins and which was replaced by the total wage concept, a move strongly opposed by the employee organisations. In the judgment handed down by the bench in that decision the Commission stated:

The Commission will be able to handle the annual review of the total wage flexibly. An increase could be varied as a flat amount, as now, or as a flat percentage, as in 1965, or in varying percentages, as in 1966, or in other ways. We will not attempt to tie the hands of future benches in this regard.

Because the Commission, after examining the evidence before it, decided to give flat percentage increases in the last 2 years - that is, 3 per cent in 1969 and 6 per cent in 1970 - we heard cries of horror from many, including Ministers opposite. Now we find the Treasurer stating in his Budget Speech that the Government is examining ways and means of strengthening the arbitration system, and to quote him, ‘bringing more to the forefront the economic consequences of decisions taken within that system’. The large number of employees who have their incomes regulated by the Commission should take great heed of the Treasurer’s remarks, as they can envisage steps by the Government to put pressure on the Commission in its judgments and, by doing so, place the full burden of the inflationary pressure on the backs of the low and middle income earner.

I wish to refer also to remarks made a few weeks ago in my electorate by a Liberal senator. Among other things, he called for a tightening or a strengthening of the penal provisions in the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Act. I certainly hope that the Government does not take his advice - 1 am sure that it will not - because I know the result when they were last applied. The application of the penal provisions has caused more industrial disputes than it has ever solved.

Before I conclude, there are a few more matters I wish to raise. One is the increases in postal charges, telephone rentals and calls, wireless and television licences and so forth. These are services provided by the Postmaster-General’s Department. The increased charges also will hit the man in the street pretty heavily. In mentioning the Postmaster-General’s Department, I refer to the statement made by the Postmaster-General (Sir Alan Hulme) last year in which he indicated an alteration in the policy of the Department in the matter of rural telephones. He stated that the Department would meet the cost up to a radial distance of IS miles from the appropriate exchange of rural subscribers telephone exchange lines. Many people thought that this was a big step forward and no doubt it was at that time. They thought that there would be a stepping up of telephone connections. However, on the Eyre Peninsula where there is a number of applications for telephone connections, to my way of thinking the position is practically hopeless. As I understand it, the number of connections is only about 30 a year. Some people have had their applications in for a considerable time. Inquiries that I have made indicate that it will be 1974 or 1975 before those people can expect connections to be made. I hope that something can be done within the Postmaster-General’s Department to expedite them.

A matter which has been taken up personally by me and, I know, by a number of other honourable members following representations concerns expenses incurred in obtaining medical attention being classed as a taxation deduction. Of course, this proposal again was rejected. On every occasion when we write to the Treasurer on this matter usually the last paragraph of his reply says that it will be examined prior to the formulation of the Budget, but nothing ever happens. I think that this is a matter which deserves serious consideration. People who live some distance from capital cities and larger towns and who need specialist attention face great expense in receiving that attention. The actual cost of the medical attention is minimal when compared with the cost incurred in travelling to centres where that attention is available. I firmly believe that the Government should give some consideration to allowing these expenses as a taxation deduction.

Another matter I raised with the Treasurer concerned the possibility of contributions to ambulance services being allowed as a taxation deduction. Once again I received a reply that this would be considered in the formulation of the Budget, but nothing happened about it. Not only does this concern people living in towns, it concerns also people in outback areas who rely much more on the Royal Flying Doctor Service. It is evident that a person contributing to the Flying Doctor Service would pay much more than would a person contributing to an ordinary ambulance organisation. But, again, these payments made to the Flying Doctor organisation are not deductible items for taxation purposes. I feel that this is something that should have been given some consideration.

Another matter which I know has been raised on many occasions is the possibility of people being allowed to claim as a taxation deduction their fare to and from work. While I am aware that on all occasions this proposal has been rejected, I know of one case in this respect. 1 was approached by a man who was practically paralysed from the waist down. He was able to get a job as a gatekeeper at a workshop and, as he sat down to work, the problem of walking did not arise. However, he had to get a taxi every day to and from work. No public transport was available and it was impossible for him to ride a bicycle. The only way that he could get to work was to hire a taxi. This man was 16262/71- ft- (23) on the lowest possible income at the workshop. Each week he had to meet from his wages this high cost of getting to work because of his condition. Once again, I was told that this matter would be considered but the proposal was knocked back.

I mention, finally, the provision of new railway systems in Australia. We have seen a deal of development over the last few years but, apart from the Whyalla-Port Augusta railway line, not much railway development is proposed this year. We know that a survey was taken of the proposed line to Alice Springs. But it does not appear that this project will proceed at this time because no mention is made of it in the Budget appropriations. This is something that we should continue to press. There is a great need to replace the existing railway line. Not only is it narrow gauge but also is it prone to flooding and so on. This is one project which because of its national importance should be pushed ahead.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jarman:
DEAKIN, VICTORIA

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

Mr CORBETT:
Maranoa

– Undoubtedly, the greatest national domestic problem facing Australia today is the problem of inflation. I commend the Treasurer (Mr Snedden) and the Government for recognising this in the Budget and for taking measures to bring inflation under control while at the same time maintaining economic development and a high standard of employment. But I do emphasise the necessity for the Government to advance perhaps even further in the measures that are being taken to control inflation. I doubt whether the Government has gone far enough in limiting its own expenditure and in limiting the growth and, consequently, the cost of the Public Service. We know that in most fields the Public Service does a good job. But, at the same time, there is a limit to the proportion of people who can be employed in the Public Service in relation to the population as a whole. I think that that proportion must be watched now even more closely than it has been in the past. It is essential that further investigations of the need to control the rate of growth of our Public Service should be undertaken.

Another point which I wish to make regarding Government expenditure is in relation to the necessity to prevent the overlapping of expenditure on certain matters by Commonwealth and State governments. I can cite an example of this in relation to my home State, Queensland. I refer to dual electoral rolls. In some States a common electoral roll is maintained, but in Queensland we have a State electoral roll and a Federal electoral roll. I do not think that there is any reason for these separate rolls. I know that this is a proposal which probably should come from the States because they should take advantage of the opportunity, if they can, to use Federal electoral rolls. There is no reason why Federal electoral rolls should not be used. I do not know why some honourable members are expressing hilarity about this matter. My proposal is one which would save public funds. This would be of benefit to the community at large. I would like to see some consultation between the Federal Government and State governments on this and other matters. I know of no reason why the same electoral roll cannot be used for State and Federal purposes. In the case of Queensland, it would be a matter merely of altering the subdivisions within Commonwealth electoral divisions to coincide with State electoral boundaries. In this way, the need for a separate State roll in Queensland would be overcome.

One of the aspects of Government expenditure to be noted is that in many cases no doubt exists that the Government can prove the need and indeed the economy of the works that it undertakes. I am proud to be a member of the Joint Standing Committee on Public Works. That Committee has had many references and has investigated many proposals. No doubt it will investigate many more. In most cases I find in these references that the need for this work and the economy of it can be justified. But at the same time there must be some limitation.

Consideration has to be given to the extent to which governments should advance their own progress, particularly at a time of full employment when there is competition for labour. One of the reasons why Government expenditure should be limited is that if the private sector of the economy, containing a large section of the population, is enjoying very good condi tions, and it is competing with the Government for the labour available to extend development on its own projects, there is a tendency for employers to outbid each other for the labour available. The Government will try to get the labour it requires. This situation tends to force up the bidding and the amount of money paid for services. I am not opposed to a reasonable and effective wage being paid, but once the increase in wages goes beyond the rate of productivity the wage earner perhaps benefits less than anyone from it. It is certain that such an increase in costs as a result of this rise will exceed the increase in the rate of productivity.

The Arbitration Commission can scarcely find that an industry cannot afford to pay what it is in fact paying. This is one of the reasons why we have a rise in costs. I believe that the blame for this falls on the shoulders of those who are prepared to grant concessions beyond those required for the benefit of the worker and the community. This also has a very serious effect on exporters generally, and that includes the great primary producing industries of this country, most sections of which are suffering very severely, or have suffered over the years, from adverse seasonal conditions and low world prices for many of their products. Those on fixed incomes, including pensioners, have been seriously affected.

I am very pleased to see that the pensioners will receive a well deserved increase in their pensions from the Budget. I warmly welcome the increase of $1.25 which has been allocated to them. This much needed increase is in a field which will not contribute to the inflationary trend which exists today. But, once again, if our wage structure is increased over and above the rate of productivity in this country then that pension increase will be eroded much faster than it would otherwise have been eroded. I commend the Government generally on the increase in social welfare expenditure, including repatriation expenditure which this year will reach a record figure of $2,095m, some $268m more than last year. Even though the total amount spent on social welfare is the largest single item in Government expenditure, few people will disagree with the Government’s determination to give this increased assistance to people who need and deserve it.

Those of us who represent rural areas will recognise that today we have a 2 level economy. That is one way of describing the position which exists in Australia. Due to drought and low prices the rural economy, including the country towns, is suffering very severe financial difficulty. In many parts of my electorate business people and primary producers are having the greatest difficulty in carrying on. This fact must be recognised. The position is in direct contrast to that which applies in a great proportion of metropolitan Australia. So we find that on the one hand we need a decreasing degree of Government expenditure in those areas where the economy is booming and for the self-same reason we need an increase in Government expenditure in that section of Australia where the economy is depressed.

There are ways in which this can be done. It could be achieved in part, anyway, by greater decentralisation of government departments. Something has been done in this direction but more could be done. Officers of the Department of Labour and National Service and of the Department of Social Services could be appointed, for example, in the larger country towns to undertake the duties of those Departments. Responsible people, including ministers of religion and people who have interested themselves in the welfare of those who deserve consideration, have urged me that this should be done so that people may have greater access to departmental representatives. Lack of such access is one of the handicaps which people in rural areas have to suffer. They should not have to suffer more than is absolutely necessary. I urge the Government to give consideration to this matter.

The wool industry has Deen extremely hard hit by drought and low prices. I press the Government to grant assistance to wool growers to the extent of a guaranteed average price of 40c per lb for wool. 1 still hold the view that assistance to that extent is warranted to enable the wool industry to operate economically and, more particularly, to allow rural reconstruction in the wool producing areas to be implemented. Rural reconstruction is one of the very great necessities that confront Australia today. No one knows what the markets will be in the future. One can only guess. The price of butter is an example of how things can change. Changes do not take place overnight. So much of Australia is suited for wool production that it is in the national interest that these areas be reconstructed. The Budget allows about $60m for the deficiency payment that has been granted to the wool industry, but even if it were double that amount it would still be a sound economic principle from a national point of view to preserve our greatest rural industry with its vital contribution to the national export income.

I would like to see the re-chartering of the Commonwealth Development Bank of Australia to enable long term low interest loans to be provided at least for the hard core debts which our primary producers are carrying at the moment. I have heard stated and am well aware of the advantages of long term loans but because of the desperate situation of our primary producers the hard core debt of primary industry should be catered for not only with long term but also with low interest loans. Long term loans in other areas of advancement could perhaps be at a higher rate of interest. I continue to stress the need for this type of finance to be provided.

I commend the Minister for Trade and Industry (Mr Anthony) on his undertaking a review of tariffs. People are apt to forget the cost to the Australian community of tariff protection as against the cost of protection for primary industry. If one examines the costs on both sides and the benefits that have been obtained one will find good value in giving primary industry the amount of protection which it is receiving and even more. I do not object to reasonable tariffs and the basis upon which they are provided. I think that the review is long overdue and I am very happy to know that it is being undertaken.

The contribution to the wool industry is regarded by some people as being of benefit only to the wool growers, but it goes much further than that. The viability of country towns is maintained through the wool growers. Business men are able to carry on providing people with services and are able to make a reasonable degree of profit. Unless they can do that. th, town business men cannot carry on. I have many examples of the great difficulties they are suffering at the present time. I believe that stabilised prices in primary industry contribute to decentralisation. It is probably the cheapest and most effective way in which decentralisation can be promoted. We hear a lot about the cost of decentralisation but we do not hear so much about the cost of centralisation. I cannot stress too often or emphatically enough the difference between the cost of providing services and setting up people in the major cities and the cost of setting them up in country towns. If one deducts the difference from the cost of stabilising our rural industries one finds that it is a reasonable thing to do. 1 should like to touch, for a moment, on proposals put forward by the Labor Party in connection with the stabilisation of the wool industry and the deficiency payments. It has been suggested that this assistance should be given only to those who have low incomes. What would be the position of the wool grower who has experienced 10 years of drought followed by one good year? Would he be denied the benefit of this assistance? Under Labor’s proposal he would be deprived of assistance and would have no chance of reducing his debt. I ask members of the Labor Party: Is this principle to be adopted in relation to assistance to the sugar industry and the wheat industry? I take it that every primary producer in those industries would have to prove, under Labor’s scheme as ennunciated that he was in dire need. If this is not to be the case, why has the wool industry been selected for special attention?

Every person who has been engaged in primary industry, and not too many members of the Opposition have been so engaged, must realise that effective stabilisation of a primary industry must take into account the total production. Indeed, many woo] growers are strongly of the opinion that acquisition of the total clip is the most satisfactory way of effectively stabilising the wool industry. Would the price of wool acquired by a Labor government be related to the income of the wool grower who supplied the wool? What is Labor’s rural policy? The honourable member for Oxley (Mr Hayden) is quoted as saying that Labor did not have a primary industry programme that gave a comprehensive and integrated approach. ‘What we have’, he said, ‘is a loose patchwork of totally unrelated propositions.’ The honourable member for Dawson (Dr Patterson), when asked to comment on this statement when he appeared on the television programme This Day Tonight’ said:

I find the statement incredible. It is also untrue. It shows, in fact, the colossal ignorance of a person who should know better.

However the amendments moved by the honourable member for Oxley were accepted by the Labor Party Conference. Asked to comment on this, the honourable member for Dawson said: . .

I find it very hard to believe, except perhaps that very few members of the Conference know anything about rural matters.

I could continue in this strain for some time. However I have said enough to show the confusion of the Labor Party with respect to its rural policy. While there is utter confusion regarding Labor’s rural policy there is no doubting that Labor, would introduce a 35-hour week. That would be about the last straw in the economic problems facing primary industry. It would be of no advantage to the worker as it would aggravate inflation to an extent that we have not experienced before in Australia. It would add to the inflationary trends and it would be to the great disadvantage of every Australian. This would apply not only in its inflationary effect but rising costs could and would in turn bring about a big increase in unemployment.

I want now to refer to one or two aspects of the Budget which will fall heavily on the rural community which is already suffering great financial disability. First, I refer to the increased postal and telephone charges. I remind the House that primary producers are dependent largely on telephones to conduct their business in an efficient way. A large proportion of their telephone business would be conducted through trunk line facilities. I suggest, therefore, that trunk line call charges should be examined in relation to local call charges. Further, an examination should be made of the very limited number of subscribers available under the extended local service area system in some rural areas. In view of the increased charges I repeat my appeal to the Postmaster-General (Sir Alan Hulme) to allow a local access call to ali subscribers to a town where medical and professional services are available. The lower rental fee for telephones in these areas does not nearly compensate the subscribers for having to do practically all their business by means of trunk line calls. In my mind an injustice is being done to those telephone subscribers whose ELSA range does not include a town where medical and professional services are available.

I draw attention to another injustice which I believe applies to people who own television sets and who are outside the range of reasonable television reception. They have to pay a full licence fee even though they may receive a programme only 5 per cent or 10 per cent of the time. There is no certainty when a programme will be able to be received. The Queensland South Western Local Authorities Development Association made what I regard as a reasonable request, namely, that no television licence be required beyond 100 miles from a transmitting station. In view of the fact that the Postmaster-General’s Department will not go beyond a distance of 60 miles in assessing the number of people who will be served by a high power television station, surely a limit of 100 miles is a large enough margin to apply to ensure that reception will, of necessity, be unsatisfactory. When low power stations are installed it would be reasonable to apply a distance limit in relation to the coverage provided by this class of television station.

Another section of the Budget which will fall heavily on primary producers is that which refers to increased petrol prices. Primary producers living out of town have to use motor vehicles for all classes of transport requirements. This increase in price comes at a time when primary producers are having the utmost difficulty in maintaining economic survival. However, I commend the Government on some other aspects of the Budget and should like quickly to mention the increase in the maximum deduction allowable for education purposes. It is not nearly enough, but ft is a step in the right direction. I commend the increased assistance to the Royal Flying Doctor Service. I had intended to refer to local authority finance which will have to be supplemented by CommonWealth finance if local authorities are to carry out their functions and responsibilities, but my time is limited.

I cannot conclude, however, without referring to the attitude of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam) in relation to

Mr Hawke and to the way in which he pandered to him. This revealed who is the real leader, the master mind and the power behind the throne in the Labor Party. Although I should like to mention many other matters I do not have the time. Generally speaking I commend the Budget as an honest attempt to control inflation. I believe that if the Government continues on in this way there will be no doubt who the people of Australia want to govern them.

Mr CROSS:
Brisbane

– The first thing I should like to say in speaking to the current Budget is that I had no intention of being discourteous to the honourable member for Maranoa (Mr Corbett”/ when I was somewhat amused at this suggestion of a common electoral roll for Queensland. I support the idea of a common electoral roll in Queensland as a means of cutting out unnecessary government expenditure. It is a good idea and I commend it to the House. I hope that the honourable member will commend the proposal to his Country Party colleagues in Queensland. I know he is sincere on this question but I remind him that there is one transparently obvious reason why the Country Party Government of Queensland would not accept a common roll which, of course, would be of benefit both to Queensland and Commonwealth expenditure, and that is that the Country Party gerrymander in Queensland could not be operated within the framework of the Commonwealth Electoral Act. These are the cold, hard facts of life and it is no use the honourable member coming into this House and advocating in a responsible way - I do not doubt his sincerity - a proposition which he would not have a ghost of a chance of selling to his Country Party colleagues in Queensland who, irrespective of the cost to the people of that State, are dedicated to maintaining the gerrymander that has existed in Queensland for a long time.

As all honourable members have said, the Budget is full of good things and bad things. We all tend to direct our attention to those areas where we believe some improvements should be made. Perhaps we do not always direct our attention as much as we should to the fact that money has to be paid for those desirable features of the Budget. Nevertheless it is human to look at the adverse features of a Budget and to look at the things we might wish to have done. So, for a few minutes, I should like to speak about the matters that have been raised by honourable members during this afternoon’s debate. Firstly, I refer to the attack on inflation, which the Government claims is one of the features of the Budget. Members of the Opposition realise that an inflationary situation exists in the Australian economy and that it has all the potential of being a serious situation. On the other hand many people think that this Budget will prove to be too deflationary and that in the Jong term it may well mean that Australia will have a higher level of unemployment than any of us would desire. I think that members from both sides are dedicated to the idea of full employment. That, at least, is what members say. Certainly the Labor Party is dedicated to full employment. One of the problems which are raised by this Budget and which can be answered only in the future, is just how deflationary the Budget may be.

Many attacks have been made on the trade union movement. Probably its most spectacular member currently is the President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions. We have seen the Government parties building up towards a fight with the trade union movement in this country by making suggestions that if inflation has occurred, it has been caused by the pressures on employers by the trade union movement seeking higher wages, over award payments and the like.

Also in this debate this afternoon we have heard attacks made on the Public Service Board. Honourable members heard the honourable member for Isaacs (Mr Hamer) state that the Public Service Board should be told to restrict increases in the salaries of members of the Public Service. The honourable member for Maranoa stated that a careful watch should be maintained on the proportion of people employed in the Commonwealth Public Service. I do not think that he was suggesting that anybody should be sacked. What he was suggesting was that fewer people should be employed. Later in his speech he suggested that more public servants should be employed in country towns because he supports the decentralisation policy of the Labor Party which will ensure that many more people are employed in country towns. None of these problems is simple to solve. None of these problems will be solved if the Government is to spend its energies attacking the work of the great trade union movement of this country, because the trade union movement is responding to the demands of its members.

The basic problem in the country is the inflationary situation. Working people throughout the country are saying that increases in their pay packets do not mean very much to them because of increased prices. If the Government could bring inflation under control by the introduction of more responsible financial policies, by more planning in its policies and by more rational development of all parts of Australia, it would find that the demands on the pay packet would not be as great. It is in the interests of all Australians that Australia should continue to have a vigorous trade union movement fighting for the welfare not only of its members, but also of retired people, primary producers and others throughout the country.

I would like to support some of the good features contained in the Budget. They include the increased expenditure in social welfare, education and, of course, the increase in assistance to primary industry. The honourable member for Maranoa advocated that the level of assistance to the wool industry by way of a subsidy should be at 40c per Jb compared with the 36c per lb granted in the Budget. He also mentioned the problems of people in country areas with poor television reception and the fact that the present Government gives no consideration to the problems of country people. Of course, honourable members of the Labor Party agree that this is true. It is passing strange to hear honourable members on the Government side raising these difficulties in the Parliament when we have had a LiberalCountry Party Government in office since 1949. Surely the present honourable members on the Government side, and their predecessors, should have been able to ensure that the Government did more for primary producers and others throughout the community than it has.

There are a number of matters that I would like to raise. One can only touch on matters fairly briefly in a speech of 20 minutes. One such matter is social services. This is an example of the generosity that the Prime Minister said would be shown in the Budget where an increase was made of $1.25 in the full rate single pension. We have previously seen on many occasions an increase of SI. Last year, the pension was initially increased by 50c. This year the Prime Minister said that people in receipt of social services would be treated with greater generosity. His definition of greater generosity is an increase of 25c above what has come to be almost the ordinarily accepted increase. The full single rate pension is now $17.25.

I would like to place on the record what would have been the position if the Labor Party had won the 1969 election. At that time the Labor Party pledged that it would introduce legislation early in 1970 to increase the pension by $1 from $15 to $16. It pledged that it would continue to make these increases in succeeding budgets and that it would legislate to maintain that value in the pension. This means that the pension would have been $16 in February 1970. $17 in August 1970, and $17.50 in February 1971. Because of our pledge to keep value in the pension, we would certainly have done no less than that done by the Government which increased pensions by 50c. At the present time, of course, the pension paid if a Labor Party were in government would be $18.50. If a Labor government had been elected in 1969 a person in receipt of a full rate pension would now be receiving $18.50 a week compared with $17.25 paid by the Government. Under the policy pledge given at that time by the Labor Party, such people would be absolutely certain of pension increases to raise the level of pensions to one-quarter of the mean average weekly earnings - about $21 at the present time.

Another of the good features of the Budget which I would like to mention is one on which I am sure all honourable members have made representations. I refer to the restoration of the notional salary adjustment to the Commonwealth Superannuation Fund. All honourable members will recall that in 1961 the Government accepted this policy and applied it in the 1961 Budget, the 1963 Budget and the 1967 Budget. A period of 4 years has elapsed without the Government carrying out its pledge. It has delayed in giving justice to retired Commonwealth public servants. We all should pay a tribute to the Superannuated Commonwealth Officers Association which has worked very hard to keep this problem before us. While retired Commonwealth public servants may take some satisfaction that after 4 years the Government has again redeemed its pledge, they should not be without the knowledge that for 4 years this pledge has not been honoured in previous budgets.

I would like to bring before the House a number of areas of need that the Budget has not dealt with. One of them is that again this year no provision is made for any new developments at the Eagle Farm Airport in Brisbane. An interesting position is found in the civil works programme contained in the Budget. The actual amount voted this year for proposed new works under the heading of ‘Civil Aviation’ has been decreased, by $16,342,000. Last year an allocation of $23,762,000 was provided for new works, and this year the allocation is $7,420,000. So we find a reduction of $16,342,000 in the allocation for new works. This year, expenditure at Brisbane airport will be $565,000, with a carry-over of previous expenditure, meaning that the money available for work at Eagle Farm Airport is $772,685. For the same period, the money available for work at Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport is $13,464,682, and for Melbourne Airport the figure is $14,694,643. Out of the civil works programme expenditure of $39,605,465 for the Department of Civil Aviation, only $772,685 is available for expenditure at Eagle Farm Airport. 1 do nol want to be unfair about this, because I think that the present Minister for Civil Aviation (Senator Cotton) has made a lot of progress in co-ordinating with the State authorities and the Brisbane City Council to plan the proper development of Eagle Farm Airport. But the people of Brisbane and the people of Queensland have waited for a long time for something to be done at Eagle Farm Airport. We have a tourist industry which is very important to Australia. We have the poorest accommodation for international passengers and domestic passengers of any the major capital city airports in any State of the Commonwealth. How long are we to wait? We have waited while

Tullamarine has been built at enormous expense. I have never made any criticism of expenditure at Sydney (KingsfordSmith) Airport, because Sydney Airport is an international airport in the real sense of the world. But the people of Queensland were entitled to feel that at a time when the Government has decided to decrease the amount of money available for new works for civil aviation by more than $1.6m, some of this $16m could have been appropriated to make a start on new work at Eagle Farm Airport. I commend this proposal to the Government, and certainly to the Minister for Civil Aviation. It is time that the planning which is now being carried out showed some signs of coming to fruition and that the people of Brisbane were given the first rate terminal accommodation that is available in Sydney, Melbourne, Adelaide, Perth and Hobart.

I was pleased that my colleague, the honourable member for Grey (Mr Wallis), who has a great interest in the Aboriginal people of his electorate, as he has for all the people of his electorate, spoke about the problems of people living in country areas and raised the poor record of the Government in its expenditure on Aboriginal advancement. It is now 4 years since the referendum which gave the Commonwealth power, together with the States, to pass laws concerning Aboriginals was carried. In that time we have had every year an increase in the amount of Commonwealth expenditure and I suppose one could take some satisfaction from the fact that it is slowly going up. But the point I want to make is that the increase in expenditure is much too slow. If one looks at the appropriation for this year one finds that S23m has been provided in the Estimates, an increase of S5m over the previous year. That figure covers all headings. When we take into account the increases in salaries and wages that other honourable members have referred to the real level of expenditure on Aboriginal welfare has not gone up by a great amount.

The Budget announced no new programmes in Aboriginal welfare. We were hoping, for example, that there would be some assistance for Aboriginal pre-school education, some programme to assist, by way of capital grants, the establishment of kindergartens and pre-schools and the sub siding of the salaries of the teachers as well as the other services which would be provided, such as meals. This would enable Aboriginal children, many of whom are culturally deprived and living in fringe dwelling areas and the like, by the time they got to primary school to have a reasonable chance of pacing it with children from the broader Australian community. The Commonwealth’s expenditure, of course, includes the amount of money voted to the States. Last year the grants made under the States Grants (Aboriginal Advancement) Act amounted to $7m which included $4.8m for housing. This year - 1971-72 - the proposed amount payable to the States under that legislation is $9.2m including $S.2m for housing. This is an increase of $2.2m including an increase of $400,000 in the amount provided for housing. Let us look at what $400,000 means in housing. It means 40 more homes and this is a mere drop in the bucket.

Last year - and I still have on the notice paper some questions addressed to the then Minister who was responsible for Aboriginal affairs - I pointed out in a debate that at least $llm per annum was needed for Aboriginal housing to keep up with the growth of the Aboriginal population. The amount provided meant that no progress was being made in a very substantial area of need for Aboriginal housing. I was told at the lime by the Minister that the expenditure, taking all States into account, was more than this but it is curiously significant that although I disputed the figures at that time the question I asked still remains on the notice paper unanswered.

When one looks at what is being done, that is, the provision of 40 more homes for Aboriginals throughout the Commonwealth, one can realise that in other areas we provide fairly generously. I am not criticising this because it is necessary, but in the current year there is an amount of $60m provided for capital expenditure on war service homes. I put it to the Government that if we are going to make an impact on Aboriginal housing something of the order of half that programme should be devoted to Aboriginal housing. This is not just a problem of housing Aboriginals who are living in country areas and fringe dwelling environments because, representing as I do an inner city electorate, I am concerned about the circumstances in which Aboriginals are living within the Federal Division of Brisbane. Many of them come down from the country and crowd into houses in inner city suburbs because of the high rents they have to pay and by virtue of the fact that they are on low incomes. Most of them only have labouring jobs or are in transitory employment. There are other problems that accrue to Aboriginals living in an urban situation. Sometimes we have 2 or 3 families crowded into a house with all the problems that that brings in terms of social behaviour, standards of health and the like. There is a need, again in the field of Aboriginal welfare, for a programme of rehousing Aboriginals living in the cities. This should not be done only because of the fact that they are the Aboriginal people but it should also be done for the betterment of people in the broader Australian community because there are problems of social tensions and racism developing in inner city areas of all our great cities, including Brisbane, which result from bad housing for Aboriginal people and the complaints that we are getting now in increasing numbers from their neighbours. So 1 regret that the Budget has not done more in the field of Aboriginal advancement, which is a matter of great concern to all Australians.

I have recently, on a study grant, been able to travel overseas for 9 weeks - not all of that covered by the study grant, I might add - and I am very grateful to the Australian Institute of International Affairs for making such a grant to me as it did also to the honourable member for Diamond Valley (Mr Brown). One of the questions that was continually posed to me wherever I went overseas concerned what we were doing for our Aboriginals. Naturally when one goes overseas one does not say to people: ‘We are doing a pretty shoddy job in that area.’ Instead one says: You know, the amount of Commonwealth expenditure is increasing. We have had this responsibility only for the last 4 years.’ But while none of us wants to go overseas and belittle Australia, the hard cold facts of the matter are that the Commonwealth has had this responsibility now for 4 years and it has not faced up to it in the way the

Australian nation expects and, indeed, I think as most honourable members would expect. I support the amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam) last night when he spoke to the Budget and I again make the point that I think that the Government has hit inflation too hard and should look very carefully at the problems which may be caused if this Budget is to be deflationary and we do get a serious unemployment problem developing.

Mr BURY:
Wentworth

– 1 think that firstly before going into details about the Budget we should consider why this is such a highly exceptional period and why this Budget necessarily therefore is of a marking time character with its main emphasis thrown on a capacity to move in a different direction in a few months time if circumstances require it. The exceptional circumstances stem from a tremendous demand for higher wages, salaries and payments of all sorts. This movement which is notable mainly for its strength, duration and the ruthlessness of its demands and the way in which they are pressed, is not new except to Australia. In fact, it has gone through most of the Western world. It has hit us rather late but in its path it has, of course, left a great deal of wreckage and confusion. Normal wage and salary increases can be digested with the growth of national income and the gradual expansion, of the currency over a period but the quickness of the pace with which this has hit us has thrown all our calculations right out of order. Public finance is very largely dependent upon the payment of salaries and the increases in salaries which have been awarded by the different arbitration tribunals against the States have completely and utterly wrecked the States’ finances, and the Commonwealth in turn must find most of the money and this has disturbed our own finances. lt is very difficult to predict what the future course will be. It might be said that an estimate has been made in this Budget and that a certain rate of wage increases has been assumed and built into the Budget with expenditure planned accordingly, but there is no guarantee that these expectations or estimates will be anything like realised. This is why at this time we have to be able to retain the initiative to change policy if it proves necessary. In a speech last night the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam) - I suppose naturally like all Leaders of the Opposition - was wildly irresponsible, particularly by coming in and suggesting that in a few months time we might have - I think he said - as many as 100,000 or even 200,000 unemployed. This is an irresponsible thing to say and it rests on a very sketchy analysis. The only basis for his assumption is that there will be, if the Budget works out all right, a large domestic surplus towards the end of the financial year. His prediction is that at that stage this will suck out so much currency and so much of the money supply that employment will fall. That is again a very questionable proposition because, apart from the doubts we have as to what will happen to wages and salaries in Australia in the future, we have also to take into account that recently we had a very large capital inflow which could also throw out our liquidity calculations towards the end of the year. The whole basis of the Leader of the Opposition’s speech was that there were a number of items on which it would be desirable to spend public moneys. He has in recent times been speaking in particular about spending enormous sums of money on the cities in order to put them right. In view of the state in which some of our cities are at present it could easily be that we will have to spend several hundred millions of dollars to improve them to the desired standard.

In his usual manner the Leader of the Opposition indicated all of the things that should be done, but he did not indicate how they could be paid for. One of his failures as the Leader of the Opposition has been to sketch out an economic policy. He has never put together an economic policy. He has produced large shopping lists of things on which money should be spent but he has never explained how these things would be paid for or what the taxation policy of the Australian Labor Party would be if it were in office. In the absence of this information, it is very difficult to fathom what would in fact happen if the Labor Party were returned to power and what it would do in the very vital field of public finance.

One subject which the Leader of the Opposition did not mention in his speech last night but which I would have expected him to mention because the Labor Party is very keen on it is the introduction of a national superannuation scheme. I should expect that some of his supporters would have been disappointed about him not mentioning this matter. One thing which is notable about a national superannuation scheme and which influences the shapes and sizes of schemes which could be produced is the fact that the resources have to be transferred to the passive elements of the community, that is, the superannuated people, from the active elements of the community, that is, those people who are employed. Whatever mechanism is employed - whether it be by way of taxation contributions or other means - the broad result would be the transfer of resources from the active to the passive elements of the community. I think the Labor Party and anyone else who attempted to introduce such a scheme would find when they started to evolve the details of it that considerable resistance would develop among the young and among married people who are bringing up families to the providing of resources on such a large scale to the older members of our community. Such a move would, of course, undermine the arrangements which have been reached in recent years whereby individuals have been encouraged as far as possible to make their own provision for retirement. The extent to which people are contributing to superannuation schemes, particularly to schemes run by their employers, is increasing throughout the community. Superannuation has become a more common object of wage and salary negotiations. I would be very surprised if this movement were not greatly speeded up in the very near future.

Dr Gun:

– Is the honourable member opposed to Sir Henry Bolte’s scheme?

Mr BURY:

– That scheme has nothing to do with what the Commonwealth is doing now. I am not an expert on Sir Henry Bolte’s scheme. I do not suppose that the honourable member is, either. I dare say that the honourable member could look it up elsewhere or make inquiries about it from the honourable member for Angas (Mr Giles), who has probably studied it.

But it has nothing to do with what I am talking about -now. The fact is that the number of superannuation schemes in existence is growing and that these schemes are spreading throughout the community. This Parliament has also approved of a considerable development in the life assurance field in that it has granted concessions under the income tax legislation to those people who pay life assurance premiums. If a national superannuation scheme were to be introduced it would jeopardise the whole process because the taxpayers could not afford to meet the income tax concessions granted for payments to life assurance companies whilst at the same time financing a superannuation scheme. It will be interesting to see the form in which a national superannuation scheme is evolved - whether it will look like something for nothing or will be a much more truthful scheme. Any such scheme would present a good many difficulties. I am not saying that a scheme could not be evolved. All I am saying is that no statement has yet been made by any party on the severe practical difficulties which would be involved in the transfer of resources. Another thing which did occur to me at the time 1 was listening to the Leader of the Opposition mentioning all the things on which he would like to spend money is something which does in a way point to an impasse that has been reached in public finance. Assuming that the economy settles down and gets on a fairly even keel again so that financial landmarks are not continually eroded by the process of increased prices, one of the things that impress me is this: If in the future governments are to play a larger part in the economic life of the country by undertaking some of the new things that have been proposed in the fields of education, health and the environment-

Mr Foster:

– The honourable member has a short memory. Have a look at what was said in 1949 by the present GovernorGeneral.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jarman)Order! I remind the honourable member for Sturt that interjections are out of order.

Mr Foster:

– I am respectfully suggesting that he has a short memory, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Mr BURY:

– Certain barriers have been reached in the field of public finance. It is a matter which would be considered important by anyone who wanted to indulge in extra expenditure than in fact the existing method of financing Budgets - the sources available - have almost been exhausted. For instance, the personal income tax scale has already reached the stage where the progressive rate has been pushed up so high that it is a positive disincentive to enterprise. It will be remembered that last year there was great national agitation on this point. Even the Australian Council of Trade Unions accepted this principle very freely. In view of the increases in salaries that have occurred this year it would be no doubt even keener on it. I am sorry to note that the personal income tax has been increased again this year by increasing the levy from 2) per cent to 5 per cent. However, such a move is necessary in view of the fact that additional revenue has to be raised to finance the extra social service and other benefits which have been granted. But there is certainly no future in looking at personal income tax or, for that matter, company income tax as sources of great revenue in the future.

The honourable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr Crean), whose main task will be to have a sobering influence on the thinking out of economic policy by the Labor Party, would have to consider this matter, especially if he had to finance at the behest of his Leader all the extravagant promises his leader has put forward in order to get into office.

Mr Foster:

– Stop wasting money like you people have been doing for 20-odd years. What you have been doing is wasting money. Where has the money gone?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jarman)Order!

Mr BURY:

– Those remarks seemed to come from the very seat of learning, Mr Deputy Speaker. If expenditure is to be increased greatly a new source of revenue will have- to be found. I have touched on one or two of the sources of revenue that I think have been exhausted already. An experiment was made a little while ago in this regard by branching out into the field of receipts tax. That experiment gradually ground to a halt. It has since been discredited. The only real source of big revenue left now that I can. see is in the area of a retail turnover tax. A retail turnover tax that is applied at the rate of $1 in Si 00 - at the rate of 1 per cent - would yield the sum of approximately $200m. It is the only kind of fax that I can see at the moment which would offer the kind of potential to meet the wishes of those people who want to spend on greatly expanding activities.

Sitting suspended from 6 to 8 p.m.

Mr BURY:

– When the sitting was suspended for dinner I was referring to the only possible future sources of revenue. At this point I should like to take up one remark which the Leader of the Opposition made. He gave his support to the exercise of programming . budgeting. After all, this is one of the matters which ought to exercise greatly the minds of honourable members, because over the years it provides the key to this House for controlling the allocation of Australian resources, and that, primarily, is the objective of the Budget and the consideration which this House gives to the Budget.

At the present time we operate under a system which really dates back to the end of the 17th century and has scarcely been changed since. The Treasurer (Mr Snedden) in the course of his speech indicated - I thought very aptly - that henceforth forward estimates would be prepared to cover a period of 3 years. One of the great disabilities in the present system is that we view matters for only 1 year ahead, and this is much too short a period in which to discern where it is that ultimately we are going and where it is that we are being taken.

Basically, the difficulties with the present Budget system are, firstly, that as it is an annual budget it looks only one year ahead - it has a very short-term horizon. Secondly, traditionally the budget classifies things into the types of resources used to produce a result; that is, it reveals to us, as members of Parliament, the staff, the buildings, the office equipment and the cost of harnessing those resources for the purposes which we have in view. Of course, the Budget is useful for the strict narrower purpose of financial control, but it does not give us sufficient information about the purposes for which expenditure is incurred and the cost of achieving results.

The first reform which we need is to introduce realistic forward estimates, and the Treasurer has already indicated that this will be done. The second reform needed is a functional classification of Commonwealth expenditure and the purposes for which expenditure is incurred. Firstly, a forward look at expenditure is essential. Estimates have to be prepared accurately, from the best sources available, and they have to be approved by Ministers as being realistic and the best intentioned. Secondly, the Budget has to disclose the purposes for which the expenditure is required. I hope that the Leader of the Opposition will continue to support these proposals because, if I may say so, no-one needs them more than he does. Every time he speaks in this chamber he lists a magnificent series of objects of expenditure which appeal to us and which would appeal to anybody. The essential point which he omits is the amount of Australian resources which would be required to achieve those objectives. When he learns the basic lesson of government, that is, to balance ends and means, and understands that he cannot achieve his objectives unless he has the resources, we will get realistic programmes coming forward from the Opposition. So having mentioned that matter, I hope that the Leader of the Opposition supports this process. Of course, the honourable member for Melbourne Ports understands what is meant by this process. As the Leader of the Opposition clearly does not understand what is meant, the honourable member for Melbourne Ports has a great educational job to do, and I hope he succeeds in doing it. The sooner we get around to adopting a system like this, the sooner parliamentary debates on the Budget will become meaningful.

Dr CASS:
Maribyrnong

– In considering the Budget and the steps which should be taken to control our economic worries - inflation being the main concern at the moment - it is impossible to find a consensus on the best action to take when the discussion is based on economic argument within the framework of the private enterprise system. All the opinions depend strictly on the self-interest of the individual giving the advice, without reference to the effect on other sections of the community, or the long-term effect on the whole community. The farmer wants more subsidy because without it many farmers will be sent bankrupt and forced to leave the land. But these self-same subsidies are an added burden on the urban community. After all, the funds must come from the pockets of the non-farmers in order to give subsidies to the farmers.

If the money is raised by direct taxation, with the present incidence of taxation in Australia, it falls most severely on the lower middle income range. If it is raised mainly by indirect taxation, it falls mainly on the lower income earners. In other words, it causes a rise in the cost of living which mainly penalises the wage earners. The inevitable effect of a rise in the cost of living is that wage earners find their standard of. living dropping, and so we get demands for wage increases. After industrial unrest and lengthy argument before the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission wage rises are granted and immediately there is a cry from the business community that, prices will have to rise to offset the wage rises.

Whilst all this conflict goes on, increasingly larger sections of the community suffer. Pensioners of all sorts, all those on fixed incomes, the aged and retired, the invalid and those handicapped in any way are reduced to mere subsistence or worse. Clearly what is good for one section of the community is often disastrous for others in the community. So we begin to indulge in the blame game. The Treasurer (Mr Snedden) in his Budget Speech said:

Undoubtedly, a significant part of the impetus has come from wage increases in various forms.

The impetus about which he talks is, of course, the impetus of inflation. Today it is called ‘cost inflation’. However, when it is stated in this fashion and the hue and cry from the business community is added to the noise - their insistence that the wage increases must be handed on to the consumer because wages are a cost in production terms - the Government would have us believe that inflation is all the fault of those terrible people, the wage earners. As one who represents the Australian Labor Party, the Party of wage earners in this country, I find that there is something illogical in that explanation. I have never yet heard of an application for an increase in wages on the grounds that an increase is necessary to offset increases in the cost of living which have not yet occurred but which it is anticipated will occur. I have never yet heard a judgment of the ‘ Arbitration Commission giving approval for a wage increase on the grounds that there is going to be an increase in the cost of living and saying that a wage rise should be given in anticipation. Forgive my persistence on this point but 1 fear that there are many wage earners in the community who have been bluffed by claims of the business community and the Government and feel guilty about wage claims made on their behalf. No union official would get the support of his members in an application for a wage rise if the union members did not believe that cost of living increases had reduced the real value of their wage.

Tn assessing the claims of applicants the judges of the Arbitration Commission surely take into account the cost of living ruling at the time and compare the real purchasing power of the wage under consideration at that time with its purchasing power at some arbitrary time before and not in the future. In other words, any judgment increasing wages is given so that the purchasing power of the wage will be restored to a previously accepted standard and not increased above a previously accepted standard. The Treasurer continues in his analysis in the following words:

These increases have reflected the level of demand and a willingness on the part of employers, under pressure, to pay more for labour.

Now. is this a hint by the Government to the employers not to pay more for labour? The Treasurer further said: . . there has been and still is a powerful upthrust of costs, stemming largely though not wholly from large wage claims relentlessly pursued. ls this a hint to employers to be more relentless in resisting wage claims? If the Government is in fact objecting to wage increases, since these increases are meant to restore previously accepted standards, does the Government mean that the only way to stop inflation is to lower the real value of wages received by wage earners? Does this mean that according to traditional economic analysis the workers of the country have to be content with a smaller proportion of the wealth of the country? Where does this put the Arbitration Court judges? Are they to accept the direction of the Government and somehow give legal sanction to the need in fact to reduce the purchasing power of wages?

Does all this mean that the price of economic progress is a reduced proportion of the wealth of the country in the hands of most of the people - the wage earners? Is economic progress measured in terms of increasing profits in the hands of fewer people, for with all this anxiety about inflation the largest industrial concerns seem to be earning larger profits and gaining a bigger share in the ownership of the wealth and resources of this country? If that is economic progress then it is time to ask: Is it worth it? But the relationship of wages to the wealth of the country - a falling relationship in my opinion - is only part of the story of our so-called economic progress.

Earlier 1 hinted at the plight of the people on fixed incomes - an increasing proportion of the community. In 1945 after a disastrous war when Australia was an underdeveloped country, compared to its development today, but when there was in office a Labor Government which decided the priorities, the pension rate was 27 per cent of average weekly earnings at that time. Today the pension rate is only about 20 per cent of average weekly earnings. There is no argument that we are a much richer country, a far more developed country than we were at the time of the last Labor Government. Then why should the pensioners and the handicapped be expected to subsist on a lesser proportion of the national wealth than we could afford 25 years or more ago? The rises in pensions offered in the Budget do not restore the standards of a quarter of a century ago. They barely maintain the inadequate standards of last year and for a very short time that will be. judging by the continuing steep rise in the cost of living. This brings me to the next question concerning these types of subsistence payments.

Why is the Government not prepared to fix these various pension payments at a set proportion of average weekly earnings with automatic adjustments as average weekly earnings rise? It is an illusion to .say that the pension is maintaining its relationship to average weekly wage rates. The fact is that there is a growing discrepancy between the nominally set weekly wage rate and actual weekly earnings. The pension rates should be restored as quickly as possible to the 1945 level of 27 per cent of average weekly earnings. In fact, given the greater wealth of the whole community there is a strong case for setting the pension level to at least 30 per cent of average weekly earnings.

Still another manifestation of the decline in our standards relative to other advanced countries is the way our spending on community services is lagging. I shall touch on only two. This does not mean that there are not others that are important; other honourable members are dealing with them. 1 wish to comment on health and education. The increase in patient charges for prescriptions, which is expected to raise a mere $16m for the Government in total receipts of nearly $9, 000m, is in fact the imposition of a penalty on patients in tha community. One of the arguments often put to justify charges for prescriptions is that it will lower the patient demand for medicines. This is an entirely false argument since the decision as to whether a patient gets a prescription for medicine is the decision of the doctor alone. I realise that the claim is often made that patients demand medicines and that if a particular doctor refuses on medical grounds to give the necessary prescription the patient will go to another doctor. Doctors, being human, do not like to lose patients, and hence income, so they comply with the patient’s request.

This brings me to the crux of the problem - the vested interest of the doctors in over-prescribing drugs. When the patient demands a medicine, the doctor has a financial interest in complying, though doing so may be contrary to his medical judgment. On the other hand, where the patient is not making any demand ./ner than for medical treatment the doctor is again exposed to the temptation to prescribe a drug, which can be done in a very short time, rather than undertake the long and more tedious task of prolonging the consultation in order to better understand the patient’s problem and perhaps cope with it without prescribing drugs. In the first case, the total time taken by the doctor to write the prescription, after a short consultation, means that he has earned the consultation fee for, say, 5 or 10 minutes work. On the other hand, if he tries to understand fully the patient’s problem the consultation may last 30 minutes or more but he still earns the same consultation tee. In essence, the problem of over-prescribing, and over-treatment, which at times can go as far as unnecessary operations and unnecessary hospitalisation, is created by the fee-for-service system of medical practice.

I want to make it quite clear that I am criticising, not my fellow doctors, but the system under which they work. This outdated system depending on feeforservice which inevitably gives the doctor? and all other health personnel a financial interest in ill health can only lead to excessive use of the system. There are numerous studies now available to confirm this view, but I shall quote only one. I refer to the report of the Health Manpower Commission of the United States Government. The report describes the Kaiser Foundation Medical Care Programme where the doctors are employed on a salaried basis. Before giving the significant statistics, perhaps it would be helpful to give the views of the Commission on the quality of the medical care offered by this organisation so as to preclude any conclusion that the medical care is provided on the cheap - that is, in terms of the quality of medical care. That report states:

Although the survey was constrained both by time and experimental design, it was the strong impression that the quality of medical care delivered by the California Permanente Medical Groups is equivalent, if not superior, to that available in most communities.

The doctors in the scheme expressed the view that one of the merits of their system of practice was the ability to deliver medical services without concern for the economic welfare of the individual patient. In other words, they did not have to worry about the burden of medical fees on the patient. Now to some statistics. The report continues:

Between 1960 and 1965 total expenses per member for the services provided by Kaiser increased by 19 per cent. During the same period, national per capita private consumer expenditures for comparable medical services Increased by 44 per cent.

It also states:

  1. . age-adjusted days for hospital care per year for Kaiser members (were) only 70 per cent of the State’s per capita average.

That represents a considerable saving, as may be seen. The report goes on:

Prepayment permits a contract arrangement that eliminates incentive for physicians to provide unnecessary medical procedures and inclusion of outpatient care in the Kaiser benefit package eliminates members’ financial incentives to undergo unnecessary hospitalisation.

As I said earlier, there are numerous other surveys to confirm these claims. Very briefly, in a study made by Dr J. S. Lawson, Director of Hospital Services in Tasmania, it is revealed that the operation rates for tonsillectomy, appendicectomy and hysterectomy in Australia are 2 to 3 times higher than in the United Kingdom or in areas of the United States of America where doctors are on salaries instead of fee for service. In some areas in the United Kingdom and the United States of America doctors are on fee-for-service but much lower rates apply than those that apply in Australia, where all doctors are on fee for service. Dr Lawson also noted that the perinatal and infant mortality . rates - very sensitive indicators of the quality of medical care in comparable communities - were lower amongst groups of people treated by doctors on salary compared with people treated by doctors on a fee-for-service basis. In other words, the quality of service was better where the doctors were on a salary. I quite agree. The present system in fact encourages the concept of piece work. The more operations a doctor does, the higher his income, so why not brandish the knife more frequently?

So much for health services. I now deal with education. Tragically, once again the claims of our children have been ignored. Compared with other so called advanced countries, we spend about half as much as we should on education. It is no answer to say that Commonwealth expenditure will rise this year by 14 per cent. This will barely offset the rises in costs due to inflation and will not take into account the increase in the population of children in schools, an increase due to immigration, our own birth rate and also the longer time children are now expected to stay at school. When these factors are acknowledged, we may. see that the Federal Government is in fact reducing its commitment to education.

Again I am aware that the primary responsibility for education rests really with the States, but to use this as an excuse for limiting Federal assistance is humbug. Probably one of the largest items in any State Budget is education. All avenues of State revenue outside Federal grants are trictly limited. In other words, the only relief available is direct Commonwealth grants for specific educational purposes. Unless we face up to this fact, our children will be inadequately educated and so placed at a distinct disadvantage in the future world where increasing technology will demand higher levels of education for a large proportion of the population.

Finally, I wish to join the honourable member for Isaacs (Mr Hamer) in urging the Government to consider the problem of the environment. This does not mean just pollution, rubbish disposal. I mean the whole environment, the whole cycle of biological life on this planet. We talk endlessly of development, progress, industrialisation and population growth. I wish to quote Sir Garfield Barwick on this subject. Earlier this year he said:

Growth has become the operative word for everyone. Whether or not he wants to be, the smallest businessman is caught up in the juggernaut of growth. So materialistic are we that our governments tend to stand or fall on the growth record of the country while they have been in office.

He asked:

Is consumption a good thing? The end of consumption is either the dissipation of energy or a pile of rubbish. In short, the ultimate physical product of economic life is garbage and the mental and muscular exhaustion of men.

He further stated:

It seems to me that the time is overdue when the Government should be taking steps to adjust the economy to cope with a lower rate of material production and a lower rate of consumption.

Regrettably the greatest pollutant is man himself, and not only in his efforts to sustain himself. The end product of all life, of course, in one way is pollution, but fortunately for us pollution in one life cycle is the means of survival for another life cycle. But tragically we have upset the balance because population growth is far too fast and we are reaching the stage where rapidly we are producing far more pollution than the natural resources of the world will be able to cope with. So it is vital for us, if we want to avoid the destruction of life on this planet, to reduce the level of population growth. I will quote finally from a book on this subject. It states:

The explosive growth of the population is the most significant terrestrial event of the past million millenia. No geographical event in a billion years has posed a threat to terrestrial life comparable to that of human over-population.

So in my opinion it is vital that the Government pay some attention to this problem.

Mr IRWIN:
Mitchell

– Last night we heard from a combination in one piece the Leader of the Opposition - barrister cum economist. Seldom if ever do the two combine. They are not compatible. It was evident from the delivery of his speech that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam) was not its author. His presentation showed indelibly that he did not comprehend what he was reading. He chided the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) in regard to payroll tax and passed some paltry taunt that the Prime Minister’s law was not comparable with the Prime Minister’s economics. It must be remembered that the most notable legal achievement of the Leader of the Opposition was to have 4 tenants evicted from their homes so that a wealthy concern could erect a chain store where these people were living.

The Leader of the Opposition spoke of a national health scheme. Of course, as Leader of the Opposition he can promise anything. If we were a settled community, of course we could establish a national superannuation fund. Where we have a continued influx of people of varying ages, some of them in the 50 to 60 age group, it is most difficult to establish a superannuation scheme. However, problems exist to be overcome. It is a matter that should be and is receiving the attention of the Government and the Government Members Social Services Committee. It may be that over a period of years a sum, say $10Om could be set aside annually to create the foundation for a superannuation fund. It was not the Leader of the Opposition’s day yesterday. Immediately following him in the debate was the Minister for Housing (Mr Kevin Cairns), who in the limited time available to him literally slayed the Leader of the Opposition. Then we heard from the honourable member for Melbourne

Ports (Mr Crean). Although one may not always agree with him, one must concede that the honourable member for Melbourne Ports does know his subject. I agree with him that fringe banking and the hire purchase companies should be under stricter control than they are now. They are the evils that were a natural corollary of the control of banking whereby the banks have now been reduced to impotency, thereby reducing the Government’s monetary influence and control.

Reverting to the superannuation fund, there would be few people in Australia who would have the knowledge and the desire that the Minister for Social Services (Mr Wentworth) has to establish a superannuation scheme. He has given many years to thought and experimentation in regard to this. He will continue his work on this aspect until he brings in a scheme worthy of Australia.

The one aspect of the Treasurer’s Budget in which I have a special interest is the new provision for housing. I commend the Government for increasing from $8,000 to $9,000 the maximum loan that may be made available under the War Service Homes Act. This is a provision that will be welcomed by ex-servicemen throughout the country. The provision of $60m this year for war service homes represents a significant contribution to the construction and purchase of homes in this country. The generous terms of war service home loans are of tremendous assistance to exservicemen. With many servicemen soon to return from their very gallant and honourable service in Vietnam, no doubt there will be a continuing demand for this facility for many years into the future.

I congratulate the recently appointed Minister for Housing on the new assistance that the Commonwealth has offered to the States for housing purposes. This offer takes 3 forms and, I believe, represents a major improvement on the previous assistance given by the Commonwealth. The provision of a cumulative grant of $2. 75m a year payable over 30 years in respect of State housing activity commits the Commonwealth to pay an amount of some $4J0ra to the States. I particularly welcome the Government’s decision to make a grant of $ 1.25m a year for each of the next 5 years as a contribution towards the cost to the

States of reduced rents for families regarded as being in need of this assistance. The States will determine which families are to receive it. This grant will be worth more than $450,000 to my own State of New South Wales during the current financial year. Rents being paid by families in the major cities, particularly in Sydney and its surrounding suburbs, are often a great financial burden. This new measure will provide some relief for needy families. I hope that families in need in the electorate of Mitchell will be granted some of this assistance.

The decision of the Federal Government to relieve the States of the need to use a portion of their housing funds for building homes for serving members of the armed forces is most welcome. The Commonwealth has undertaken to meet the needs of Service housing. This policy will make more funds available to the housing bodies in each State to help them meet the pressing needs of civilian housing. It can be fairly said that the housing provisions in this Budget represent a new approach. I am very pleased that the approach is much improved and is one which will benefit many people. I congratulate the Minister and feel sure that the State Ministers responsible for the housing will be pleased with the extra assistance which is now offered.

I turn now to the Budget provisions in respect of social services. The social service provisions of any budget are always watched more closely by more people than is any other aspect of that document. This is not surprising considering how many people are affected directly by what appears in the Budget each year. This year in excess of 1 million people will benefit to some extent from the increases in pensions while, in addition, the increases in child endowment will be paid in respect of more than 1 million children. Social service and repatriation benefits this year constitute the largest single item of Government expenditure. In all, these measures, taken together with other matters of a welfare nature, will involve an expenditure in excess of $2,000m.

I should like to comment specifically on 2 matters of great concern - the age pension and assistance to families with children.

When we take into consideration the 2 pension increases this year, that is, the extra 50c granted in April and the $1.25 weekly proposed in the Budget, we see that the increase in pensions in the last financial year represents the largest increase ever granted in such a short period. The new standard rate of pension will be $17.25 a week - the highest ever. What is more important is that the real value of the pension has shown a substantial increase also. In the last financial year the consumer price index recorded an increase of 5.4 per cent, while the standard rate of pension increased by 11.3 per cent - more than double the increase in the consumer price index. Given all the pressures on the Government to reduce its expenditure in order to combat inflation, I think this is a good achievement. It is not only the standard pension rate in which this development appears. The same also may be said to apply to the married rate and the rate of payments for widows and invalids.

I know that the Minister has always been very conscious of the problems faced by families with children, and I congratulate him on the provisions made for such families in this Budget. I am sure that every family will appreciate the rise in the rate of child endowment for the third and subsequent children that this Budget provides. A family of 4 children now receives $5.75 a week in child endowment, and it may be as well to remember that child endowment itself is one of the many innovations in the field of social services that was made originally by a Liberal government. I am particularly delighted to note the great increase given in children’s allowances so as to provide the payment of $4.50 for each child. This benefit will be of enormous assistance to all those pensioners and widows with dependent children, and indicates the concern of this Government to provide for their welfare and assistance. The last thing I might mention in respect of social services is the extent to which pensioners benefit from their special concessions in matters such as transport, pharmaceutical costs and postal concessions. The pensioner still has to pay only $4.00 for a combined radio and television licence, despite the fact that the general cost of such a licence has risen from $20 to $26.50. I shall deal with that aspect during the debate on the Estimates. So. the value of the concession itself has actually risen by $6.50 from $16 to $22.50. Similar rises in the value of concessions are apparent in other licences and in telephone charges. I feel sure that the community appreciates that this Government has done a remarkable job in providing for such substantial increases in social services at the same time as it is grappling with the problems of inflation, and would like to join with me in paying tribute to the efforts of the Minister who, as we all know, is always most sympathetic towards the needs of those in hardship, and most active and diligent on their behalf. He, of course, would have liked to have gone further - we all would - ‘but he has done a good job and I congratulate him.

The honourable member for Maribyrnong (Dr Cass) spoke about percentages. I like the honourable member very much - he is sincere - but I think that it would be much better if he kept to surgery and away from economics, because when dealing with percentages the first thing we must ask is: ‘Percentages of what?’. He compared pensions as a percentage of the average wage today with the corresponding figure during one of the lowest wage eras of this country, after the Second World War when the was much unemployment. My Party came to government because of the unemployment and the very low wages that were being earned at that time. The average wage was extremely low, and 27 per cent of the average wage then, which represented the amount of the pension that was being paid, was very low. Twenty per cent of the average wage now is much higher.

As high as this is, there is no person on either side of the House who would not like to be able to pay these people a higher pension. We must consider all the circumstances. Many unionists and many of the employees about whom the Leader of the Opposition spoke so disparagingly last night, have come to see me. I see no dishonour in being an employee. I think that the Good Book tells us that it is an honourable estate. These people have been the pioneers of Australia. Whatever we are able to give them, we should be pleased to give them. I trust that the amount they receive from time to time will enable them to live in the dignity that we as Australians would like them to have.

Mr NICHOLLS:
Bonython

– My good old sporting friend, the honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Irwin), is a dyed in the wool conservative of the old brigade. I took particular notice of his comment on the national superannuation scheme. He said that the Government was having a look at the matter. I draw his attention to the election promises of his Party’s leader, Sir Robert Menzies, who, in 1949, promised the abolition of the means test. That was 22 years ago, and his Government has been in office all those years and still retains the means test. I would like to see a national superannuation scheme, and so would the people of Australia. But I am afraid that under the Liberal-Country Party coalition Government that is out of the question. 1 support the amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam). Once again we have witnessed a budget introduced by the Liberal-Country Party coalition Government similar to previous budgets. In the first place, 1 month before Budget night we had the Australian Press conjecturing on the hard line which the Government would present in its Budget and predicting that anti-inflationary measures would be incorporated in the Budget to ensure the stability of the economy. Then the Treasurer (Mr Snedden) submitted his Budget. It contained proposals for increased personal taxation, petrol and tobacco rises, postal slugs, increased television licences and company taxation - all geared to hit the great mass of the Australian people, as all these increases will be directly or indirectly passed on to the Australian consumer.

Postal charges, which were increased in the previous Budget, have received savage comment from the Associated Chambers of Commerce which have called for an overhaul of the Postmaster-General’s Department. This call has received wide endorsement beyond business circles. Private users also are fed up with dwindling postal services and steeply rising charges. The new budget levies are shocking. Local telephone calls will increase from 4c to 4 3/4 c Postal charges for letters and postcards under loz will rise from 6c to 7c.

Telephone rentals will rise from $47 to $55. Telephone connection fees for new services will rise from $40 to $50. Particular person fees and fixed time fees for calls over 30 miles will go up from 5c to 10c, exactly a 100 per cent increase.

In the previous Budget of 1970-71 the Postmaster-General’s Department budgeted for a $30m profit which, in reality, was revealed as an overall loss of $2m on that year’s trading. The Postmaster-General (Sir Alan Hulme) puts the blame for this situation mainly on postal workers because of wage rises. But regardless of the previous year’s result, he has again budgeted for the 1971-72 year for an estimated profit of $36m. Surely this action in itself is inflationary, and the Government loudly proclaims that it is attempting to combat inflation. On one hand, the Government appeals to the private sector to contain costs and, on the other, it aggravates charges in the public sector which will accelerate the situation and which are in turn passed on to the consumer.

The McMahon Budget like the Gorton Budgets bears brutally and bluntly on the great mass of the Australian people, particularly the middle and lower income groups. I took particular notice of an article in the Melbourne ‘Observer’ by the publisher Maxwell Newton headed ‘Budget Hits at Hawke’. It reads as follows:

There is no doubt that the McMahon Government is pushing towards a major confrontation with the Communist and Socialist left unions. The first step in this programme occurred in the Budget when a policy of anti-inflationary pressure was introduced.

The tough Budget of Billy, Snedden, itself a courageous and wise document, was clearly intended to ‘pull on’ Bob Hawke and his Communist mates in the union movement. The Budget was designed to soak up excess spending power and free money in the system, so that employers would simply not be able to pay higher wages.

In the process, it would become clear to union members that any increase in wages would tend to be accompanied by a rise in unemployment.

Let us analyse that statement and put the record straight. I have already shown that the Snedden Budget does not contain measures to curb anti-inflationary pressures but provides the exact opposite. Bob Hawke, as President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, heads an interstate executive consisting of 17 persons, only one of whom is a recognised member of the Australian Communist Party. There are 170 trade union organisations affiliated with the ACTU. Approximately 10 only of these organisations would have a full time secretary or president who would be a professed Communist.

The slurs and innuendos of the antiHawke brigade will do nothing to deter this gentleman from his dedicated service and his course to ensure the maximum effort on behalf of the 4 million workers whose conditions and wages are constantly being eroded by the actions of the LiberalCountry Party coalition Government. Maxwell Newton’s article continues:

So Bob Hawke was quite right in suggesting as he did that the Budget would lead to more unemployment.

What Bob may not have wanted to say was that unemployment would occur because he and his Communist mates had achieved wages increases far and away beyond what could be sustained by the productive system of the Australian economy,.

In pulling on Bob Hawke and the Communist and Socialist Left unions, Billy McMahon and Bill Snedden showed more courage than has been evident from the Federal Government since that Government virtually abandoned the use of penal clauses a couple of years ago.

Billy Snedden underlined the whole theme of the Budget when he said in his Budget speech: In general, as we see the problem, there has been and still is a powerful upthrust of costs, stemming largely, though not wholly, from large wage claims relentlessly pursued.’

For the past 8 years on each occasion that a major basic wage or margins case has been before the Arbitration Commission, this Government has briefed counsel to appear with the express purpose of opposing the trade unions’ claim on the grounds that the Australian economy could not bear the increase. On all occasions, the Commission has brought down its decision that wage increases could be sustained by the productive system of the Austraiian economy. In regard to my latter statement let me repeat what Mr Maxwell Newton said:

Billy Snedden underlined the whole theme of the Budget when he said in his Budget speech: In general, as we sec the problem, there has been and still is a powerful upthrust of costs, stemming largely, though not wholly, from large wage claims relentlessly pursued.

If Maxwell Newton’s views on Australia’s future are genuine one would have expected that instead of lauding the courage of the Billys he would have criticised the Government for not seeking power to enable the Commonwealth to introduce price control legislation to stop giant monopoly corporations such as the Broken Hill Pty Co Ltd from increasing the price of as essential a commodity as steel without reference to any tribunal irrespective of the damage of such action to the Australian economy with resultant hardship to the Austraiian people.

Tonight I intend to refer to 2 matters. One concerns education and the other involves one of my constituents. On 16th June of this year I had the pleasure of being present at an education rally called by the South Australian Institute of Teachers and the Parents and Friends Association to listen to and receive reports on the needs of schools in South Australia. The Institute had invited the then Minister for Education and Science, Mr Fairbairn, and the State Minister of Education, Mr Hugh Hudson, to give a report on the current education position. More and more we are being asked to see that the young people of rais nation receive a fair education to fit them for their vocations in life, but more and more we are hearing that the State education departments are not able to meet this demand because of the shortage of money. 1 ask the present Government: Is sufficient being done to assist the nation generally in the field of education? The students of today are the citizens of tomorrow. This nation is crying put for guidance and for better educated young people to work the new machines and to assist in the technological changes now taking place. Our young people will need to know more about trade with our Asian neighbours. They will need to learn new skills. They will be required to introduce new industries to Australia. The only place where they will learn is at school. But what do we find? There is overcrowding in classrooms, inadequate buildings and ventilation, high ratios of students to teachers and lack of language classes in English to assist our migrant citizens. Teachers are frustrated in trying to cope with the present teaching situation let alone coping with sickness, staff shortages, increases in the student population and few remedial classes for backward children and slow learning children. 1 could go on for ever outlining the problems confronting schools and teachers today. In my electorate are the following schools: Elizabeth Field Primary School, Elizabeth South Downs Primary School, Elizabeth West Infant School, Pooraka Primary School. Parafield Gardens East Primary School, Parafield Gardens Primary School, Salisbury North Primary School, Salisbury Primary School, Salisbury Northwest Primary School, Brahma Lodge Primary School, Northfield Primary School, Ingle Farm East Primary School, Ingle Farm Central Primary School, Para Vista School, Gilles Plains Infant School, Gepps Cross Girls Technical High School, Enfield High School, Enfield Primary School, Northfield High School and Hampstead Primary School. All these schools in my district are vitally interested in the chaotic education position. They have all stated that classes are too big and that extra staff is needed urgently. On many occasions no replacements are available for teachers who are sick and there is no opportunity for teachers to do in-service training. Teacher aids are essential in any modern school but these are too few at the moment. Teacher aids are of great assistance to the teaching staff in undertaking the clerical work, getting classrooms in order, setting out books, collecting money for lunches and functions and in a variety of ways.

Most schools have no caretakers, hence vandalism is rampant. There is no protection for government property. Teachers and senior students are required to take care of the grounds and playing areas. Ground staff could be engaged to do this. The work could be performed if workmen were allocated two or three schools in a particular area. Many of the schools in my electorate have what are termed temporary buildings which have taken on an air of permanence. Teaching in some of these pre-fabricated buildings is an endurance test, especially on hot summer days. No provision is made for large shelter areas - halls where children can assemble to eat their meals on winter days. There are no staff rooms for teachers where they can relax and prepare papers. In fact one school has no sick room available if a male member of the staff or a student takes ill. This is a situation which would not be tolerated in industry. More libraries, books and teaching aids are needed urgently to enable us to keep abreast of movements in education. Few schools have facilities for music and drama to help students in their cultural development. South Australia has not been able to keep abreast of the population increase following the war years and the influx of migrants into the community. To enable the States to increase or even maintain our present standard of living and not become a backward nation, I implore the Commonwealth Government to give this question serious thought and to increase Commonwealth assistance to the States for the education of young Australians.

I wish to bring to the attention of the House the plight of one of my constituents in his battle with the Taxation Office over his taxation assessment. In his young days this gentleman served a 5-year apprenticeship as an electrician. He went on to study for his electrical engineering diploma at technical college. Subsequently he was accepted as a trainee pilot in the Royal Australian Air Force. He had one solo flight. My constituent then contracted poliomyelitis and was in hospital for 3 months. As he was not fit enough to continue with his pilot training he was transferred to a navigation course. He came third in his class. He was offered a position with Qantas Airways as a navigator on overseas flights when his term in the Air Force was completed. At this time he was classed as a navigation officer with the base squadron in Darwin. He was given a short service commission and was informed that shortly he would be transferred to a permanent commission. Three months prior to his discharge from the Service - due in February 1960 - he was severely injured in a plane accident whilst on duty at the Darwin Air Force base. This was on 8th November 1959. He was in hospital for 1 1 months and the severity of his mental and physical injuries led to the breakdown of his marriage and a subsequent divorce. His wife was granted the custody of their 2 young daughters.

My constituent was suffering severely from neurosis and the doctors told him that they could not do anything more for him. He was told that only he could do more for himself. He has attempted to undertake this therapy by doing welfare work in the service of others. He has used his own money, received from compensation payments, to help develop a workshop for the physically handicapped at Mount Gambier. He spent 6 weeks with the Service to Youth Council in Adelaide. He assisted with the establishment of a youth club at Salisbury. He was the President and Chairman of Welfare of all branches of ‘Shiralee’ the association for divorced, separated and deserted men and women. He was also a contact and welfare offiicer of the Good Neighbour Council of South Australia. He has also assisted with other types of welfare services in the community. In 1970 he attempted a course at the South Australian Institute of Technology, but because of his physical disabilities he was not able to continue with it.

The position is that this gentleman is not allowed to claim, for taxation purposes, any of the money he has spent on doing welfare work for others in the community. The absurd feature is that if he had given a donation to some recognised charity he would have been granted a taxation concession. He has not become a burden on the community. By engaging in these activities he has kept himself occupied. By using his own money in these pursuits he did not put anything aside for his accrued taxation. He believes that his compensation payments should not have been taxed. He was not earning income and those payments were granted to him to assist him to live with his infirmities. For the information of honourable members I point out that my constituent, as a result of the accident caused by the negligence of another officer, suffered a fractured skull with brain damage, a fracture of the scaphoid bone, an ulna styloid of the right wrist, complete loss of smell, almost complete loss of taste, injuries to his eyes, has little feeling at ali in his right side, has an injured right leg and ankle and has tremors in his right arm and right leg. He has suffered a complete change of personality.

I have referred this case to the Minister for Air (Senator Drake-Brockman) seeking his intervention for a reduction of the $700 which the Commonwealth Taxation Branch claims my constituent owes. I have placed before the Minister for Air a proposal that this sum be deducted in instalments from his compensation payments which I think is little to ask in view of this man’s mental health. I have recently received a reply from the Minister. He has indicated that if the necessary statutory authority is forwarded to him consideration will be given to making deductions from the man’s compensation payments. If my constituent had not been involved in this accident and stayed in the civil air crew he would have earned something like $300,000. With his total salary and investments he could possibly have earned well over $800,000. If he had gained employment with Qantas he also would have benefited financially and would have been able to make plans for the future. By trying to adjust to his new life and learning to live with his handicaps he has used his own experience in the service of others and has not become a burden on the community. Surely his fellow citizens can assist him a little as well. That is all that I and he ask. This man is only 40 years of age, yet since 19S9 he has lived through a lifetime of pain and suffering. The breakup of his home caused him much mental anguish. This action by the Government is the final straw. I ask the House: Can some means be found to assist my constituent in a humane way?

Mr O’KEEFE:
Paterson

– I rise to support the Budget presented by the Treasurer (Mr Snedden). It provides for estimated receipts of $8,654m and expenditure of $8,833m. These figures compared with the previous Budget show increases of $624m and $728m respectively. The size of the Australian Budget has certainly increased over the years. It is interesting to note that in 1939 the Budget presented by the government of the day provided for an expenditure of approximately $200m. These figures indicate the great growth in the financial requirements of this country and in the development of the economy. Naturally, any Budget brought down by a government is criticised by the Opposition, but I feel that under the inflationary pressures prevailing this Budget has met the situation presently existing in the economy. It has been devised after consultation with representatives of secondary industry, primary industry, manufacturers and the trade union movement. Priorities have been carefully examined and essential expenditure on education, defence, social services and payments to the States has been considerably increased over expenditure in the previous financial year.

An expenditure of $2,095m has been provided in the field of social services.

This figure is $268m more than last year. The standard rate of pension payable to single people and widows with children is to be increased by $1.25 to $17.25 a week. The married rate pension will be increased by $1 a week to give a married couple who are both in receipt of the pension a combined maximum pension of $30.50 a week. Other allowances have been made in the pension field and in the important field of repatriation benefits. These include an increase of $3.50 a week to totally and permanently incapacitated war pensioners. I congratulate the Minister for Repatriation (Mr Holten) on being able to obtain Cabinet’s approval for these substantial increases because I feel that there is no more worthy a group than those servicemen and women who have been repatriated. These are practical examples of the Government’s desire to help the lot of the pensioners and repatriated servicemen and women.

The Government has wisely given defence an important priority in the Budget. A vote of $ 1,252.4m has been allocated to this Department. This represents an increase of $117m or 10.3 per cent more than the figure allocated in last year’s Budget. It is interesting to note that in this increased budgetary amount $66m has been taken up in increased wages. It is good to see the Government expending more money on defence measures - in men, materials and equipment - because Australia is a very fine country and one that would be a rich prize for any invader. Therefore I feel sure that honourable members will agree with the increased vote in defence expenditure.

The rural sector of Australia is experiencing a very difficult period financially with high production costs and low prices being received for the commodities produced, to say nothing of the continual droughts and floods that have been experienced by primary producers over the last 5 years. The most affected rural industry is, of course, the wool industry and the farmers and graziers who are engaged solely in this field. These primary producers are in real trouble. Over the years, Australia has relied heavily on the export income earned from wool. Even taking into account the very depressed prices that have been obtained for wool, it has still been a very important commodity. In the financial year 1969-70, $800m was earned from the export of our wool. This represented 20 per cent of our total export earnings of approximately $4,000m. In the financial year 1970-71 the sale of wool overseas amounted to $594m. still a very substantial amount but considerably less than in the previous year.

No government can sit idly by and allow such a valuable industry to die. Apart from the loss of export income earned by the industry, this drop in sales has had a serious financial effect on primary producers and has caused loss of farm employment with a serious consequent effect on the country towns and the business people who live there and service these areas. These country towns have been built up over a number of years with men specialised in the agricultural and allied industries. Now, with the recession in the surrounding countryside, these men are going off to Sydney and other cities and the country towns are becoming denuded of their very valuable expertise. It will be very difficult to get such men back into the country areas. It is very sad to see these great wool towns throughout Australia deteriorating and dying in the way they are at the present time. So the Government in its investigation and examination of this industry has, in our opinion, very wisely decided to provide a deficiency payment scheme to ensure a price of 36c per lb for greasy wool. This will help bring stability back to the industry, and although short of the industry recommendation of 40c per lb will restore confidence and financial stability to the industry. Most wool men are situated in areas where they cannot diversify and this makes it all the more necessary for assistance to be given to them. Farmers who can diversify are well advised to do so as good markets exist for vegetable oil seed, coarse grain and lamb, mutton, beef and pig meats.

It is, of course, of great concern to country people to see postal and telephone charges increase. This is to be deplored and as country people carry on business through extensive telephone calls and postal arrangements this increase is possibly having a greater effect in the country that in any other part of Australia. I recommend that the Postmaster-General (Sir Alan Hulme) have another look at these postal charges with a view to making some revision. One can, of course, appreciate the cost increases in these fields, particularly in the wages sector, but nevertheless a revision of post and telephone charges is requested, especially in country areas.

Decentralisation was not mentioned in the Budget. We in this House often mention decentralisation but that is about as far as it ever goes. I know that when this matter is brought forward we are informed that it is one for- the State Governments. Some State Governments are doing a splendid job in the decentralisation field but it is felt that in this great country if we are to get anywhere with this subject we must provide funds from the Federal Government to promote industries, transport and services across Australia. We do not want all our people living in the seaboard cities. We require them spread out over our continent for strategic purposes because if ever we were attacked it would be more difficult for a foe if our population were spread right over the surface of the country instead of having them in the seaboard States where they would be most vulnerable to any attack. One way that I feel we can help from a federal point of view with decentralisation is the establishment of Federal Government office blocks in our provincial cities and country towns. I have been pressing for the establishment of a Federal Government office block in the city of Maitland in my electorate where there is a telephone manager with a hig staff, a postal manager with a big staff, an office of the Department of Social Services and an office of the Department of Labour and National Service as well as offices of other Federal departments. The establishment of such an office block in that city is one way of bringing about effective decentralisation.

Local Government is another field which urgently requires financial assistance and which has been ignored in the Budget. It is true that local government will benefit by $6m this year and $8m in a full year through the Commonwealth meeting the cost of exempting the non business activities of such authorities from payroll tax as from the date of transfer. Local government requires much more financial assistance if it is to survive and here again we hear only words instead of seeing action.

Local government is required to provide modern and up to date facilities wilh an outmoded method of finance. I commend this important matter to the Treasurer and the Cabinet for consideration.

It is noted that the Government is keeping under close review the situation in the wine industry and, acting on the advice of the interdepartmental committee, has decided not to alter the existing excise on wine. My electorate is one where great development has been and is taking place in this important industry. We have Hungerford Hill Vineyards Pty Ltd at Pokolbin, Murray Tyrrell’s McQuiggans at Dalwood, Branxton, Penfolds at Wybong, Muswellbrook, Hamilton Wines at Sandy Hollow and a host of other vineyards throughout the Hunter Valley. These people tell me that the excise imposed on wine in the last Budget has seriously affected sales. I ask the Government to keep this position under review.

Whilst we appreciate the importance of trade with Japan and the necessity to encourage exports from the developing countries of South East Asia such as Taiwan, Hong Kong and Thailand, it is necessary to protect adequately our own secondary industries, particularly those in rural areas. Much of the trade with these countries is in the textile field and many of our decentralised industries are engaged in producing similar yarns and fabrics to those which we import from Asian countries. Speaking about the importance of decentralised textile industries I have in my electorate at Rutherford the splendid firm of Bradmill Industries Ltd, which has about 1,300 employees, and not far away at Raymond Terrace is the textile mill of Courtaulds (Aust) Ltd. I recently visited the Bradmill factory again and from observations and discussions it is obvious that imports of textiles from Asian countries are seriously slowing down production, threatening employment and reducing profitability in this industry. 1 want to stress to the Government with all sincerity and with all the knowledge that I possess that it must not fail in its duty and responsibility to protect adequately at the appropriate time these great Australian industries. I respectfully suggest that the time is now. The traditional use of tariffs to protect these industries is becoming more and more ineffective and I feel we must follow the method used by many large and highly industrialised countries and use quantitative restrictions or voluntary restraint arrangements. I commend and support the Budget.

Mr COLLARD:
Kalgoorlie

– This first Budget of the new Treasurer (Mr Snedden) will be nothing less than brutal in its end results upon the low and middle income families of this country. It deliberately places the greatest burden upon the very people who are least able to bear it. It has certainly brought a general feeling of despondency, distrust and disgust and has made quite clear the real attitude of this Goverment to the less fortunate of our community. With regard to inflationary trends it is obvious that the Government intends to ignore rising costs and prices, and indeed by increasing charges on petrol, postage stamps, telephone calls and so on will aggravate the situation. On the other hand it is obvious that the Government intends to make its target the pockets of the wage and salary earners. It is clear that in the Government’s view these people are too well paid and are becoming far too independent. The end result of this Budget will be widespread and substantia] unemployment and that situation will not be an accidental result of the Budget but will in fact be the result of deliberate planning on the part of the Government. This Government has consistently deplored what it refers to as over full employment, and in its view over full employment still exists even though there are several thousand people looking for work and unable to find it.

The real fact is that this Government deplores the situation where people can reject offers of employment which do not measure up to their requirements. The Government actually delights in a situation where there is strong competition amongst job seekers to obtain work, but it hates to see a situation where the employers are obliged by way of better wages and conditions to compete with each other in their attempts to procure labour for their requirements. While the Government pretends to support the arbitration system it does in fact hate to see workers properly organised, unified and properly represented by competent advocates and it does everything it can do and goes as far as it can go to smear, besmirch, belittle and destroy the very people who, by their efforts as union officials, are endeavouring amicably to settie disputes by ensuring that both the employees and the employers receive a fair hearing and a fair result.

Whilst many employers, perhaps most employers, are happy to discuss and settle their problems and disputes at conferences around their office tables with union representatives, this does not suit the Employers Federation which, a. few years ago, waved a very big stick indeed in no uncertain manner and practically dictated to the employers what they should or should not do. That organisation has lost considerable ground over recent years. It has lost a lot of its influence. It now represents only a very minor section, in number, of employers. The progress which the unions are making is really worrying the Employers Federation. It is worried about the growing respect which the unions and individual employers have for each other. It is very worried about the fact that wage settlements which the Federation strongly opposes are being made outside the industrial tribunals, thus setting precedents for use successfully in arguments against the Federation, in cases involving the very large companies which still allow the Federation to handle their affairs. The Government is also very worried in this respect.

This Budget is a deliberate attempt to bring about a pool of unemployment and to incite competition among job seekers, such as occurred in the 1930s, just for the purpose of trying to weaken the activities and the support of the unions in their attempts to obtain and retain proper conditions and wage justice for their members. During his Budget Speech the Treasurer continually referred to inflation and on each occasion he did so he placed the whole of the blame on the people who sought and were granted increased wages. The Treasurer has made it clear that the Government intends to use every means at its disposal to prevent any further wage increases being obtained either through normal court channels or union-employer negotiations. In his concluding remarks the Treasurer told us that, in the view of the Government, wage increases following industrial disputes were substantially greater than they should be. That remark can only be accepted to mean 2 things. Firstly, it is strong Government criticism of the members of the Commonwealth Conciliation^ and Arbitration Commission and the employers’ who were convinced of the justice of the union claims and gave them proper recognition. The Government says that they were over generous and it has condemned them on the decisions they have made. Secondly, it means that as far as the Government is concerned the workers, including the white collar workers, are already receiving much more than they should be receiving and therefore, irrespective of the validity of any future claims, both the courts and the employers should reject the claims completely. The unrest among workers and the strikes which normally and quite properly would follow such a refusal will, the Government hopes, be countered by the effects of the unemployment pool.

As we all know, the function of the Arbitration Commission is for its members to hear argument from both parties to a dispute and then, after consideration of it, often lasting weeks or even months, to bring down a decision. It is the delays in getting into the courts and obtaining decisions which often cause unrest. But whatever the final decision happens to be, the Arbitration Commission has always been very careful not to over judge, over weigh or over acknowledge wage claims. The Treasurer has told us that the Government is considering methods of strengthening the arbitration system and, in particular, of bringing more to the forefront the economic consequences of decisions taken by that system. Those remarks suggest that the courts are at present either ignoring or do not take into proper consideration the economic consequences of wage increases. Let us look at what Sir Richard Kirby, the President of the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, had to say about that particular aspect in a Federal Law Review’ of last year. He said:

On the question of economic policy, the then Chief Justice of the High Court Sir Owen Dixon, in 1953 used words of such clarity and wisdom that they would have put the Commission’s role beyond question 1 would have thought. However although al) newcomers find them early and quote them often they have not resolved the confusion. I myself quote Sir Owen again in the hope that among readers of this review at any rate tha repetition of his wise words will have the effect they deserve. Sir Owen’s oft quoted words are:

While an arbitral tribunal deriving its authority under an exercise of the legislative power given by section 51 must confine itself to conciliation and arbitration for the settlement of industrial disputes including what is incidental thereto and cannot have in its hand the general control or direction of industrial social or economic policies, it would be absurd to suppose that it was to proceed blindly in its work of industrial arbitration and ignore the industrial social and economic consequences of what it was invited to do or of what, subject to the power of variation, it had actually done.

Surely those words make it perfectly clear that the arbitration tribunals do closely consider the economic effects of their decisions. Surely also they make it clear that the courts, in making a decision, are quite satisfied that, irrespective of economic consequences, they could not if justice is to be done grant a lesser increase in wages than they believe to be warranted. But apparently that is not sufficient for this Government. Apparently it wants more strictly to impose its views on the courts, particularly on the Commission.

The Government has used all kinds of snide tactics in its attempts to keep wages depressed. Just prior to court decisions it has issued ministerial statements to try to influence a tribunal’s thinking. It has arranged to address employer organisations knowing full well that its remarks will get back to the tribunals through the Press, radio and television. The Government has gone so far as to intervene by use of counsel in cases actually before the Commission. The Government continually uses this Parliament and the Press to try and influence the thinking of the general public. Because its various tactics have not been sufficiently successful, the Government now intends to amend the law so as to force the Arbitration Commission to follow the Government’s line whether they like it or not. The Treasurer has made it abundantly clear that he and his Government will subscribe to the arbitration system only if that system accepts directions from the Liberal-Country Party Government and is prepared to ignore completely any argument, no matter how valid, on industry’s ability to pay.

At this point I wish to quote from an address given by Mr G. Polites on 14th April last year. Mr Polites is - he was then, at any rate - the Executive Director of the Australian Council of Employers Federations. His remarks may be very interesting in some respects but they are nevertheless very frightening. All workers, whether they work in moleskins, overalls, dungarees, shorts or suits will want to take heed of what this gentleman has said and think about what their situation will be if the views that this particular person has expressed are put into practice by the Government. Mr Polites said:

Management, whether it be Socialist or private, must realise that whatever it does for employees, no matter how well it develops its business or how much it is prepared to share the improvement in productivity, there will be a constant Clamour by labour for a greater share.

One can see how bitter he is in that regard. He went on to say:

I believe this demand will never be satisfied, or avoided, whatever economic system is put into operation, unless you cast aside the democratic processes and impose a dictatorship of some form or another.

Those are the views of the top man in the Employers Federations. This is the body which speaks on behalf of several large and wealthy companies, ft is a body which brings considerable pressure to bear on the Australian Government and subscribes very substantially to the Liberal Party’s funds. It would be foolish to suggest that there is any other meaning in Mr Polites’ remarks than that he, his Australian Council of Employer Federations and the people whom they represent, are in fact demanding of the Government that if any democracy exists in this country it should be replaced by complete dictatorship, in the hands of the Liberal Party and the Australian Council of Employer Federations in order to halt the progress which unions are making in obtaining a fairer share of profits from increased production brought about by the efforts of their members.

If one carefully reads an analysis of what the Treasurer has said in his Budget Speech it becomes clear that the Government intends to pursue the same line and the same proposition as put forward by Mr Polites. The Treasurer is advocating that the Government should be so placed as to be able to dictate to the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission and the employers regarding terms of settlements. The Treasurer has chosen his words very carefully but there can be no doubt that the Government intends to use every possible avenue to make an onslaught on wages. The fact is that the Government intends to make it as difficult as it can for the Arbitration Commission to grant wage increases. It will bring pressure to bear on employers to prevent any over-award increases being granted and then to relieve pressure from the other side, the Government is ensuring, as a result of the effects from this Budget, that it will have in its hands the formidable weapon of unemployment.

But what about the other side of the picture? What is the Government going to do about profits and the ever-increasing costs of living which are making it necessary for wage earners to be continually seeking and for courts to grant increases in pay packets? Just listen to the strong words of the Treasurer on this point. He said-

I need hardly add that the Government will do all it can by persuasion and example to encourage those in the private sector who make decisions affecting wages and other costs, profits and ultimately prices to have at all times in the forefront of their consideration the broad national interest.

How weak and hypocritical can the Government become, and who does it think it is fooling? Tt is a well known fact that even when wages are completely frozen it does not bring any voluntary attempts from those within the private sector to contain either prices or profits; they continue to increase as before. This was proved 20 years ago when the workers of this country were not only obliged to accept and settle for a wage which, even when it was fixed, was below what the existing cost of living warranted, but were also forced to carry several price increases which occurred during the -une when the basic wage was frozen. The proof of the effect of those price increases was seen in the fact that when the. freeze was lifted the court immediately granted a £1. increase in the basic wage to offset, to some extent, the increase in the cost of living which had taken place during the freeze.

The same thing would happen now. It is idle to talk about voluntary, attempts to contain or reduce profits and prices; they will continue to rise and to increase the cost of living and the cost of production, such as is hitting the rural industry at this time. Until such time as the governments of this country, including the Federal Government, take positive steps to place restrictions on unscrupulous manufacturers, unscrupulous retailers and unscrupulous land agents, landlords and the like, this state of affairs will continue. If these restrictions are not imposed and if prices and profits continue to increase as they will, then despite what this Government and the Australian Council of Employer Federations want to enforce, the workers of this country are justly entitled to seek and be granted increases in their pay packets, and any attempts to deny them that justice must be strongly opposed. The threats to the rights of the working people, which are contained in this Budget, must be challenged and defeated.

Before the 1969 general election the Government promised the people that if it were re-elected it would substantially reduce taxation over a period of 3 years. The former Prime Minister, to some degree, honoured that promise, but unfortunately he did not grant reductions in the areas where they were actually needed. But the present Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) has hot only ignored the promise of 1969, but in fact has dishonoured it, and now in 1971 we find that contrary to the promise of 1969, an across the board increase of £i per cent is to be imposed. Not only has the Government increased income tax; it has also imposed severe and quite unwarranted increases in indirect taxation, not only upon luxury items which only the wealthy are likely to purchase, but upon what are virtually the everyday requirements of the general community. All will pay the same increase - the pensioner and the Prime Minister, and the battling farmer and the wealthy graziers who sit in this place as. Ministers, and because of this the poor will be hit a great deal harder than the rich.

Then there are the increases in postal charges and radio and television licence fees and the additional 50c which is to be paid on every prescription from a chemist. It is no wonder that people now refer to the Treasurer as Billy the Bandit. The paltry increases in social services and repatriation, which will be quickly absorbed by rising prices, are again a disgrace. The same comment applies to the Government’s approach to and lack of positive leadership in providing assistance to overcome the problems of the rural industry. The Government’s decision in relation to tax deductions and education expenses will do practically nothing to help those who really need relief. I hope that when the Bills dealing with these questions are being debated in this place I will have an opportunity to place my views on those subjects more properly before the House.

In conclusion, I refer to the reply given to me yesterday by the Prime Minister. He told me that he would discuss with his colleagues the application for additional assistance to the gold mining industry. I appreciate the Prime Minister’s decision to do this, but I must take this opportunity to ask him to treat the matter as one of urgency because the situation on the gold fields of Western Australia grows more serious each week. If a favourable decision is not made public quickly by the Government, gold mining activities will reach a stage at which it will be practically impossible to revitalise them. This would be a tragedy. It would cause much disruption and suffering. It would hit very hard a large percentage of people who own their own homes and are getting on in years and those who, at the other end of the scale, have young children at school. So I sincerely ask the Prime Minister to treat this matter as one of urgency and to arrive at a favourable conclusion. I support the Opposition’s amendment.

Mr WHITTORN:
Balaclava

– When we rise to take part in the Budget debate, of course, we are referring more particularly to the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1971-72. The Treasurer (Mr Snedden) introduced the Budget and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam) has introduced an amendment to the Budget. I reject this amendment out of hand, as I am sure the Government will do when a vote is taken on it. During the contributions which have been made to this debate, much has been said about inflation. Honourable members on both sides of the chamber realise that inflation is a tremendous burden upon the economy of Australia. However, little has been said about the causes of this inflation or about the possible remedies to cure it. I ask the question: Do we really want to control inflation, or are we tempering with the subject which is. and will continue to be, of paramount importance to all Australians this year, next year and until such time as the Government introduces measures to control this inflationary spiral?

The ‘American Economic Record’ stated this about inflation:

Inflation adds worthless dollars to the money supply. It is like adding water to milk, and so dilutes the value of all earned money, it reduces pensions, insurances and superannuations.

This is the problem that besets Australia today, and when I hear honourable members opposite talking about the workers, I wonder whom they mean, because the Leader of the Opposition said that 90 per cent of the people of Australia were wage or salary earners. In his own words he said that they were workers. So we are talking about the bulk of the people in Australia when we say that this inflationary trend will have some impact on all the people in Australia. To my mind inflation is a hidden tax. I believe it to be an immoral substitute for honest taxation. Obviously, as most honourable members on both sides of this House have said, it is a cruel burden on those trying to live on fixed incomes, the pensioners, those in receipt of superannuation benefits and the like. Inflation’s insidious weapon, however, is habit forming. It could be called a habit forming drug known as SFN - something for nothing. Perhaps it is not as bad as LSD which is being used by some people throughout the world but SFN is a drug - something for nothing - that has permeated the whole of the Australian society.

Indeed, all people are getting more dollars but they are not producing any more goods or doing any more work for these additional dollars. They feel better and they feel happier because they are getting more dollars in their pay packets each week. The habit is progressive. We want more dollars, wage rise, prices rise and our incomes keep rising. While the drug supply - the SFN supply is maintained, the economy remains nervously happy as do the people who receive the additional money. However, there will come the time - and we are rapidly reaching that point in Australia - when the money supply will be far ahead of productivity - of our gross national product. These things can be measured. I heard the honourable member for Maribyrnong Dr Cass) talk about the cost of living. It is a simple matter to get this information from the Commonwealth Bureau of Census and Statistics. That organisation will supply information regarding the percentage increase in the consumer price index or the cost of living and relate it to the average weekly earnings of a male or female worker.

As I said, when the money supply gets far ahead of prodouction prices become higher and higher. Ultimately the customer will not pay these inflated prices because of the high costs involved. This applies particularly to overseas customers because they have alternative sources of supply. We have seen in Australia our once great rural industries staggering under the impact of high costs and higher prices. This is so evident that this Government in the Budget has added to the subsidies which we give to these once great rural industries. When the price of goods becomes so high that the customer cannot afford to pay, business tumbles and payrolls shrink.

Some honourable members have said that we on this side of the House are endeavouring to create a pool of unemeployed This is quite erronous because during the economic pressures in I960, 1961 and 1962 we went to the polls. We on this side know that a pool of unemployed is not a good thing for Australia and without doubt it is not a good thing for any other country. This drug SFN ultimately must cause withdrawal pains; that is the pain of deflating the economy to make certain that the customers will pay the prices for the goods that are available to them or else they will buy from alternative sources. We on this side have seen this sort of thing happening in other countries. We have seen what has occurred in the United Kingdom when a Labour Prime Minister had to deflate the economy because of the execssive demands by wage earners, who represent 90 per cent of the people, for increased wages and better conditions. We have seen this happen in European countries, in France and in the United States of America.

What is the unemployment situation in the United Kingdom today? The latest figures I have been able to get shaw that there are 904,000 people unemployed in the United Kingdom, representing 3.7 per cent of the work force, simply because they have priced themselves out of their regular markets. In the United States a Similar situation exists except that the reasons are different as to why there has been and will continue to be inflation in America. There are 5.5 million people or 6.5 per cent, of the work force unemployed. The number of unemployed in America is almost half the population of Australia. In Canada 529,000 people or 6.2 per cent of the work force are unemployed. What is happening in the United Kingdom and America is that the people are able to buy goods cheaper from the low cost producing countries. We have all talked about the importance of Japan in the business community in recent years. The reason obviously is that Japan is still a producer of low priced goods and can sell her goods to America, England and European countries cheaper than they can produce them.

It is all very well to say that wages must continually be increased. I do nol mind if a man gets $1,000 a week as long as there is someone who will pay the price of the finished commodity. But the time is rapidly approaching in Australia - we have seen it with our once great rural industries - when overseas countries will not be prepared to pay these high prices for our high cost products. President Nixon has taken the first step in America towards a withdrawal from the drug SFN. He has decided to impose a 10 per cent surcharge on importations. A quick look at American imports, which are not high in terms of the gross national product of that country, shows that most of its imports come from Japan because, as I have already said, Japan is a lower cost producer than America is at this time. Where does Japan obtain most of her raw materials for the goods which it sends to America and other parts of the world? We know because we are the lucky country which has the indigenous materials such as iron ore, bauxite, nickel, copper, oil and gas. We will be affected not so much by the results to be obtained from this Budget as we will by the decision of President Nixon and the American people to withdraw from the tremendous inflationary trend that has beset that country and which is also now besetting Australia.

It is true that we learnt the lesson in 1961 and 1962 that an unemployment pool did have some effect on damping down the economy of a country. We have watched the events in England, the United States and France and we realise that they still have unemployment. I have already given the figures in relation to this. These countries still have wage push inflation; that is, those people who are still in employment, through their union bosses, decide that they must get more and more money, having little regard for the end result as to the cost of the commodity and having no regard for the fact that ultimately the goods produced will not be saleable anywhere and certainly will not be saleable overseas. In other words, I believe that union bosses have a responsibility and I am saying that they should have, as a government must have, some responsibility for those people who are out of work, those who are in receipt of pensions, the aged, the maimed, the sick and so on.

I therefore reject the concept that collective bargaining is the answer to the problems that beset Australia today. The countries I have referred to negotiate their price fixing agreements by the method known as collective bargaining. What happened to that once great Rolls-Royce company in the United Kingdom? That was a company which was more than 100 years old, a company whose products were sought after by the motor industries throughout the world and a company whose aircraft engines were sought after by all countries. Because of the demands by the wage earners to wage earners who represent management and because of the consistent acceptance by management of those demands the RollsRoyce company is now insolvent. There is no doubt in my mind that that company will never reach the status in the world that it had in the past.

What happened at the works of the Ford company at Dagenham in England? The workers there, because of the actions of the union bosses, were on strike for 4 or 5 months last year, lt was the intention of the Ford administration in America to pump $40m into the Dagenham plant in the United Kingdom to make sure it was brought up to date so that it would be able to compete with the French, the Germans and the Japanese. But because of the 4-month strike by the workers at the Ford plant at Dagenham the administration of the Ford company in America said: ‘No dice; $40m would be sending good money after bad’. Whilst it has no relevance to the Ford plant at Dagenham, I have seen in different imports that the Ford company in America is now investing this money in South Korea, Singapore and Malaysia. This is what the British worker is missing out on.

Let us talk about the Clyde shipyards, where there have been wage demands for years and years. The shipyards in the Clyde area were subsidised by the British Government because they tried to be competitive with the shipyards in Europe and Japan. The British Government reached the stage when it said that the subsidy to the Clyde shipyards had gone too high, and therefore the shipyards made the decision that they would have to close down. So the workers - 1 say we are all workers - decided that they would manage the Clyde shipyards. What was the first instruction to their fellow workers by those who had usurped the management authority? They said: ‘There shall be no drunkenness in the shipyard; there shall be no absenteeism and no sickies without a proper report from a doctor’. Tn other words, T am saying - and it is something we should all consider - that unions try to impose their own tyranny on their own workers once they take the helm. We do not want this sort of thing to happen in Australia. That is why I reject the principle of collective bargaining. Individual companies do accede to demands, under the stand and deliver tactics of militant unions. It is all very well to talk about 90 per cent of the people in Australia being wage or salary earners. But how many of them are unionists? Thirty-seven per cent are unionists. Now, of course, the great Mr Hawke, who is supported by the Opposition, is endeavouring to force compulsory unionism on all types of commercial enterprises throughout Australia.

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

– That is Mr Souter.

Mr WHITTORN:

– It is Mr Hawke and his henchmen - I could not care less - someone in the militant trade union movement. We have learned from the experience of the United Kingdom, France, Canada and the United States of America that collective bargaining just does not work. It can and does build up this unemployment pool that honourable members opposite talk about, and the union bosses and those in work have no responsibility for the unemployed. In Australia there must be a tripartite arrangement. Industry must look after its own interests and the unions must look after the interests of their workers, but the Government must have a say also because it must have the responsibility of looking after the unemployed, the pensioners, the sick, the maimed and the aged. It is all very well for the Opposition to say: ‘We want more wages’. The boss is always the bad man in the piece. But the Government has this responsibility and has to tax those who are in work more and more to ensure that those who are out of work, those who cannot help themselves and those who are on pensions, can achieve a reasonable standard of living. 1 said earlier that there was a reasonable way of comparing average weekly earnings over many years in terms of the consumer price index, so 1 will quote a few figures for the benefit of honourable members opposite who say: ‘We must get more of this drug SFN, something for nothing’. It is useless in the long run and will ultimately build up this unemployment pool that they are all so frightened of. From 1964 to 1970-71 average wages per male worker have increased each year by 7.1 per cent. The average consumer price index in that period has increased by 3.4 per cent each year.

Mi Birrell - What about profits?

Mr WHITTORN:

– It takes a very simple calculation to indicate that all workers in work are getting more to spend each time they get wages rises. I would like to relate the increase in wages to increased productivity. This also can be done. I think it is a shame that Australia was credited in 1965-66 with a 1.4 per cent decrease in gross national product, but over the years I have mentioned the average figure is approximately 2.5 per cent, lt may be 3 per cent; if honourable members want these figures I have them with me. One honourable member opposite by way of interjection asked: ‘How about the profits?’ Honourable members opposite always talk about the profits of Broken Hill Pty Co. Ltd, General Motors-Holden Ltd and such companies. The trouble is that they do not read the information available to them. The rate of profit for BHP is 2c in the $1. Wages account for 23 per cent of its costs, whereas 2c in the $1 covers the profits.

Mr Birrell:

– Why are they advertising that it is 4c?

Mr WHITTORN:

– Two cents are also retained for expansion to increase productivity in the company itself. It retains 4c in the $1 altogether. If the workers of this country want this 4c in the $1 as a rise next year and so take all the profit away from BHP, for my part they can take it because it would be useless in checking inflation.

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

Mr GARRICK:
Batman

– I rise to support the amendment in condemnation of the Budget. As mentioned by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam) this Budget is a declaration of war against the wage and salary earners. It is designed to create that pool of unemployed which members of the Liberal Party have always considered necessary, and to place the burdens of inflationary problems on the backs of the wage and salary earners and even the pensioners. Although many people who are dissatisfied with the Government’s discharge of its responsibilities, both foreign and domestic, have described Australia mockingly as a quarry surrounded by an oil slick, in reference to the cynical sellout of this country’s natural resources, the recent Australian nation-wide opinion poli seemed to indicate that most people agreed with Mr Donald Home’s description of a few years ago that Australia is the lucky country. The poll showed that this country’s biggest advantages were a good standard of living, a good climate and good business opportunities. There is no doubt that the good climate is a matter of luck, and perhaps a matter of opinion, although that might be disputed by those who would say that many of our people have taken advantage of the alleged good business opportunities to make a good standard of living and searched out a climate compatible with their interests.

But there is a flaw in that kind of thinking. It is in the assumption that the existence of good business opportunities implies that all members of society can take advantage of such opportunities to raise themselves above the level of wage earners. In the classic statement of the Social Demo cratic view of equality R. H. Tawney demonstrated that in industrial society most men are destined to be life-long wage earners. He wrote:

Though each is free to assume the risks and responsibilities of independent enterprise, what is possible for each, is not possible for ali.

Tawney went on to say that the working man realises that well-being must be attained not as the result of personal advancement, but as a result of collective effort.

The quintessence of Liberal philosophy - or perhaps we should skip the use of euphemism and say that the Government’s rationale for the exploitation of man by man - has been revealed in every Budget it has brought down since 1949. This year we see increases in indirect and direct taxation, the former - the more immoral form - designed as it is to aggravate the plight of pensioners, and exacerbate the difficulties of those more than one million Australians living, according to reliable authorities, on the poverty line. There was a time not long past when people would not believe that so many were poverty stricken. Now everyone not only believes but also accepts the horrible fact with perfect equanimity. Consequently, with typical Liberal indifference, instead of budgeting to improve the lot of these forsaken people, this Government is budgeting to squeeze them a little more.

During the debate on the income tax bill last year I was surprised to hear the then honourable member for Curtin, now the Minister for Supply (Mr Garland) say:

I think the tendency today is that there should be more indirect taxation so that the individual can make up his mind as to how he will spend his earnings.’

The honourable member for Curtin seemed to be saying that he was agreeable that beer drinkers or, if you like, smokers should be taxed to meet the country’s expenses or accept the alternative and give up those pleasures or opiates. I think it might be possible to get him to agree that that profit makers, or the rich, or the usurers should pay the expenses of the country or accept the alternative and give up avarice and the exploitation of their fellows.

The indirect taxation imposed on people by medium of listener’s and viewer’s licences is a very nasty piece of work. For people in the lower income groups who never get an annual holiday and who never go to the pictures or the theatre, the wireless and television provide their only entertainment, and contact, with that which is new and novel. The purchase of a listener’s and viewer’s licence at a cost of $26.50 may not be a hardship for the worker on $80-odd a week. But who earns $80 or more a week? Recently I heard an interesting story on This Day Tonight’, a television programme which I am told honourable members opposite view with less than approval. An estate agent related that a migrant family came to inquire about the purchase of a house. The family appeared reluctant to answer the agent’s inquiry as to how much the family earned. So, he said, with reasonable tact: ‘You would need a weekly income of about $80 to buy a house’, to which the head of the family questioned: ‘Does anyone in Australia earn $80 a week?’.

Honourable members opposite will have no difficulty in answering the question of the head of that family. My colleague, the honourable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr Crean), told them last October, when he presented to this House during the debate on the Income Tax Bill a table that he had prepared showing that, despite the assertions of the honourable member for Balaclava (Mr Whithorn), fewer than 20 per cent of Australian taxpayers earned more than $80 a week. In fact, for the vast majority of Australian wage earners a weekly wage of $80 would represent a princely sum, for they earn considerably less than that, and these are the people who are being taxed exceedingly by this Government. In Victoria, if a man earns much less than $80 a week, he cannot buy a house from the State Housing Commission. The truth is that more than half the wage earners in Victoria would be ineligible for such a house and would be condemned to live in a flat. This however is by the way. The point is that the people who are hardest hit by this Budget, are in that section or, if honourable members like, that socio-economic sector which has never had it very good, never had it easy and, under this Government, never will.

I find great difficulty in believing that this Government is really interested in curbing inflation. It is interesting to note that, after the national wage case in 1970 when wages were increased by 6 per cent the former Treasurer, the honourable member for Wentworth (Mr Bury) warned of the danger of serious inflation and he predictably said that wage increases would bc to blame. He was giving credence to that nonsensical myth of the ‘wage-price spiral’ according to which wage increases cause price increases. The reality is that men cause wage increases, and men cause price increases - the former in search of justice and dignity for themselves and their families and the latter in search of dominance and privilege.

To break this vicious chain, the less privileged are exhorted to exercise restraint and to hope that their hard work will be rewarded when productivity has increased and the iron laws of competition and supply and demand, acting independently of man, will bring prices down. There is no doubt that this Government serves the interests of big business and of privilege, although it would deny this and say it supports private initiative. There is no evidence that inflation affects big business and privilege adversely; indeed the converse is the case because both thrive on inflation. But not only the great corporations do well during period of inflation. Governments do pretty well also. While the people without power, the people whose faces reflect the many aspects of poverty, are urged to exercise restraint, and are castigated if they demand wage justice, the Government and the big corporations gain more revenue for the one and increased profits for the other. Why the privileged should expect the vast army of exploited to exercise restraint while they continue their self-indulgence is not difficulty to fathom. They see the working class as nature’s philanthropists.

If this Government is serious, why does it tolerate the fixing of prices by the big monopolies? Why, one can justly ask, does this Government permit the sale of goods at prices far above their real value? There is an abundance of evidence that in many industries such as iron, oil and cars, prices are much higher than the value of the goods. It is well known that many manufacturers have no competitors and that prices arc fixed not on the basis of competition or supply and demand but on the basis of cost plus, wherein the plus factor is determined by the maximum that the market can bear.

This Government has fostered inflation as a means of reducing real wages. I am led to believe that it was none other than the inimitable Keynes who pointed out that a wage cut can be more easily achieved by increasing prices and that this method does not so readily arouse opposition as does a direct wage cut. But inflation has advantages for governments also. As a means of increasing taxation, inflation is without equal. In this regard one American economist whose name escapes me said: ‘It makes a lot of people pay taxes whom the politicians are unwilling to tax’. For example, income tax rose from SI, 873m in 1963-64 to $4,052m in 1969-70, an increase of 116 per cent, whereas in the same period wages rose from $8, 795m to $1 5,504m, an increase of only 76 per cent. If this Budget has done anything, it has demonstrated once and for all that Australian society is not egalitarian. There are some Australians who have not yet grasped this important fact.

More disturbing than that, however, is the revelation by this Budget that Australia is not even moving in the direction of an egalitarian society. The evidence for this is clearly revealed in this Government’s education policy. There is no doubt that the members opposite are responsible in large measure for the inequalities and injustices which are now features of the general educational situation in Australia. In increasing the taxation concession for students, the Government is assisting one section of the community only, a section which is largely privileged, at the expense of those whose need is greater. There is no doubt that much of the money spent on education would be better spent laying good foundations for future scholastic success in the primary schools.

Perhaps there is not much hope of these injustices being redressed. During the Christmas session of Parliament in one of our State legislatures Sir Arthur Rylah asked, in a matter concerning cruelty to children: ‘How far must taxpayers be expected to go in looking after other people’s children’? Ironically enough, this was said at a time when he was rather more than willing to look after other people’s reading matter. However, Sir Arthur Rylah’s question might be rephrased: ‘How far should working class taxpayers be expected to deny their own children primary education in order to subsidise the secondary and tertiary education of those who can afford to pay fees of $400 a year or more?’ It is not news to us that for every man, woman and child in Australia 1 in 7 or 13 per cent of our population is receiving a pension of one sort or another. These people pay indirect taxation, and it would be interesting to know exactly how much. I would not be surprised to learn that the pensioner component in our society paid proportionally more in taxation one way or another than any other section. Such is the cynicism of the Government towards those who are without power in this country. This is the sickness of our country. Those who are powerless enjoy few of the fruits when they are abundant and are denied proportionately more when they are scarce.

A pensioner couple in my electorate who will now receive a pension of $30.50 can expect to pay increased taxes in the form of Council and Melbourne Metropolitan Board of Works rates, apart from other inevitable increases. I know of several instances in my electorate of Batman where elderly citizens who have served this country well and by dint of hard work and thrift have managed . to buy their homes are now placed in the undignified position of being unable to pay their rates without reducing their living standard below the poverty line, and are thus deprived of the confidence necessary for properly adjusted living. If this Government is concerned about the well being of the people of this country, and not only of the well to do, then it should maintain real wages by pegging prices with proper price controls, reduce taxes on lower incomes, lower local government rates and taxes, and improve and extend social services. If we are to move towards an egalitarian society these reforms are necessary now. This Government must redistribute the nation’s wealth. It has made no attempt to do so in the Budget. It is therefore to be condemned.

Mr STALEY:
Chisholm

– It is an extraordinarily complex international future which faces our nation. Gone are the implicities and the noble certainties of the past. Gone is the sense of assurance, which we had for so long, in the everlasting arms of the motherland. We stand alone, Sir, on the edge of Asia. Today we watch the tragic war in Vietnam wind down. But we cannot expect tomorrow’s Asia to be less tangled or tense than today’s. We have been a most fortunate nation both internationally and domestically. We have been a lucky country. But a lucky country can hardly be a great country except perhaps in the disc jockey sense of the term. There is no greatness in being tied to the apron strings. Now our need will be our opportunity. Our increasing isolation from our old friends and allies is our challenge, for we can and we must think and act more independently.

In doing so we can begin to play a significant, if small, role in the affairs of nations and some day, maybe, a great role. But let us be under no illusions. Our withdrawal from the tragic Vietnam situation will not ease our burden of decision. Day by day our foreign, defence and trade policies will grow more difficult to formulate as we search for and define Australia’s deep and unique national interests. The financial costs of bearing our own burden in our region will rise sharply. At home we must encourage an ever deeper understanding of the cultures of the nations of our region and of the international relationships within our region.

Overseas we must maintain the first class foreign affairs representation which we have built up. We must talk to the Chinese, as our diplomats have done on the instructions of the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon). We must take trips to China - and T include the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam) in this. It is a good thing for the Leader of the Opposition to go to China. It is a sensible initiative and the sort of thing that an Opposition should be doing. Indeed, it would be a poor Leader of the Opposition who could not from time to time help to focus the nation’s attention on a major issue and who could not even push the Government along a little. Taking a trip is, of course, one thing and a fashionable thing these days, but it is a risky venture though, admittedly, one which a responsible leader should take. So the Leader of the Opposition took a trip to China, and good luck to him.

What a pity that he undid his good work. What a pity he got hooked by his addiction to the easy temptations of instant diplomacy and policy making. What a pity he did not take a trip, say little, learn as much as possible and come home quietly to ponder the possibilities and his future policy. What a pity to see the Leader of the Opposition go to Communist China, there to produce a policy. What a strange thing to see him there produce a policy which is not in Australia’s best interests, a policy which sacrifices certain of our basic principles of international relations, a policy which could hardly be regarded as uniquely Australian or, indeed, as independent, a policy which talks of recognising the real facts but in fact takes the easy way out.

How easy it all was and how reminiscent it was of the Leader of the Opposition’s earlier trips to Papua New Guinea. Again he took an excellent initiative. He made a good move. But again the addiction to easy temptations of instant diplomacy destroyed the good work. How interesting and important was the fatal policy flaw in both cases? The fatal flaw was that the Leader of the Opposition sacrificed the self-determination of a people. Let us take New Guinea. He flew in the face of the United Nations declaration about self-determination of a people. He said when the people of Papua New Guinea should have self government. He said when the people of Papua New Guinea should have independence. He did not go there to listen to the people of Papua New Guinea and to say that he would put into effect what they wished in their way. He did not listen to the voices of the people of Papua New Guinea.

Take Taiwan, where again he took the path of seeking apparent popularity at home, where again with his addiction to the temptations of instant diplomacy he took the easy and the inhumane way out by ignoring the future of the people of Taiwan. Let us be blunt. We have, all of us, been involved in fictions over China and in fictions over Taiwan. The Communist Chinese, or mainland Chinese as we call them today, as much as the Americans, as much as ourselves, as much as the Taiwanese regime, want reality. We want to approach reality in our attempt to solve this complex and terribly important human problem of international relations.

But I argue that to put 2 facts together does not equal reality. That is to say, the fact that the people of mainland China recognise Taiwan as a province of China and that the Taiwanese regime recognises Taiwan also as a province of China does not lead us inexorably to the proposition that Taiwan, therefore, in all law, sense and justice is a province of China. It is not recognising reality to let this be the last word on the status of Taiwan. The native people of Taiwan were ruled briefly by the Spanish, the Portuguese and the Dutch, and then for more than 250 years by Manchu China until Japan acquired the island in 1895 and the people of Taiwan - or Formosa, as it used to be called - were not permitted self determination in 1945.

What today are the main possibilities facing the people of Taiwan at this crucial turning point in their history when so much is in the balance for them? Which alternatives will allow the people of Taiwan the maximum opportunity of determining their own future? One future possibility is the conquest of Taiwan by mainland China. This could be either through armed force or through some sort of peaceful merger, but there is not a shadow of a doubt that Communist Chinese policy is to liberate Taiwan, and we have lived long enough with wars of national liberation to know what they mean. Equally there is no doubt that the great majority of Taiwan’s people have little desire to be so liberated.

The fatal flaw, the inhuman flaw - even, I would argue, the tragic flaw - in the policy of the Leader of the Opposition is that it says to the mainland Chinese: ‘Go ahead. Liberate those Taiwanese who do not want to be liberated. They do not matter to me.’ I repeat, that is precisely the policy of the Leader of the Opposition. He is saying to the Communist Chinese ‘Go ahead’. He has not accepted the Canadian formula. He has rejected the Canadian formula inasmuch as the Canadian formula involved the Canadians in not finally pronouncing on the status of Taiwan. The Leader of the Opposition has finally pronounced on the status of Taiwan. He has declared that Taiwan is a province of China, and that, precisely, is what the Canadians were not prepared to do, and that is the heart of the fatal flaw in the approach of the Leader of the Opposition to this vital matter.

I would argue that any other approach to the Taiwan problem is preferable to the approach of the Leader of the Opposition. Any other single approach that one can conceive is preferable, and this is because of the high principles which are involved. Because these high principles are involved in Australia’s national interests and in Australia’s national security, we must support the Prime Minister’s important moves to recognise and to welcome mainland China to the United Nations. We must support him in doing this in such a way that the principles for which we, as a nation, have always fought, will still stand. Because mainland China and the present nationalist Chinese rulers will not budge from their claim over Taiwan - what one might call their legalistic claims - this is no ground for Australia to give away other people’s basic rights by selling them to the strongest bidder, without even a fight. Surely an independent and uniquely Australian policy could never have meant this.

Mr ENDERBY:
Australian Capital Territory

– Tonight the House is examining the Budget although, having listened to the honourable member for Chisholm (Mr Staley) I began to have some doubts. 1 do not intend to be very long. When I found my name down to speak on the Budget tonight I searched my conscience. I have given much thought to the Budget and to what it means. I have discussed it in various public places. 1 thought that I could come into the House and analyse the Budget but then it struck me that this would be dishonest and wrong because, quite frankly, I am biased. I am prejudiced. I think it far more accurate and more valuable for me to say this right at the outset and try to give my reasons for being biased and prejudiced against this Budget which has been introduced by the Government for the year 1971-72. 1 look at what has happened to this country during the 20-odd years of Liberal-Country Party government. It is run down. All the values that goodthinking people attach to a country have tended to be dissipated under this coalition Government. When I say this I refer to things like our per capita rate of growth which is one of the lowest for a Western industrialised country. This has happened notwithstanding that we have always regarded ourselves with pride as an industrious, hard-working people who have inherited and live in one of the richest countries in the world. Much of our richness has only recently been discovered. I am speaking now of its mineral wealth. nothwithstanding all these discoveries the per capita growth rate of this great country is one of the lowest in the world.

T look also at our educational system and I compare it with the educational systems of other countries which are comparable with Australia. In our secondary school system there is a terrible, deep and prolonged crisis. No-one denies it; the Government just does not talk about it. It refuses to discuss it. The only survey available on this problem indicates that the amount of money that is required to be spent is something like $ 1,400m just to maintain the status quo, which is not very good anyway. This is an indication of the depth of the problem. One cannot assess a country’s real values better than by looking at the way it treats its young people. In Canberra the resignation rate of school teachers is running at about 13 per cent per annum. Recently someone did a survey of the situation in Queanbeyan. This revealed that last year there was a turnover of about 24 per cent of teachers. I ask honourable members to reflect on that figure. What is causing this situation?

Many people think that Canberra is pampered with respect to education because it appears to have nice new buildings. The buildings are new all right but there are not sufficient teachers. Male teachers are saying: T can mike more money selling insurance’ or T can make more money and can look after my wife and children better by selling used cars’. This is the sort of value that is being reflected by the Government’s policies which are emanating from this Parliament and which have emanated from it for many years. These are the reasons why I stand here tonight and admit frankly that I am biased. I could not possibly put my mind to analyse this Budget in a free, objective sense and say: T will analyse it, I will be judicial and try to be fair! If I were a judge sitting in a court I would have to say that I could not hear this case. I would not have the feeling that I was being fair. I would have to say: T have made up my mind already. The evidence against this Government is overwhelming and was overwhelming long before its introduced this Budget’.

However one cannot stop there. One must ask why. Is the failure by the Government in the past confirmed again by the Budget. 1 think it is confirmed in this Budget. I refer again to education. Male teachers are leaving the profession because they cannot make a living from teaching. One of the most fundamental objectives of any society is to try to perpetuate and inculcate values in the young. Our teaching service is subsisting where it can by the employment of working wives - women who have raised their children and who are unable to cope financially. They have returned to work and become, in effect, part-time teachers - rusty and out of touch to an extent with modern training. But the educational system limps along with stop gap measures of this sort. Measures are being adopted to take sport out of the curriculum. Other measures are being taken to tell boys and girls in the secondary educational system hypocritically that it is better for them to teach themselves. They are not being told honestly that the teachers are not available for them. They are being told hypocritically that it is better to teach themselves, that it will develop a sense of responsibility in some way, that it will stand them in good stead if and when they ever go to a university. These are the values that this Government has allowed to develop, and has encouraged to develop. This is the sort of thing that puts me in my present frame of mind.

I will give honourable members another example in regard to housing. When 1 came to Canberra 7 or 8 years ago the housing list had 1,000 or 2.000 names on it and the waiting period was about 2 years. Instead of that list being reduced and progress being made, as would be expected if one thought of progress in the sense of improving living conditions, the position has become worse. In the last 12 months the housing list has grown from 4,000 names to 6,000 names.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– How do Ministers get houses?

Mr ENDERBY:

– I do not know how Ministers get houses. They have ways of their own. This is a situation that really affects the people of Canberra - this show place that is being developed. It is the same throughout the rest of the country.

I now turn to social services. I mention the number of people who are immigrants to this country, who have wanted to build a good life here for themselves, who have become naturalised, who have put in 10, 12, 15 or 20 years hard work building the Snowy Mountains scheme and bringing about its completion, who have helped to construct Canberra. They then grow old and want to slow down or stop work. They find that when they talk to their compatriots from Europe that it is no good retiring in this country. The pensions are not good enough. They are told to go back to Italy, Holland, Belgium, Germany or the other parts of Europe because there they can grow old and be cared for. Every honourable member in this House must have had this experience, because I have met it so often. Such people have the problem of what the effect will be if they become naturalised in Australia. This is the sort of thing that has happened in this great country of ours over so many years under the leadership of the Liberal-Country Party Government. This has happened in a country that, together with New Zealand, Germany and Prussia in the latter years of the 19th century, pioneered social services. We poineered such things. We were the forerunners and set the pace. Today, immigrants go back to Europe because it is no good growing old in this country. These are the sorts of things that compel me to say it is no good my trying to analyse this Budget because I start with a prejudiced and biased attitude.

A couple of days before the presentation of the Budget an event happened in the United States of America which affected the entire world. It made this Budget completely irrelevant; complete balderdash; not worth the paper it is written on. Yet the Budget was not postponed. The Treasurer (Mr Snedden) presented it to this House as if the events in Europe and the United States - the American President’s declaration of floating the American dollar - had nothing to do with it. Yet every learned economist - every person who understands the situation as it affects international trade and our ability to earn income - knows that that event, which was pending, made this so called Budget completely irrelevant.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I think the Government is out of its depth.

Mr ENDERBY:

– 1 agree. But more than that, 1 do not think it realises that it is out of its depth. Even if that event had not happened - and it was foreseeable - the American sneezes had been going on for a long time. Plenty of signs were emanating from the United States of America to indicate that such a move was imminent or likely to take place. Yet no-one at the Government level in this country seems to have concerned himself or taken any account of the situation. Even if one could isolate the Budget from these events altogether, this is a deflationary Budget. The Treasurer talked about the great need to stop galloping inflation. Fair enough; no-one could complain about that but who caused inflation? If honourable members turn to the Treasury White Paper recently published - Australian Economy 1971 - they will find it finished with this remark:

By and large, however, the conclusion to be drawn is that our inflationary problem has in the main had its origins here-

That is here in Australia - and has gained its impetus from home sources. There is no doubt where it came from. The inflationary trend began with the Government’s Budget introduced in 1969, reinforced with the Budget last year. In other words, it is a self-induced thing. It may well be that if one wanted to be cynical - I am not - one could say that it was planned this way. Speaking in the malicious sense what better way is there to allocate or re-allocate resources than by inflation? If one is a member of the coalition parties that represent certain interests in the community that are essentially wealthy interests, what better way would one have to help one’s friends than to encourage or permit inflation. With the diminishing purchasing power of the $1 the only person who suffers is the person on the low fixed income. The person who can turn his money over, who can invest and change his investment, who can speculate, will profit and do well by inflation. There is no problem there. If one represents such o person’s interests, there is no problem at all. It does not matter then for the person on the low and fixed income.

Of course, if such a person is represented by big and powerful friends - I mean by that trade unions who can look after and protect his interests - he can manage to keep up a little. He will not lose too much. But if he is a person who is not represented by big and powerful friends - pensioners or superannuated public servants - he will fall further and further behind. Honourable members will have the despicable, despairing, disappointing and depressing spectacle of people like those people putting up their hands in despair. They will say: ‘Please help us. Look, it is 3 years since we have received a rise in payments’, or: ‘We have not received a 50c increase for 6 months. Please do something’. But this Government does not seem to do much about it at all. Such people have no-one to push for them. So inflation develops. This method of allocation of resources is a truly bad, unfair and dishonest one because it is a secret and hidden way of moving resources up.

If honourable members look at this Government’s policy, it seems to me they will find such examples all the way through. Honourable members can look at the tax on petrol or the increased postal charges. It all adds up to the same thing. The real point is this, and I say it because quite frankly I am disappointed: I think this Budget is not worth the paper it is written on. I think only one thing will attend to the mounting crisis in this country. That will be a complete change of government bringing with it fresh ideas. I ask honourable members to look, for example, at the rural crisis. The rural industries will be affected by events in the United States, which affect Japan and which will in turn affect us. We know that. Honourable members opposite talk about a figure of $60m. As I look at the honourable member for Angas sitting on the other side of the House, I think it is almost laughable. He must know it is almost laughable. This sum of money is allocated in such a way that it will all end up with Mr Dalgety anyway. These days, Mr Dalgety does not put his money back into the land. As he sees it in his interest, he has better things to do with it because his interests do not reflect the interests of

Australia. He will put the money somewhere else. Much of the S60m will find its way to Mr Dalgety and people like him. The little man on the land will not be helped. The money will not be allocated on the basis of need. The big man who is grazing cattle who is in no real state of crisis does not need it so much. It is the fellow who does not have cattle, who is completely dependent on wool, who really needs it.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– The honourable member for Angas gets $15,000 out of this.

Mr ENDERBY:

– Does he really? There you are. It is a sorry state. I know that traditionally we are accustomed to budgets being tabled in this House. It is a sorry state to reflect that no planning of any sort, other than a query as to what will happen after these things have occurred - no foresight, no vision - is to be found in the Government parties. When the Government looks at the wealth that this country is able to produce it is able happily to say that it will take $630m out of it in order to cure this illness that it has encouraged or even brought about. We will cure it or try to cure it or try to slow down this disease we have allowed to creep into the economy by taking $630m out of it. When I was a schoolboy I was taught that money was a measure of value and I have not met an economist anywhere who has ever said it was anything else. It is a means of exchange and other things too but it is essentially a measure of value. The Government is taking $630m out of the economy, value that could be used for houses, schools, development or social services. The best that the Government can do is take $630m worth of value out of the economy and leave it dead.

Debate (on motion by Mr Giles) adjourned.

page 727

ADJOURNMENT

Sydney: Second Airport - Budget and Estimates Debates - Unemployment - Royal Australian Navy-Shipping Freight Rates

Motion (by Mr Lynch) proposed:

That the House do now adjourn.

Mr ARMITAGE:
Chifley

– I rise tonight to deal with a matter which I have unfortunately had to deal with previously in this House; it relates to the proposed second airport for Sydney. I wish to make it clear in the initial stage of my speech that I am far from opposed to a proposal for a second airport, lt is obvious that one has to be brought into being and it is equally obvious that it is something which will have to last New South Wales for the next 50 years. The way it is going it will not even be built until the 1980s so we are talking in terms of 60 years or more. It is equally important to realise that we do not even know the types of aeroplanes which will be flying during that period or the problems of aircraft noise, pollution and all the rest that will arise. It is very important to see that the job is done properly. We should think big. We should not just think of getting something which will overcome the problems of the moment. We should think in terms of something which will last New South Wales and Australia as a whole as an international airport for 60 years. For this reason we must think big and we must be prepared to invest real capital in the proposal.

I have expressed concern to the House before, and 1 still do, at proposals that the second airport might be placed in the area of Richmond, Londonderry, and Berkshire Park which is just to the west of Sydney. If it were to be built in that area it would mean severe aircraft noise problems for areas such as Windsor, Richmond, the huge Mount Druitt housing commission estate in the western part of my electorate, Cambridge Park, Penrith and St Mary’s. Areas which are heavily built up and populated by young families would be vitally affected by the very great problems of aircraft noise. In other words, we would only be transferring the aircraft noise problem partially from around Mascot and putting it out into those areas where the great majority of the population are young people bringing up families and I do not think that this is just.

Mr James:

– Where is the airport going? Is it going to be in the electorate of Mitchell?

Mr ARMITAGE:

– Yes, it will be in a part of the electorate of Mitchell. I know that the State Planning Authority of New South Wales has been acquiring land at both Londonderry and Berkshire Park. It has made offers to acquire land and I even have copies of correspondence here in which it states unequivocally that in some instances it is prepared to purchase land because the land might be affected by a second airport proposal. I have a letter here in which the Authority states that it is prepared to exchange the land for land at North Plumpton because the land concerned might be affected by a second airport proposal. This is in black and white from the State Planning Authority itself. I wrote to the Minister for Civil Aviation (Senator Cotton) on 15th July. I outlined the attitude of the Authority and its latest offer which, as I mentioned, was to exchange land at Berkshire Park for land it owns at North Plumpton because it might be affected by the second airport proposal.

I also referred to a deputation to him last November - which I accompanied - by representatives of 5 municipal and shire councils, namely, the municipal councils of Blacktown, Penrith, Windsor, Blue Mountains and the Colo Shire Council. The Minister agreed that an early decision was esential in respect of the siting of the second airport and that he hoped to have the matter before Cabinet last January. He also said he would have early discussions with the New South Wales Government. I asked him, in view of the latest developments in respect of the State Planning Authority wishing to acquire land for a possible second airport at Berkshire Park, firstly, whether the Berkshire Park area was on the list of sites being considered for the second airport. Secondly, I asked whether the report of the inter-departmental committee which inquired into the site of a second airport had been considered by Cabinet, and if so, at what stage that consideration rested. Thirdly, I asked whether in view of previous advice from him that some discussion had been held with the State Government concerning the question had any further discussion been held of a determining nature, and if so, where this discussion rested. Fourthly, I asked when it was anticipated that a final decision on the siting of the airport would be reached.

Mr James:

– What did he say about it?

Mr ARMITAGE:

– That letter was written on 15th July. All he has done is acknowledge it in a letter on 19th July. I have not received another reply from him since. Packer’s Press came out last weekend and called for an early decision on this matter. The Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) came forward yesterday and in answer to a question from the honourable member for Barton (Mr Reynolds) - keep in mind that it was not until the ‘Daily Telegraph’ had demanded that something be done about this - acquiesced to Packer’s power and said: 1 discussed this problem last Thursday with my colleague, the Minister for Civil Aviation. He has submitted certain proposals to me. Those proposals will be submitted to Cabinet, and shortly afterwards the Minister for Civil Aviation will make an announcement in the Senate.

I have heard of one area - I think it is called Warnervale - which is about 6 miles away from any living area and the people there would be quite happy, from what I have heard, for the airport to toe built there.

Mr James:

– It is on the fringe of the electorate of Hunter.

Mr ARMITAGE:

– Yes. If this proposal which is to be submitted to Cabinet by the Minister in any way suggests that the airport should be placed near any living areas, whether out in the far western suburbs or in any other area which will be affected by aircraft noise, the matter should be placed before the people affected and a referendum held. I think they should be able to make known their attitudes to the proposal. I know some people argue: ‘Oh, yes, but it will mean more factories, more building and more wealth for the landowners.’ But on the other hand there are a lot of other people who wish to enjoy a little quality of life and who would have rigid objections to such a proposal. I would be quite happy to rest on the decision of the people. If the second airport for Sydney is to be situated in the far western suburbs of that city or, for that matter, in any other area, the people living in the area affected should have the right to express by way of a referendum their attitude to the proposal. I call upon the Government to adopt this approach. 1 hope it will do so as soon as possible after making known its proposal. As the Minister for Civil Aviation admitted to the deputation to him last November, the area about which I am concerned is on the list of sites being considered.

Mr GILES:
Angas

– I am well aware of the fact that aircraft noise and its associated problems can be highly emotional and important issues to the people concerned and to honourable members who represent electorates that may be affected. But that is not why I have risen to participate in this debate. My only reason for entering into this debate is to indicate that this afternoon I had a discussion with the Opposition Whip and one or two members of the Opposition concerning debates in this chamber, lt seemed to me to be quite sensible - I think I received a certain measure of agreement from honourable members opposite - that during the debate on the Budget and the subsequent debate on the Estimates, which I gather will take quite some time, the maximum effort of the House and its members should be put into these debates. There will be every opportunity for honourable members during both these debates to discuss virtually any matters they choose. For instance tonight we have heard an excellent speech on foreign affairs by the honourable member for Chisholm (Mr Staley). 1 hope therefore that matters of great importance to honourable members-

Mr Armitage:

– Aircraft noise is a matter of very great importance to the people of Australia.

Mr GILES:

– I agree with the honourable member. I wish he would hold his horses for a moment. It is only natural that if the honourable member feels that aircraft noise is a matter of great importance to the people he represents he should be given some opportunity to express his views on the subject. However, he could express his views in the debate on the estimates for the Department of Civil Aviation or, indeed, in the debate on the Budget Speech of the Treasurer. This would be a matter for the judgment of the honourable member for Chifley (Mr Armitage). I am not necessarily complaining. I hope I am making the point clear.

Mr Kennedy:

– What is it?

Mr GILES:

– The honourable member should not blame me for not being able to puncture the thick melon that he calls a skull.

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

– Order! I suggest to the honourable member for Angas that he should moderate his language.

Mr GILES:

– I shall certainly accept your advice, Mr Deputy Speaker, and moderate my language. I am trying to make the point that .the more time this House can devote to the Budget and Estimates debates the more people will be able to speak in those debates. If that fact eludes some honourable members I am very sorry about their level of understanding. It was for that purpose that I participated in this debate. I do not think that the majority of honourable members in this House would continue this debate until 1 o’clock in the morning when we could be putting time into debating the Budget.

Mr KENNEDY:
Bendigo

– The honourable member for Angas (Mr Giles) took about 3 or 4 minutes to make the simple point that the debate on the Budget Speech of the Treasurer (Mr Snedden) is of greater importance than a debate on the motion for the adjournment of the House. The honourable member made some very unpleasant and impolite comments which I think I should refute. Perhaps the best way to do so would be to pronounce the name of his electorate with greater emphasis on the last syllable. However, I have something more important to do than to reply to the comments made by the honourable member for Angas.

I am especially concerned about the unemployment position that has been created in my electorate as a result of the economic policies of the Government. I would like to see the Government take some action to deal with the unemployment situation which has been caused by those policies. It has just been drawn to my attention that 25 young apprentices in the building industry in my electorate have been put out of work, some temporarily and the others permanently. This fs a very serious situation. When an employer gets to the stage of sacking his apprentices it means that things are going very badly indeed. These sackings are the direct result of the Government’s policies. 1 believe that the indications are that the position in the future will be far grimmer. It is evident from the Budget that unemployment will increase.

I am particularly concerned about the unemployment situation in my electorate. Unemployment in the Bendigo employment district has now risen to a total of 608 males and females, which is an increase of 46 on the figures of 562 in July last year. But those figures do not give the whole picture. They do not indicate the number of people who are unemployed but just the number of people who have registered as being unemployed. Nor do the figures indicate the number of people who have been unable to find employment in their home city and have left for the metropolis to find work. The unemployment figures provided by the Department of Labour and National Services show that the number of males and females receiving the unemployment benefit has risen to 258, which represents an increase of 64 on the position as at July of last year. So my electorate is faced with a very serious employment situation which I am sure will get worse.

In one part of my electorate, the city of Seymour, 162 males and females are registered as unemployed and 38 people are receiving the unemployment benefit. So the situation is bad. Of course my electorate, which is a country electorate with provincial cities and towns, is not the only electorate affected- The countryside as a whole has been affected. For example, we have a situation in Victoria where the number of people receiving the unemployment benefit is greater in the rural areas than it is in the capital city itself. For example, in July of this year 2,824 people were receiving the unemployment benefit in country areas and 2,753 were receiving it in the metropolitan area. This is a serious situation indeed. The number of people registered as unemployed in July of this year was 6,865 in non-metropolitan areas and 10.936 in the metropolitan area.

It is clear that the present situation has been caused by the Government’s policies. The rural depression is affecting the countryside surrounding the provincial cities and towns in my electorate. It has slashed the spending power of farmers. It has cut down their will and ability to purchase commodities and, in particular, to finance the construction of buildings. This has affected the housing industry, to which I referred earlier.

The Budget has made it abundantly clear that the rural depression is not a one-day, one-week or one-year wonder but is set to last for some considerable time. We have the difficult situation with regard to wool. Very few people can say when, if ever, wool will return an average price of, for example, 40c per lb. A lot of the wool growers in my electorate were formerly great buyers in the cities and towns. They invested in building and construction work, but they are not doing that now. The economic future for primary industry is very grim. The unemployment in the provincial cities and towns is likely, indeed certain, to continue.

On top of the general situation with regard to the rural depression we have the situation facing the housing industry itself. The housing industry was in a very bad condition during the last financial year. One can see this by looking at the Budget figures that have been provided by the Treasurer. It was estimated that 175,000 houses would be built in Australia in 1970-71 - I am speaking about the national situation now - but in actual fact the number turned out to bc 143,000. It is clear that this stagnation will continue in 1971-72. The Budget offers a guarantee of this. Together with the inflation on which the Budget is built there is every indication that stagnation will continue. On real prices there was in fact a decline in 1970-71 of $33m in the amount spent on private building construction compared to the expenditure in the previous year. On the other hand, spending on private non-residential building and construction rose by 17 per cent on real prices.

These are the distortions which exist in the Australian economy. They are affecting house and home buying and building throughout the nation, and they are affecting my electorate. So we have 2 basic problems and I want to see action by the Commonwealth Government. The situation in my electorate at the present time is bad enough, but it will continue unless action is taken to relieve it. I should like to see the Government examine the economic situation and the employment situation in provincial cities of Bendigo, Seymour and Castlemaine, and in other cities and towns in my electorate and in the countryside as a whale. The Government must keep its eyes on the way in which its economic policies are evolving and on the economic effects which those policies are having on country cities and towns.

I should like to see a policy of cooperation between the Commonwealth Government, State governments and local governments so that public works undertaken by Commonwealth, State and local governments can be accelerated in these areas where there is unemployment, so that men can find employment opportunities. 1 should like to see State governments embark on a campaign of building and development programmes, for example, building school libraries. I know that some schools in my own electorate still have not received money from the Commonwealth for the construction of school libraries and science blocks. I should like to see preschools being built. I should also like to see more Housing Commission houses being built. Some Housing Commission homes will be built. Recently the Victorian Government announced that it will be building more Housing Commission homes in the Bendigo area, but I believe that the rate of construction should bc accelerated in this very critical situation.

As regards the Government’s policies on primary industry, it is clear that the present policy on rural reconstruction will mean continued stagnation in country areas. This policy will have to be re-examined. Some real teeth will have to be put into the Government’s primary industry policy. I believe that the Commonwealth Government can do one thing very quickly and very urgently-

Mr Foster:

– That is resign.

Mr KENNEDY:

– That would be the most promising thing not only for the electorate of Bendigo but also for the whole of Australia. 1 think that the Commonwealth Government could immediately set to work on planning and building its communications building which it has scheduled for Bendigo in Victoria. It is supposed to be completed by April 1974. I think that the plans for that programme should be finalised as early as possible. Tenders should be called, if they have not already been called. This building should be commenced as quickly as possible, because it is obvious that it will offer very considerable employment opportunities for the building industry.

The Commonwealth should also reexamine its policy on housing and its general budgetary and economic policies to ensure that those distortions in the building record over the last year are not allowed to continue. If this were done there would be more private home building and the needs of provincial cities and towns would be met. But most importantly of all, there is need for urgent action on decentralisation. We have heard a lot about it. Every honourable member who comes from a country electorate speaks about it, but we all know that nothing has been done about it. Because of the urgent situation in country areas, this is the time when the Government should settle down with the State governments and decide on the action it will take on the question of freights and the cost of setting up factories. The State governments are to be given the right to impose payroll tax. The money raised from this tax should be used to encourage industrial development.

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

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

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

– Tonight I wish to raise a matter which 1 consider to be of great significance to many people in Australia. My attention has been drawn to the cases of 2 young men who seek discharge from the Navy. For obvious reasons their names will not be mentioned. However, the Minister for the Navy (Dr Mackay) who is present in the chamber will know who they are, because correspondence has been exchanged in relation to both of these young men. One young man, who is now 21 years of age, has been in the Navy for 3 years. During his term of service so far he has suffered a number of frustrations through being allocated duties for which he claims he was not psychologically suited and being denied the opportunity to engage in duties for which he believed he was better suited.

The short reply to this could be that we cannot have enlisted men telling the Navy how it should be run. I wonder whether perhaps that may not be an improvement. This young man’s father, who is an ex- naval man, is now not enjoying the best of health - mainly due to war service - and he is finding the management of his business affairs becoming very difficult. He has sought, and still seeks, the release from the Navy of his eldest son to assist him with his interests. I believe that the son is most anxious to leave the Navy because of his disillusionment. However, his application for discharge was refused and he has resigned himself to remaining in the Navy for the balance of his term of engagement.

I mention the foregoing as background material. In the same vein I also mention the case of another young man who will be 18 years of age in November of this year. He has already served nearly 3 years of a 12 year term of engagement, having enlisted at the tender age of IS years. He spent his first year at HMAS ‘Leeuwin’ in Western Australia and at present is posted to one of our naval ships. After his first year in the Navy he also became disenchanted with Navy life, but his mother encouraged him to continue. He found life in the Navy was so distasteful that he went absent without leave in Adelaide. He returned to his home in Melbourne, and then went back to the Navy. He suffered a broken leg recently and was hospitalised just before his ship sailed. However, his intense desire to leave the Navy has not abated and he made an application for discharge. The Minister has advised me by letter that the application has been refused. His letter is couched in very sympathetic terms, and I should like to thank him for the kind way in which he phrased it.

But the facts are that this young man is still in the Navy, bound to a life which he has come to loathe, and he is determined to use any method or device to obtain his release. His mother is afraid of what action he will take next, and she is distressed to think that her eldest son, because of his almost paranoiac desire to return to civilian life, may do something which he will perhaps regret for the rest of his life.

The most obvious point arising from both of these instances is that the Navy now has at least two young men who will be unwilling participants in one branch of our armed Services. At least one will apparently stop at nothing to get out of the Navy. Both of them see their term of engagement as almost prison sentences. The problems of both men are similar. They enlisted at an early age for a long period and they have no hope of terminating the arrangement. I feel sure that most honourable members would agree that a young lad at the tender age of 15 years is far too young to commit the next 12 years of his life to a particular course with no chance of change. My own son, at the age of 15 years, was determined to be a motor cycle policeman, a professional wrestler or something just as glamorous. However, at the age of 18 years he left school and started work as a clerk. 1 suggest that the term of engagement is far too long when it is related to the tender ages of the applicants. I further suggest that the difficulties encountered in gaining discharge are too stringent. If it is felt that there is a need for servicemen to give notice before a premature discharge is granted, why cannot a serviceman give a year’s notice of his intention to seek a discharge and leave the Service? Why in 1971 do we still have to lay claim to the bodies of servicemen? If servicemen are anxious to leave the Service, the problem cannot be solved simply by refusing to let them go, because some of them will go, anyhow, and those who stay wil be very disgruntled servicemen. The poposition was put to me that as it costs a great deal of money to train servicemen, they should not be allowed to leave the Services easily. I regard that argument as being both dishonest and immoral. Industry spends money on training people and lays no real claim to them. Taxpayers’ money is used to maintain universities and colleges. Doctors, lawyers and other professional people are trained at the taxpayers’ cost, yet they are not bonded. Once having qualified they may go wherever they please.

As I see it, looking at the system that exists, we should not penalise those who have become disillusioned. I trust that the Government will consider a review of the circumstances that surround the length of engagement for naval service and that it will endeavour to provide a method by which the 2 young men I have mentioned, and others like them, may be able to obtain a discharge - qualified if you like - and so prevent frustrations which are now being suffered. It is probably too late for any action to be taken to review these 2 cases and therefore the mothers must remain in anguish awaiting telephone calls or visits to advise them of the latest exploits of their sons. I regret deeply that the Minister can do nothing in regard to these 2 cases but if my speech should in some way stir some action on this very real problem at least it will not have been in vain.

Dr MACKAY:
Minister for the Navy · Evans · LP

– I would first like to say a word of thanks to the honourable member for Burke (Mr Keith Johnson) for informing me that he intended to raise this matter tonight and for the way in which he has discussed what is to me a very serious problem. There are 2 ways of discussing this matter. I would like very briefly to deal with both of them. The first way is with regard to the current situation. The 2 boys mentioned both entered the Navy under different schemes. One of them entered HMAS ‘Leeuwin’ as a junior recruit at the age of 154 years. From the dates mentioned by the honourable member I think that the second lad who joined at 18 years of age also joined before it was decided that there should be an optional discharge for young men if they had been in the Navy for sufficient time to enable them to assess whether they considered they would like to make the Navy their career.

Now a junior recruit on entering service at HMAS ‘Leeuwin’ is asked after about 5 or 6 months whether he would like to have a completely free optional discharge. If he desires this and if his parents concur in the decision he is given an immediate discharge. Similarly an adult enlisting in the Service at the age of 18 can avail himself of an option to obtain a free discharge after some 5 weeks of service. This provision also applies to members of the Women’s Royal Australian Naval Service and others such as technical recruits who enter HMAS Nirimba’. They can likewise after 7 months decide whether they want to remain in the Service. This is an attempt on the part of the Navy to come to grips with what is - and I frankly admit this - a very grievous problem. One of the most difficult things which I personally have had to face is saying no in cases of the kind referred to by the honourable member for Burke. 1 would like to point out that there are some other aspects to this matter. It is true at the present time that a large number of these young men do see as they become older greater opportunities outside for what they consider to be personal advancement than they would have if they remained in the Service. In a condition of full employment this is understandable but at the same time I am aware of the fact that under different economic conditions it is quite conceivable that young men would be grateful to have guaranteed security for a considerable period. Nevertheless the fact remains that there are young men in the Service who are unhappy and do not feel that they can settle down. Some of them have threatened and in fact carried out the kind of misdemeanours that have been suggested by the honourable member for Burke in order to try to force the Navy into granting them a discharge. To me this is a most distasteful situation. That is one side of the picture.

The other side is, I think, brighter because there is currently before the naval authorities, and will shortly come before the Naval Board, one of the most enlightened and exciting documents that 1 have read in terms of an analysis of the personnel situation in the Navy. It has a with it’ title, ‘SAILSTRUC ‘70’. This document is an examination of the whole structure of the sailor system in the Navy and it has been carried out by an expert committee under Commodore Smyth who is at present Captain of HMAS ‘Cerberus’ at the Flinders naval depot. One of the suggestions in that document is very similar to that put forward by the honourable member for Burke, namely, that after a man joins the Service and has been trained for a particular calling or category he should be required to serve for a period equal to that for which he was trained plus one year and that he should be able to obtain a discharge after that period upon giving a year’s notice. I believe that this is something that we must examine extremely carefully. As far as I have been able to examine it, it has my active support. I am hopeful that we will be able to look at this suggestion in the very near future because there are many reasons, other than the ones that have been raised tonight, as to why it is undesirable to keep people on in the Service when they are thoroughly disgruntled.

I am looking forward to seeing the document ‘SAILSTRUC ‘70’ brought before the Naval Board. I trust that there will be an attempt made to come to grips with what has been rightly indicated by the honourable member to be one more symptom of the recurring restlessness of our times on the part of young people. It is no longer easy to assume that young men of 154 and 164 can make up their minds to commit themselves for 12 years’ service and, even though we are pressing that people are adults at 18 years, nevertheless they can at that age sign on for 9 years. I agree that these periods are too long and I hope that there will be a change. I again thank the honourable member for Burke for raising this matter in the way that he has.

Mr FOSTER:
Sturt

– Honourable members will recall that on 2 occasions last week I raised the question of shipping freight rates. 1 am somewhat disappointed not to see here some 9 supporters on the Government side who have said to me that they agreed with what I have said so far. Honourable members will recall that I had said I would continue to speak on this matter and to implore the House to set up a committee to inquire into the extremely exorbitant freight rates which are levied against not only our primary producers but also those who produce goods for export and also to inquire into the effect of these exorbitant freight rates on the shrinking markets available to Australia.

Mr Keating:

– We are being held to ransom.

Mr FOSTER:

– Yes, I agree that we are being held to ransom. As I have said before I think it bears repeating - those who are engaged in shipping Australian products overseas are parties to a closed shop type of agreement. Honourable members on the other side see fit to use that expression against honourable members on this side when they are talking about compulsory trade unionism. But they do not like to hear the term applied to them when they are parties to conference agreements which hold a gun at the heads of every primary producer, particularly those in the wool industry-

Mr Kennedy:

– They should have a secret ballot.

Mr FOSTER:

– They will not have a secret ballot on it. There is no suggestion that members of the Government Parties would have a secret ballot on anything except to elect one of their own leaders in what I would call a bodgie ballot. I want to read to the House from some correspondence, copies of which have been placed in the hands of every honourable member but on which members of the Australian Country Party have been extremely silent. The title of the document is ‘Where Was Sir William?’. I do not know who Sir William is. I am not gunning for anybody. The document reads:

We read so much about complaints of snippets (exporters), a single wool marketing authority, and the increase in freight rates by O.C.L., but no reference is made to a symposium, ‘The Future of Shipping’ held on July 11 1968.

At this symposium, Dr Fisher (Department of Trade and Industry) represented the exporter but the Wool Board had no representative either at the symposium or at a conference ‘Containerisation Shipping’, held May 9-14 1966.

What a difference it would have made to the wool grower if Sir William Gunn had attended these conferences, or at least read the reports on them.

Strangely enough, in a most irresponsible manner, Sir William refers to the 4 per cent increase in freight but ignores the main issue - the lengthy period during which we had to pay six times iis much as we should have for wool freight.

Before the introduction of containers, the wool industry had to pay for 900,000 tons of wool at about $94 a ton freight, against a maximum of $14 a ton if this wool had been shipped in chartered ships, a difference of $72m.

If we accept what the ‘Australian Financial Review’ said on that occasion, if we halve the amount for which the conference agreed to ship wool overseas and double the $14 mentioned in this letter we arrive at a figure that still represents a hell of a slug on the wool grower and the shipper in this country. The letter continues:

In a Press article, Sir Andrew Creighton, Chairman of OCL stated it was the Department of Trade which encouraged the introduction of containers to the Australian trade.

I draw the attention of honourable members again to the fact that I have said in this House on so many occasions that it was a complete and utter sellout by the Department of Trade in the early 1960s that has bound everybody in Australia, whether associated with shipping or not, to one of the most piratical types of shipping on the high seas today. The Minister for Trade and Industry at the time was none other than Mr McEwen, then Leader of the Country Party. Oddly enough, as the letter points out, Dr Fisher did not deny these facts. The letter goes on:

Country Party Ministers who forced this plan through must accept responsibility for the losses they have forced upon Australian exporters.

In 1968 the ‘Australian Financial Review’ published a statement by the then commercial manager of the Australian National Line, Mr J. I. Davies, who summarised the inferiority of cellular container ships lor woo] shipment.

Mr Page (OCL) reminded Dr Fisher that it was made quite clear to his department that these cellular containers could pay only if commodities like wool, sheepskins, etc., which could afford to do so, paid higher freight rates, compared to other commodities unable to pay such high rates.

Here is a sellout by Country Party interests. Here is an open admission of what I have said before, that there is absolutely no necessity from the point of view of economics or common sense for a commodity such as wool to be containerised, or for a commodity such as sheepskins which are packed for the overseas market and stand about 5 feet high, 3 feet wide and 3 feet deep, to be containerised. I have mentioned before all these burglars such as Dalgetys and the New Zealand banks who are riding on the back of the wool grower. It is not so much a case of the country riding on the back of the sheep. That situation has gone forever and a day possibly. I say quite seriously that there has been a complete sellout. There has been an open admission that other exportable commodities which lend themselves to containerisation would not be accepted by the conference at what could be considered to be a fair and reasonable freight rate unless the wool interests, the shippers, the burglars within the industry, the people who take the money from the pockets of the wool growers and make their takehome income much smaller, insist that at the expense of the wool grower wool be placed in containers along with sheepskins.

Where are the dozen or so members on the other side of the House who have said to me in the last week: ‘We agree with you; it is about time the House of Representatives set up a committee’? A committee of this House should be set up and should be charged with the responsibility of investigating every conference report since at least 1959. Such an investigation would reveal - there is no doubt about this - what has been happening in this country so far as wool freights are concerned. [ am waiting for the courage of my so called supporters to prevail. I do not know how long I will have to wait.

Dr Klugman:

– A long time.

Mr FOSTER:

– Yes, obviously it will be a long time. The letter continues:

Today the wool industry would be in a different position if Sir William Gunn had been guided by the opinion of even one honest wool grower, Mr J. I. F. Maple-Brown.

Unfortunately, it is not enough to be told by Mr McEwen and Sir Alan Westerman what is wrong with the Conference Lines, yet acting in a way that, instead of improving these conditions, works to make them many times worse (see report of the 1966 Conference).

One has to consider that so far we have spent many hundreds of millions of dollars in Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane and Fremantle for container facilities, plus$56m for 4 container ships which have only a value of scrap as far as Australian is concerned.

How much longer do we intend to use cellular containers and spend more money in installations and depots (Villawood, Yennora) while at the same time, without spending a penny–

This is true - . . other countries (excluding United Kingdom and Australia) are making a fortune shipping goods from Australia?

Our Government even insisted that other countries had to join the Conference Lines and increase their freight to the highest rates.

If these allegations are untrue, they ought to be cleared. They can only be cleared by setting up a committee of this House. I have here a lengthy document and I intend to go through most of it. I have letters to the Minister for Trade and Industry (Mr Anthony), the present Leader of the Country Party, that are damning and damaging. If he has any honesty and if he does not think these allegations are true he should stand here and reject them and he should go along with the setting up of a committee of this House to clear the names of members of the Country Party and the present Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) in the face of the allegations contained in this document. I personally believe that these allegations are true. I believe that the Country Party has sold the country and the wool growers down the drain. I have no doubt about this after reading some of the things contained in this document. I have seen some of these things at first hand and have had personal experience of them. When the procedures of this House afford me the opportunity to do so I will move that his House set up a committee to investigate these allegations. Perhaps, if it serves no other purpose, it will clear the names of the people who this document alleges have in fact completely betrayed the interests of shippers and exporters generally in this country.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

House adjourned at 11.27 p.m.

page 737

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS UPON NOTICE

The following answers to questions upon notice were circulated:

Ambulance Services (Question No. 3463)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice:

  1. What was the (a) capital and (b) recurrent expenditures undertaken by ambulance services and what was the proportion of each of these expenditures raised from (f) the Commonwealth (ii) the States, (iii) local authorities and (iv) private sources in (A) each of the States and Territories and (B) the Commonwealth for the latest year for which figures are available and for the year 10 years earlier?
  2. Can he say what amount was written off in bad debts by each ambulance authority and what this amount was expressed as a percentage of (a) operating costs and (b) charges made on users of these services?
  3. What was the amount of the (a) deficit and (b) bank overdraft, of each ambulance authority and what were these amounts expressed as a percentage of the total budget of the authority?
Dr Forbes:
LP

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

  1. Information relating to (a) capital and (b) recurrent expenditures of ambulance services in the Stales is not held in my Department.

The following information relates to Ambulance Services operating in the Commonwealth mainland Territories.

Australian Capital Territory:

Ambulance services in the Australian Capital Territory have been operated by my Department since February, 1968 and the information sought is available only for the years ended 30th June 1969 and 1970 as follows:

In the years 1968-69 and 1969-70, patients’ fees comprised 9.7 per cent and 20.3 per cent respectively of recurrent expenditure. The Commonwealth Government meets the balance of recurrent expenditure and all capital expenditure.

Northern Territory:

Ambulance services in the Northern Territory are operated both by my Department and by the St John Ambulance Brigade. Expenditure incurred by my Department In operating ambulance services in the Northern Territory is met from Departmental appropriations for Northern Territory Health Services and the derails sought by the honourable member are not separately available. Financial details specifically related to the operation of ambulance services in the Northern Territory by the St John Ambulance Brigade are not available to my Department.

  1. This information is only available to my Department as regards ambulance services in the Australian Capita] Territory for the years ended 30th June 1969 and 1970 as follows:

Bad debts written off in respect of ambulance services provided in the Northern Territory by my Department are included in total bad debts written off for all Northern Territory Health Services and separate details are not available.

  1. (a) There would be no deficits (i.e. between costs on the one band and patient fees and Commonwealth expenditure on the other hand) associated with the operation of ambulance services by my Department in the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory.

    1. This information is not available to my Department for ambulance services operated in the States and by the St John Ambulance Brigade in the Northern Territory. There are no provisions for bank overdrafts in expenditure incurred under Commonwealth Departmental appropriations.

Health Insurance Contributions (Question No. 2789)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice:

What progress has the Government made towards introducing deduction of health insurance contributions from wages and salaries, as proposed in recommendation 27 of the Nimmo Report (Hansard, 4th March 1970, page 37)?

Dr Forbes:
LP

– The Minister for Health has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question.

On 4th March 1970 the then Minister for Health announced in Parliament that the Government had decided to adopt recommendation 27 of the Nimmo Committee. This decision is currently under reconsideration.

Patent Office Charges (Question No. 3174)

Mr Grassby:

asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice:

  1. Is he able to say how the charges associated with the Australian Patent Office compare with charges in the United States of America, Canada and South Africa?
  2. Is be able to say whether the Institute of Patent Attorneys has suggested that under current Government proposals Australian applicants will be taxed by the Patent Office at twice the rate of applicants in the United States of America and at four times the rate of applicants in Canada, South Africa and New Zealand.
Mr N H Bowen:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

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

  1. It is difficult to make direct comparisons with the fees charged by the countries mentioned since fees may be levied on any of a number of steps up to the grant of a patent and during the life of the patent after grant. Also, some fees may be for variable amounts having regard, for

example, to the number of claims in, or the length of, the specification. South African fees are not regarded as providing a basis for comparison since the South African patent system is a ‘registration’ system not involving an examination of applications for patentability. The fees set out in the table below are the basic fees (other than continuation fees, which are dealt with separately below) payable up to the stage of the grant of a patent and are calculated on the basis that the complete specification lodged comprises not more than 10 sheets of specification and not more than 10 claims.

In addition to the basic fees, Australia levies, after an initial free period of 2 years, annual maintenance fees’. The ‘maintenance fees’ consist of continuation fees that an applicant must pay if he wishes to maintain his application during the period up to the grant of a patent, and renewal fees that a patentee must pay so long as he wishes to maintain his patent in force. The scale of these fees is as follows:

Maintenance fees are not payable in the United States and Canada, but are payable in South Africa at the rate of $7.40 per annum after an initial free period of 3 years. Maintenance fees are payable in most countries that receive a substantial number of applications.

The schedule of Australian patent fees is fixed having regard to two main principles. The first is that the fees payable by the users of the patent system should substantially cover the cost of maintaining the Patent Office. The second principle is that persons who have obtained the grant of a patent and must therefore be taken as benefiting from the patent system should bear a significant portion of the burden of patent fees so that the fees payable up to the stage of the grant of a patent may be kept to a reasonable level. .

The fee payable on lodgment has been kept low so as not to prevent the lodgment of applications by inventors having little means. The fee on requesting examination is usually payable quite some time after lodgment, when the inventor should have some idea of the value of his application and its possible commercial exploitation. The substantial fee on requesting examination serves the purpose of causing applicants to evaluate their applications before the Patent Office is called upon to undertake the work involved in examining the applications.

  1. I am not aware of any such recent comment made by the Institute of Patent Attorneys of Australia. Nor am I in a position to make a judgment on the suggestion referred to in the honourable member’s question, since the incidence of fees depends on factors such as the extent to which applications proceed to the stage of the grant of a patent and the length of time patents, when granted, are generally maintained after grant. Furthermore, it is not clear whether the honourable member’s reference to Australian applicants is to the applicants in the approximate 12 per cent of applications received by the Australian Patent Office that consist of applications of purely Australian origin or applicants in the totality of applications for patents received at the Australian Patent Office. The present Australian schedule of fees has been in force since 2 January 1970. Except where new fees were included, the present fees represent an increase of approximately 25 per cent over the previous scale of fees fixedin 1962. The schedule of fees was discussed with the Institute of Patent Attorneys of Australia before being introduced.

Fluoridation: Dental Health (Question No. 3464)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice:

  1. Is he able to say what objective data is available which indicates an improvement in dental health following the introduction of fluoridation into reticulated water supplies at population centres in Australia?
  2. Can he say (a) for each year involved what was the (i) aggregate and (ii) per capita cost of maintaining water fluoridation at a selection of population centres in Australia, (b) what was the capital installation cost of fluoridation schemes at these centres, indicating the date of installation, population at that date, and whether the system allowed for increased demands by a growing population without incurring significant cost increases for plant alteration and (c) if there is any evidence of personal health being adversely affected at any population centre because of fluoridated water?
Dr Forbes:
LP

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

  1. The only such data available to me relates to fluoridation of water supplies in the Australian Capital Territory.

Since the introduction of fluoridation of the Canberra watersupply in 1964, a long-term survey of the dental health of 6-12 year old children has been undertaken. This survey shows that the incidence of newly decayed teeth has decreased substantially. The results of an examination in 1964 of a group of 6-12 year old children who did not have the benefit of fluoridated water have been used as a base. Compared with the incidence of newly decayed teeth in this base group the incidence found in children in the same age group bas fallen steadily each year as follows:

  1. The capital cost for the initial equipment installed at the Cotter Pump Station was $7,008. This was installed in 1964 when the population totalled approximately 94,000. In 1968 the existing equipment was transferred to the Stromlo Treatment Plant and a standby unit was installed. The cost of transfer and installation of the equipment was $14,028. The population was approximately 120,000 at this stage. However, this equipment is suitable, without further modification to service a population of 225,000.
  2. No.

Regular Army: Applications to Enlist (Question No. 3614)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minster for the

Army, upon notice:

  1. How many persons made application to join the Regular Army in 1969-70 and 1970-71 (Hansard, 19th August 1970, page 214)?
  2. What (a) number and (b) percentage of applicants was not accepted in each year?
  3. What (a) number, and (b) percentage of applicants was rejected in each year in each of the categories of reasons for rejection for which his Department has records?

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

  1. Total Applications

    1. 1969-70 12,784
    2. 1970-71 13,376

(2)

Public Service: Travelling Allowances (Question No. 3238)

Mr Morrison:
ST GEORGE, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

What is the daily rate of travelling allowance within Australia of Commonwealth public servants in the (a) first division, (b) second division and (c) third division?

Mr McMahon:
LP

– The Public Service Board has advised that the daily rates of travelling allowance within Australia for public servants in Departments of State are as follows -

  1. First Division - $28.00 per day;
  2. Second Division - allowances for first 21 days’ residence: $21.00 per day in capital cities; $13.00 per day other than capital cities;
  3. Third Division -
  4. Non-Clerical/ Administrative Staff:

Australian Army: Holsworthy Range Firings (Question No. 3616)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for the Army, upon notice:

How many rounds of artillery, mortar and antitank ammunition were fired at the Holsworthy Range in 1970-71 (Hansard, 27 August 1970, page 693)?

Mr Peacock:
LP

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

Records show that some 47,305 rounds of artillery, mortar and anti-tank ammunition were fired on the Holsworthy Range during the 12 months period 1st July 1970 to 30th June 1971. The break up of the particular type of ammunition fs as follows:

Social Services (Question No. 3571)

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Minister for Social Services, upon notice:

  1. ls he able to say whether, under the Social Security Act of the United Kingdom, an employee who is unemployed by reason of a strike conducted by his own union, is entitled to receive supplementary social security benefits in respect of a wife and children as well as a rent allowance?
  2. What is the amount of social services benefit paid in Australia in respect of the wife and children of an employee in Australia who is unemployed by reason of a strike by (a) his own union at his place of employment, (b) another union at his place of employment, (c) his own union at another place of employment and (d) another union at another place of employment?
Mr Wentworth:
LP

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

  1. Under the Ministry of Social Security Act 1966 assistance, including rent allowance, may be provided in respect of the dependent wife and children of a striker if hardship exists. This assistance is quite distinct from unemployment benefit payable under the National Insurance Act.
  2. The Social Services Act provides that a person whose unemployment is a result of his participation in a strike is not qualified to receive unemployment benefit. Where a person is ineligible for unemployment benefit for any reason no unemployment benefit is payable in respect of his wife or children.

Sickness Benefit (Question No. 3572)

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Minister for Social Services, upon notice:

  1. Is he able to say whether, in the United Kingdom, a man who becomes ill while he is on strike is entitled to claim sickness benefit under the United Kingdom’s national insurance scheme?
  2. What is the position of a man in a similar case in Australia?
Mr Wentworth:
LP

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

  1. It would be necessary to refer to the British Department of Health and Social Security for advice as to whether sickness benefit would be payable in the circumstances mentioned.
  2. An essential requirement for the payment of sickness benefit under the Social Services Act is that the applicant should have suffered a loss of income as a result of his incapacity. A person who is unemployed as a result of direct participation in a strike, and who becomes ill while on strike, would not satisfy this condition.
  3. If it were established that such a person was experiencing hardship, payment of a special benefit could be considered.

Tariff Board: Review of Protection (Question No. 2866)

Dr J F Cairns:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

ns asked the Minister for

Trade and Industry, upon notice:

  1. Has the Tariff Board commenced the systematic review of protection mentioned in paragraph 40 of its Annual Report for 1969-70?
  2. If so, how far has it proceeded?
  3. When is it expected that the systematic review will be completed?
  4. Upon what does the progress of the systematic review depend?
Mr Anthony:
Deputy Prime Minister · RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · CP

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

Ten references convening the vast bulk of those items in Chapter 84 of the Tariff which had not recently been reviewed by the Board were sent to the Tariff Board on 20th May 1971. These references were sent to begin the systematic review. They will be followed in due course by references in the area of Manufactures of Metal. These 2 areas of the Tariff were those nominated by the Board as the first to be reviewed. It is not possible to indicate when the systematic review will be completed. The Tariff Board pointed out in its 1969-70 Annual Report that ‘the rate at which a systematic review of protection can proceed depends on the nature and extent of other references sent to the Board, the resources available to it, and the efficiency with which those resources are used’.

Industrial Research and Development - Grants (Question No. 3040)

Mr Uren:

asked the Minister for Trade and Industry, upon notice:

  1. What stage has been reached in the review of the operation of the Industrial Research and Development Grants Act?
  2. Will the review assess the social as well as the economic utility of the research that industry has been encouraged to undertake under the Act?
Mr Anthony:
CP

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

  1. An interdepartmental committee has been established to review the operation of the present Act and to report, as soon as possible, on the question of future incentives for Australian industrial research and development. The present incentives provided under the Industrial Research and

Development Grants Act of 1967 expire on 30 June 1972.

  1. The review is concerned in particular with the contribution which industrial research and development activities can make to the efficient development of Australian manufacturing and mining industries. Social aspects arising directly out of the manufacturing process itself, such as environmental pollution, are also being encompassed by the review.

Uranium Enrichment Plant (Question No. 3439)

Mr Jacobi:

asked the Minister for

National Development, upon notice:

  1. Has the Australian Government had discussions or exchanged correspondence, with the Japanese Government regarding the possibility of co-operating to build a uranium enrichment plant in Australia?
  2. Which Governments have indicated their willingness to discuss with the Australian Government the supply of uranium en rich ment technology?
  3. Will uranium enrichment be one of the subjects for discussion with the Canadian Government team currently visiting Australia?
  4. Has the Government made any assessment of the likely market available to an Australian uranium enrichment industry; if so, with what result?
  5. Have any feasibility studies been conducted into establishing a uranium enrichment plant in Australia using (i) diffusion technology and (ii) centrifugal technology; if so, with what result?
  6. Did any of the tenders of the Jervis Bay Power Stations have a condition attached that Australia must ratify the Non-Proliferation Treaty?
  7. Have any discussions been held or correspondence exchanged with enriched uranium consuming countries to assess whether they could provide a market for uranium enriched in Australia?
Mr Swartz:
LP

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

  1. There have been discussions with Japanese authorities on the general subject of the market for nuclear fuel including enriched uranium but they have been of an exploratory nature only.
  2. During the discussions associated with tenders for the Jervis Bay project the tripartite consortium (United Kingdom, Holland and West Germany) indicated its possible interest in participation in a centrifugal uranium enrichment plant in Australia at some future time. U.S.A. has offered to discuss with a number of countries, including Australia, matters relating to the release of the U.S. gaseous diffusion technology. We have agreed to engage in these discussions without commitment.
  3. Uranium enrichment was discussed with the Canadian Government Mission led by the Honourable J. J. Greene, Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. The talks were of an exploratory nature only.
  4. and (7) In view of the current world emphasis on energy expansion, particularly in the nuclear field, together with the recent important discoveries of uranium in Australia, the Government has been actively pursuing preliminary studies regarding likely markets available to an Australian uranium enrichment industry. The Australian Atomic Energy Commission in the course of its normal responsibilities carries out continuing surveys of current and future supply and demand for nuclear materials and in recent months senior personnel from the Commission have had discussions with several overseas countries on enriched uranium markets and the market which might be available to Australia should it become involved in this technology.

In addition, during June and July, I, together with the Secretary of my Department, had discussions in the U.S.A., Canada and Japan on somewhat related fields.

  1. No. But the AAEC for some years has been conducting laboratory scale experiments in centrifugal technology of uranium enrichment.
  2. No. But all tenderers indicated that before approval to export would be given, their respective Governments would require that the nuclear power station would be subject to Safeguards administered by the International Atomic Energy Agency in accordance with its Statute and Procedures.
  3. See (4) above.

Infra-State Shipping Services (Question No. 3715)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for Shipping and Transport, upon notice:

When was the last approach made to or by each State for it to refer power to the Commonwealth to operate shipping services within the State or to consent to the establishment and operation of such services by the Commonwealth?

Mr Nixon:
CP

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

No formal reference of power has yet been obtained or sought from any State of the Commonwealth.

English Spelling (Question No. 2247)

Dr Everingham:
CAPRICORNIA, QUEENSLAND

asked the Minister for Immigration, upon notice:

  1. Has his attention been drawn to a students’ page in the ‘Sydney Morning Herald’ of 27th October 1970, entitled ‘Getting over the Language Barrier’, describing English as a language without spelling rules and commending lindgren’s evolutionary spelling proposal for the sake of migrants and others?
  2. If so, will he obtain and table in the House an authoritative appraisal of this proposal and discuss its possible implementation with the Minister for External Affairs?
Dr Forbes:
LP

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

The honourable member will recall that in my predecessor’s preliminary reply to his Question on 24lh February 1971, Mr Lynch said ‘.hat it would not be until the results of certain enquiries which were being undertaken by his colleague, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, were known that he would be able to provide the appraisal of die Lindgren system which you sought. 1 am now informed that these enquiries have been almost completed and I understand that my colleague, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, will be writing to you. In the meantime my Department has separately discussed the possible use of the Lindgren system with the Department of Education and Science, who are our technical advisers on language matters.

After a careful perusal of the Lindgren proposals that Department was of the view that a fullscale phonetic spelling reform, as suggested by Mr Lindgren, is not feasible, although some simplification of consonant clusters might be desirable and possible of achievement.

To explore the matter further it was referred to the Australian National Advisory Committee for UNESCO. That Committee has now obtained comments from a number of English scholars and experienced educationists in Australia.

Only one of these was prepared to support a reform in spelling of the dimensions advocated by Lindgren, He is a senior officer of the New South Wales Department of Education. He says:

I am of the opinion that spelling reform is desirable, should be a continuous process and should follow trends already set in motion by common usage. The problems of a phonetic alphabet are clearly too great for immediate solution in one traumatic conversion but need not be rated out as the possible end product of an evolutionary process involving progressive reforms.’

This view was not shared by all his colleagues.

Several others see virtue in a more limited move towards some standardisation and simplification in spelling. For instance, the Director of the Australian Council of Educational Research, Dr W. C. Radford, says:

A national working party may be able to come up with a practicable scheme based on greater simplicity in consonants and clusters, and it is certainly worth trying.’

Again, Dr R. D. Eagleson Senior Lecturer in English Language at the University of Sydney, says: lt does seem to me that much can be done in the way of spelling reform by concentrating on irregularities and pointless inconsistencies in our current practice.’

Against this a number of the authorities consulted believed there was little prospect of achieving even limited spelling reform. For example, Professor A. G. Mitchell of Macquarie University, Sydney, says:

I have always been quite sceptical about the chances of any worthwhile and lasting simplification. As you say, a full-scale reform on phonetic principles is impractical. Communications differ and are subject :o unrelated changes. I am not convinced that simplification of some consonants and clusters would bring benefits commensurate with the effort of relearning. There would also be a permanent awkwardness in making the literature of 4 centuries look “familiar”’.

Similarly, Professor A. Delbridge of the same

University says: . . . a really solid attempt to introduce a reform, even if it got the support of the rank and file of teachers and librarians, is likely to create a good deal more indignation and worry than a comparatively restricted innovation like metrication. A limited simplification of consonants and clusters probably could not go much further than Webster and the Americans have gone without raising as many problems as are settled.’

From the information available it would seem that, before any practical steps are taken to introduce large-scale simplification and standardisation of the English language, much more research in this field would be necessary. Whilst this specifically is not within my area of responsibility, nevertheless it is a matter in which I will continue to take an interest in view of its relationship to the migrant education programme generally.

Aircraft Hijacking: Death Penalty (Question No. 2582)

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Civil Aviation, upon notice: ls the Minister able to say which countries have laws permitting the imposition of the death penalty upon a person found guilty of hijacking an aircraft?

Mr Swartz:
LP

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

Information has been obtained through the International Civil Aviation Organisation as to the penalties imposed by some countries for aircraft hijacking. The United States of America is the only country which advised that the penalty for aircraft piracy1 is death. )n Australia, the death penalty is applicable for destroying an aircraft, or doing anything capable of prejudicing its safe operation, if done with the intent of cause the death of a person. 1 have no information as to which other countries have the death penalty for aircraft hijacking.

Standing Inter-Departmental Committee on Japan (Question No. 3808)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice:

  1. Which are the 7 other departments constituting, under the chairmanship of his Department, the Standing Inter-Departmental Committee on Japan?
  2. What was The date of the establishment of the committee?
Mr N H Bowen:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

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

  1. The Departments of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, the Treasury, Defence, Trade and Indus try, National Development, External Territories and Primary Industry.
  2. 26th July 1971.

United Nations Fund for Population Activities (Question No. 3496)

Dr Klugman:

asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice:

  1. Has he received representations from Mr Joseph Tydings, a consultant to the United Nations Fund for Population Activities?
  2. If so, what has been the result of any action taken by the Government in connection with the representations?
Mr N H Bowen:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

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

  1. Senator Tydings called on the then Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Bury, as well as on the Prime Minister and the Treasurer, on 1st June 1971. He asked that Australia make a contribution to the United Nations Fund for Population Activities.
  2. The question of a contribution by Australia to the Fund is under consideration.

China (Question No. 3671)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice:

Over what provinces, municipalities and autonomous regions of China does the Australian Government consider that (a) the Republic of China and (b) the People’s Republic of China has (i) de facto sovereignty, (ii) de jure sovereignty, and (iii) actual control?

Mr N H Bowen:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

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

As the honourable member knows, the Australian Government maintains diplomatic relations with, and of course recognises, the Government of the Republic of China. The Government is not required, however, to take any stand with regard to the territorial claims maintained by the Republic of China, or for that matter by other governments which it recognises and with which it is in diplomatic relations. No useful purpose would be served by attempting the academic exercise of specifying those administrative divisions referred to generically by the honourable member as ‘the provinces, municipalities and autonomous regions of China’ in which the Government considers that one or other of the three categories of governmental authority mentioned by the honourable member is exercised by cither the Republic of China or the People’s Republic of China.

Indonesia: Migrant Detention Camps (Question No. 3483)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice:

  1. Has his attention been drawn to the report in ‘The Australian’ on Thursday, 18th March 1971, stating that 2 Australians are among 237 foreign nationals who are being held in immigration detention camps for illegal entry into Indonesia?
  2. If so, can he supply details of (a) the mimes of the Australians held, (b) the period of their detention, (c) the precise nature of the charges that have been brought against them, (d) whether their case has been investigated by Australian Embassy officials in Djakarta, (e) whether Australian Embassy officials have been able to visit them, (f) the standard of living conditions in the detention camps where the Australians are being held and (g) the location of the camps?
Mr N H Bowen:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. There were no Australians held in immigration camps on the 18th March 1971. Two Australians had been held at Kupang for illegally entering Indonesia but they were released on 18th January 1971. They were visited by a member of the staff of the Australian Embassy, Djakarta and their food rations were supplemented by an Australian charity organisation in Kupang

Chemical and Bacteriological Warfare (Question No. 3674)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice:

What progress’ has been made in concluding a new Convention to ban chemical and bacteriological (biological) weapons since a former Minister’s answer to me on 1st September 1970 (Hansard, page 821)?

Mr N H Bowen:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

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

The 25th Session of the United Nations General Assembly adopted Resolution 2662 which commented inter alia that it was urgent and important to reach agreement on the problem of chemical and bacteriological (biological) methods of warfare. Australia voted in favour of the resolution.

On Sth August. 1971, the United States and the Soviet Union presented to the Conference of the Committee on Disarmament (CCD), a joint draft convention on biological weapons. The Disarmament Committee is expected to reach agreement on the draft in time for it to be submitted as an agreed conference document to the 26th Session of the United Nations General Assembly which begins in September, 1971.

The draft convention would prohibit the development, production, stockpiling, acquisition and retention of biological weapons and of biological agents and toxins held in quantitites that have no justification for peaceful purposes, and calls for the destruction or diversion to peaceful purposes of existing materials as soon as possible.

By Article VIII of the draft convention, each State Party to the convention would undertake to conduct negotiations in good faith on effective measures for the similar prohibition of chemical weapons.

Vietnam (Question No. 3785)

Dr Everingham:

asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice:

  1. Has his attention been drawn to E. S. Herman’s book, ‘Atrocities in Viet-Nam’, (Boston, 1970) describing ARVN troops as the worst looters, American air and artillery strikes as causing the most carnage, the Viet Cong as having killed only 200 to 3S0 people according to South Vietnamese officials and the secret document, misplaced by Americans for 19 months until the time the My Lai massacre was announced, claiming thousands were killed by the Viet Cong?
  2. If so, is he able to provide references to any refutations of these statements.
Mr N H Bowen:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

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

  1. and (2) The Government does not wish to make a practice of commenting on allegations made by private individuals in relation to the situation in Vietnam, particularly in view of the extensive literature which now exists on this subject.

South Vietnam Elections (Question No. 3786)

Dr Everingham:

asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice:

  1. Has be received copies of documents purporting to show the reservations expressed by General Minh and Air Vice-Marshal Ky regarding the authenticity of elections and projected elections in South Vietnam?
  2. If so, will he present copies of those documents to the House?
Mr N H Bowen:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

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

  1. The Government has received reports of statements made by General Minh and VicePresident Ky regarding the forthcoming elections in the Republic of Vietnam.
  2. The conduct of the forthcoming elections in the Republic of Vietnam is the domestic responsibility of the elected government of that country. lt would not be appropriate for the Australian Government to publicise particular statements made in the context of an election campaign in the Republic of Vietnam.

Navy: Case of Lieutenant Commander P. Berzins (Question No. 3844)

Mr Grassby:

asked the Minister for

Foreign Affairs, upon notice:

  1. Did he or his Department veto or recommend against the posting of a Latvian-born Australian, the former Royal Australian Naval Officer Lieutenant Commander Peter Berzins, to Vietnam on the grounds that an Australian born officer should be appointed to avoid any possible complications?
  2. If so, what is the justification for this decision when, according to information conveyed to me on 30th November 1970, 8 officers of the Department of Foreign Affairs who represent Australia overseas and who were not born in Australia, were not citizens of this country and had not applied to become citizens?
Mr N H Bowen:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

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

  1. No; Lieutenant Commander Berzins was never nominated to the Minister or Department of Foreign Affairs for appointment to an overseas post.
  2. Please see answer to part (I) above.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 25 August 1971, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1971/19710825_reps_27_hor73/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant