House of Representatives
5 December 1973

28th Parliament · 1st Session



Mr SPEAKER (Hon. J. F. Cope) took the chair at 1 1.30 a.m., and read prayers.

page 4277

PETITIONS

The Clerk:

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

National Health Scheme

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

The humble petition of undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: -

That the proposed ‘free’ national health scheme is not free at all and will cost four out of five Australians more than the present scheme. That the proposed scheme is discriminatory and a further erosion of the civil liberties of Australian citizens, particularly working wives and single persons.

That the proposed scheme is in fact a plan for nationalised medicine which will lead to gross waste and inefficiencies in medical services and will ultimately remove an individual’s right to choose his/her own doctor.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government will take no measures to interfere with the basic principles of the existing health scheme which functions efficiently and economically.

And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Adermann, Mr Bennett, Mr Berinson, Mr Collard, Mr Drummond, Mr Drury, Mr Erwin, Mr Giles, Mr Hewson, Mr Killen, Mr MacKellar, Mr McLeay, Mr Reynolds, Mr Wallis, Mr Whittorn and Mr Wilson.

Petitions received.

National Health Scheme

To the Honourable theSpeaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled:

The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

That they oppose the Australian Health Insurance Program and any National Health Scheme.

That they wish to retain the right to choose their own medical care by selecting a general practitioner, specialist or any other medical classification of their own choice under the present conditions in private consulting rooms and also the right to choose an intermediate ward or private hospital of their own choice.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government will take no measure to interfere with the existing health scheme.

And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Bonnett, Mr Bury, Mr Donald Cameron, Mr Cooke, Mr Corbett, Mr Jarman,

Mr Katter, Mr Kelly, Mr Nixon, Mr O’Keefe, Mr Eric Robinson, Mr Ian Robinson and Mr Ruddock.

Petitions received.

Education

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

The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

  1. Your petitioners believe in the principle that every Australian child, irrespective of the school he attends, is entitled to economic support for his basic educational needs from the funds placed at the disposal of the Australian Government through taxation.

Further, they believe that this economic support should be in the form of per capita grants which are directly related to the cost of educating an Australian child in a government school.

  1. Your petitioners believe that in addition to this basic per capita grant additional assistance should be provided in cases of educational disadvantage, but they believe that the appropriate instruments for reducing economic inequalities are taxation and social welfare systems which deal with individuals and families and not with schools.
  2. The reduction of the existing per capita grants will impose great hardships on many parents who have chosen, at considerable personal sacrifice, to send their sons and daughters to independent schools. Indeed curtailment of the said grants will create divisions in the community.
  3. Some independent schools of high educational standards will be forced to close with the consequences that children attending those schools will have to attend government schools already over-taxed and under-staffed.
  4. Some independent schools have been encouraged to lower standards in order that their parents may continue to receive per capita grants.
  5. Parents should be encouraged to exercise freedom of choice of the type of school they wish for their children. The proposed legislation will penalise parents who try to exercise thischoice, and discourage them from making a vital financial contribution to Australian education over and above what they contribute through taxation.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled should acknowledge the right of every Australian child to equal per capita grants for government money spent on education.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr McMahon, Mr Bonnett, Mr Bury, Mr Corbett, Mr Drummond, Mr Drury, Mr Erwin, Mr Fisher, Mr Fox, Mr Giles, Mr Graham, Mr Hewson, Mr Jarman, Mr Katter, Mr Kelly, Mr King, Mr Lucock, Mr McLeay, Mr Nixon, Mr O’Keefe, Mr Eric

Robinson, Mr Ian Robinson, Mr Ruddock, Mr Staley, Mr Street, Mr Whitlam and Mr Wilson

Petitions received.

Whales

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

The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

  1. That whales are a significant element in the world’s wildlife heritage.
  2. That whales are highly intelligent, highly evolved creatures.
  3. That there is growing international concern at the continued killing of whales for commercial gain.
  4. That synthetic products are able to fully replace all whale products.
  5. That Australia continues to operate a whaling station and to import whale produce.
  6. That Australia supported a proposal to enforce a ten year moratorium on all commercial whaling at the 25th meeting of the International Whaling Commission held in London, June 25-29, 1973.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the members in Parliament assembled will move to immediately revoke all whaling licences issued by the Australian Government and to reimpose a total ban on the importation of all whale produce.

And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Clyde Cameron, Mr Erwin, Mr Giles, Mr Hewson, Mr King and Mr Lamb.

Petitions received.

Television

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 undersigned men and women of Australia believe in a Christian way of life; and that no democracy can thrive unless its citizens are responsible and law abiding.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the members in Parliament assembled will see that the powerful communicator, television, is used to build Into the nation those qualities of character which make a democracy work - integrity, teamwork and a sense of purpose by serving, and that television be used to bring faith in God to the heart of the family and national life.

And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Bury, Mr England, Mr Fisher, Mr Graham, Mr Olley and Mr Ruddock.

Petitions received.

National Anthem

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 there are many people in Australia who still prefer ‘God Save The Queen’ as the National Anthem in preference to the alternatives that have been suggested.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives will urge the Government to include ‘God Save The Queen’ in any referendum or poll held for the purpose of deciding the future of a national anthem.

And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr King, Mr MacKellar and Mr McVeigh.

Petitions received.

Northern Territory National Park

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

This humble petition of interested citizens of the Commonwealth respectfully showeth:

  1. That there is widespread public concern over the delay of the Commonwealth in promulgating a Top End (Kakuda) National Park in the Northern Territory in a region which a former Minister for the Interior has described as “ranking with the Great Barrier Reef and Ayers Rock as a majortourist attraction”.
  2. That in the seven years since the Northern Territory Reserves Board first notified its proposal the area, despite frequent representations and objections to the Minister, has not yet been reserved.
  3. That over the intervening years the area concerned has been subjected to pastoral leases and mining prospecting authorities and it is now proposed to build a road into the region, which will further damage this magnificent possession.
  4. That the proposed National Park is rich in Aboriginal paintings, unique fauna, unique flora and dramatic scenery; also there is an apparent meeting of plant life from the east coast with that of the west, a phenomenon found nowhere else in Australia.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your Honourable House will at once, in the public interest, take steps to dedicate as a National Park an area of at least 1436 square miles as recommended by the Northern Territory Reserves Board.

And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Killen and Mr Ruddock.

Petitions received.

National Anthem

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 there are many people in Australia who still prefer ‘God Save The Queen’ as the

National Anthem in preference to the alternatives that have been suggested.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives will urge the Government not to implement the proposed change in the National Anthem of Australia and that the present National Anthem, ‘God Save The Queen’, be kept.

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

Petition received.

page 4279

QUESTION

EDUCATION: PER CAPITA GRANTS

Sir JOHN CRAMER:
BENNELONG, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the Prime Minister: Is it a fact that the Government proposes to deprive a small number of children of the subsidy given to all other children in Australia because their parents have chosen to send them to what the Government describes as ‘wealthy schools’? Is it also a fact that many thousands of children of wealthy parents are given free education in public high schools? Is the Government proposing to give free education to all children attending universities irrespective of the wealth of their parents? Why does the Government discriminate against the children attending the small number of schools classified as ‘wealthy’ even though their parents are not wealthy? Is this equality and justice?

Mr WHITLAM:
Prime Minister · WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– The Government has introduced legislation which will mean that in 1974 and 1975 non-government schools will receive an amount of $63m more than they would have received under the legislation introduced by the honourable gentleman’s Government a year ago and that government schools also will receive grants amounting to $405m which they would not have received under the legislation introduced by the honourable gentleman’s Government. It is quite obvious that school pupils overall in Australia will do better under the present Australian Government than they have done under any of its predecessors. The whole purpose of the Government’s policies is to see that by 1979 - in 6 years time - there will be an equal opportunity for all children attending school in Australia. It is quite wrong that governments should allow inequalities and disparities to continue. It is worse still that they should encourage and promote those inequalities and disparities.

The Government’s policy is based on the report of the Interim Committee for the Australian Schools Commission under Professor Karmel - a unanimous report by a committee composed of representatives of all school systems in Australia. The Committee reported that government assistance to category A schools cannot be justified. The Government accepts that opinion of that representative and skilled Committee. The honourable gentleman is doing what so many of his colleagues are doing. They want to promote the elite schools, the schools which they say train the leaders of this community. The fact is that government funds are not properly spent if the same amount goes to each pupil of the best equipped, housed and staffed schools in Australia as goes to each pupil of the worst equipped, housed and staffed schools in Australia. A person’s opportunity in life is determined while he is at school. The present Australian Government is determined to see that pupils have an equal opportunity for a good education in Australia so that when they leave school at least they will have an equal opportunity in life.

page 4279

QUESTION

MIDDLE EAST WAR

Mr BERINSON:
PERTH, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– The Prime Minister will be aware of reports of the murder by Syrian forces of Israeli soldiers captured in the recent Middle East war. Is there any reason to doubt the accuracy of these reports? If not, can the Prime Minister inform the House of what action, if any, has been taken on the matter by any country or international agency? Is it a fact that, even apart from the alleged murders, Syria is in breach of at least 3 basic covenants of the Geneva Convention relating to prisoners of war, arising from its refusal of access to prisoners by independent third parties, its refusal to allow prisoners to establish contact with their families and its refusal even to provide the names of prisoners held? As the Geneva Convention provides no sanctions against non-observance other than the possibility of condemnation by the world community, will the Prime Minister consider taking action to have the matter raised at the United Nations on the basis that this is a humanitarian question which can and should be settled independently and irrespective of the continuing dispute in the area?

Mr WHITLAM:
ALP

– It is deplorable that arrangements have not yet been successfully concluded for the exchange of prisoners of war between Israel and Syria as have already been concluded for the exchange of prisoners of war between Israel and Egypt. The Australian Government cannot verify the allegations of torture or murders which are made by each side. The Government certainly has heard the allegations against Syrian forces. Of course, there have been allegations of Israeli forces using Syrian prisoners of war to find the way through minefields. Whatever truth there may be in any such allegations, they are deplorable. Since the facts are not clear, Australia, like other countries, has not felt it desirable to make any public statement on such reports of atrocities. Australia would certainly condemn any breaches of the Geneva Conventions both in respect of the treatment of prisoners of war and in other respects. We would hope that Israel and Syria could complete arrangements to exchange their prisoners of war. Appropriate international organisations have been engaged in efforts to bring this about. Australia naturally supports those efforts.

Australia is not diplomatically represented in Syria but has made informal inquiries of the Syrian authorities and has expressed to them the hope that they would be able to make positive approaches to the question of prisoner of war exchanges. There are technical disputes between Syria and Israel on the application of Geneva conventions, par*ticularly the Third Geneva Convention relative to the treatment of prisoners of war and the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the protection of civilian persons in time of war. The two sides are finessing as to which convention takes priority - which is to be applied first. In the meantime these allegations are made. They can not be substantiated. I hope that the two sides will get together as Egypt and Israel have got together at last, after a quarter of a century. There is little hope for the peace of the world, there is no hope for peace in that region, until all the countries get together. Egypt and Israel have shown the way.

page 4280

QUESTION

MIDDLE EAST WAR

Mr PEACOCK:
KOOYONG, VICTORIA

– My question is not merely supplementary to the question just asked; it restates the final question which the Prime Minister has not answered. All members of this House share the ideal he has just put to the Parliament, but he was asked whether he would seek a solution to the very real problem stated by the honourable member for Perth by taking action in the United Nations. Can we see an identification of action to achieve the ideal he has just espoused, because if he takes that action in the United

Nations it will have the support of all members of this Parliament?

Mr WHITLAM:
ALP

– I am glad at last to have the honourable gentleman’s implicit assurance that he is supporting the action that the Australian Government has been taking in the United Nations. No country has done more in the United Nations to bring an end to these hostilities.

Mr Peacock:

Mr Speaker, I take a point of order. I specifically asked the question that the Prime Minister refused to answer before.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! No point of order is involved.

page 4280

QUESTION

ISLAND GIRLS: DOMESTIC LABOUR

Mr GARRICK:
BATMAN, VICTORIA

– I ask the Minister for Immigration: Are reports true that island girls are being brought into Australia as cheap domestic labour? If so, what action is being contemplated to end this situation or to ensure that those who are brought in receive award wages and conditions?

Mr GRASSBY:
Minister for Immigration · RIVERINA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– It is true that two reports about the illegal introduction of domestic servants have been widely disseminated. The first referred to .the importation of island girls for sweated labour - I think that is what it amounted to - and the other referred to reports that people who had come here and had been encouraged to come here as visitors were then being improperly employed in domestic service. I have already ordered an immediate investigation into both reports. No evidence has been placed before me at the present time, but it would seem timely for this warning to be issued: If any silvertail is tempted to accommodate and pay someone who is an illegal entrant there is a penalty that could apply - perhaps $400 or 6 months in gaol. So I would hope that the temptation of some form of domestic blackbirding would be resisted in face of the risk to those succumbing to it of becoming .guests of the state for a period and undertaking some unpaid employment.

I want to make the point that illegal entrants involved in this kind of activity would be doing a grave disservice to themselves, because if they did not abide by the conditions of their visa entry they would be deported and they would not be considered for entry into this country for 5 years. So I would appeal to anyone who is tempted in this way to resist the temptation in the interest not only of himself but also of the entrants involved.

page 4281

QUESTION

MIDDLE EAST WAR

Mr SINCLAIR:
NEW ENGLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask a question of the Prime Minister, and it is supplementary to those asked by the honourable member for Perth and the honourable member for Kooyong. In view of the very real concern of all Australians at the alleged atrocities by the Syrians against Israeli prisoners of war, will the Prime Minister now initiate action within the United Nations in accordance with the last part of the question put to him by the honourable member for Perth?

Mr WHITLAM:
ALP

– We have been in touch with the International Committee of the Red Cross in Geneva on this matter for many days past. That is the appropriate body in respect to Geneva conventions.

page 4281

QUESTION

TRANS-AUSTRALIA AIRLINES DISPUTE

Mr OLLEY:
HUME, NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Minister for Labour. Did the terms of settlement of the Trans-Australia Airlines dispute provide for the pilots’ lifting of the threat of lightning strikes, and has the dismissed pilot been re-employed?

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– The terms of settlement of the Trans-Australia Airlines dispute have not previously been made public, but in view of the fact that quite a number of the travelling public believe that the terms of settlement did not involve the lifting of the threat of lightning strikes without notice, it is proper that I should make it quite clear that, among the terms of settlement which led to the return of the pilots to their normal duties, the Federation of Air Pilots gave an unconditional guarantee that it would not engage in lightning strikes, and that persons who buy passenger tickets on Trans-Australia Airlines’ nights can be assured that they will travel on the day that they wish to travel and will be brought safely back home again. TransAustralia Airlines can guarantee passage to everybody who purchases tickets.

On the question relating to the return of the pilot who was dismissed for an alleged breach of safety regulations, I can say that Trans-Australia Airlines has not re-engaged that pilot. Trans-Australia Airlines has a firm policy from which it will not depart. It will always put the safety of its passengers above the profit motive or above monetary considerations, and in no circumstances will Trans-Australia Airlines give up the right to dismiss a pilot who in the opinion of the Australian National Airlines Commission has committed a serious breach of safety regulations. In this case it was the view of the Commission that the pilot had committed a serious breach of safety regulations, and he was dismissed. He is still dismissed and will not be re-employed unless the Department of Civil Aviation in reviewing the case considers that the dismissal was a penalty too severe in the circumstances. But unless that decision is made by the Department the pilot will not be re-employed, because safety of our passengers is paramount to Trans-Australia Airlines.

page 4281

QUESTION

RUST DISEASE IN WHEAT

Mr FISHER:
MALLEE, VICTORIA

– My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry. The Minister will be aware of the serious damage by rust to wheat crops, particularly in South Australia, Victoria and New South Wales. This fungus disease has not only cut yields but also has severely reduced grain quality. In fact, losses to the industry have been conservatively estimated at $ 1,000m. In answer to a question in the other place last week, the Minister for Primary Industry said that there was a considerable incidence of the disease but that, because of prompt action, losses would not be so bad as expected. My question is: In view of the fact that wheat farmers know of no control measures against such a disease, what was the prompt action taken?

Dr PATTERSON:
Minister for Northern Development · DAWSON, QUEENSLAND · ALP

– The honourable member would well know that the rust problem in wheat and in other crops has occupied the minds of research workers all over the world for many years. This problem has a high priority in research work today in the physical sciences. The honourable member said that the possible losses through rust this year in the wheat industry would be $ 1,000m. I do not know where the honourable member obtained that figure-

Mr Fisher:

– It should be $100m.

Dr PATTERSON:

– I thought that the honourable member said $ 1,000m which, if he did say that, is the estimated value of the total crop for the whole year.

Mr Fisher:

– Ten per cent.

Dr PATTERSON:

– That would perhaps be right. The estimate may be 10 per cent, if it is as high as that. From the estimates that I have seen I do not think the figure will be so high as that. I have no other comment to make about the matter except to say that this Government is, as the former Government was, fully aware of the problem of rust. A body of research workers in Australia and throughout the world are concentrating not only on the genetic properties of wheat itself but also on the varieties of wheat in an endeavour to overcome the problems of rust.

page 4282

QUESTION

ELECTRONICS INDUSTRY

Mr INNES:
MELBOURNE, VICTORIA

– Has the Minister for Overseas Trade received a submission from the electronics industry setting out that the increase of imports of electronic components and made up television, radio and other sets, as a result of the reduction of tariffs recently made, will be such that nearly all component manufacturing in Australia will cease and that some 7,500 to 10,000 people will lose their jobs? Does he consider that the electronics industry may have a special technological significance in the present industrial revolution equal to that of steel in the first industrial revolution? Will he consider calling an industry conference so that management, unions and others may have a chance to submit plans to retain technology in Australia, to ensure that people now employed in the industry will not suffer undue hardship and, further, to ensure that consumer protection will be such that adequate protection will be accorded to them against surreptitious dumping by overseas manufacturers?

Dr J F CAIRNS:
Minister for Overseas Trade · LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– I have received a submission from the electronics industry which, among other points, claims that the tariff reduction and the increase in imports of components and made up sets that will come as a result of that reduction will bring an end to electronic components manufacture in Australia and will cause disemployment in the industry of between 7,500 to 10,000 people. I am aware of the significance of electronics technology. It may well be, as the honourable member suggests, that electronics technology in this industrial revolution is of equal importance to steel in the first indus’trial revolution.

When the Government recently introduced the reduction in tariffs on television sets and components and other electronics components it did so with a full sense of the importance of technology and with a full sense of the desirability of not pushing people around merely to bring about general economic changes unless there are proper safeguards to ensure that re-employment is looked after, that training is attended to and that assistance is given where proper and justified.

The Government decided to make a somewhat smaller reduction in tariff than the Tariff Board had recommended so that the changes would not be too vast and extensive and there could be some reasonable control of those changes, consistent with securing the lowest possible prices for television sets and other electronics components for the consumer. This was a balance which, I think, was sensible and completely justified. We also adopted measures to provide a subsidy to preserve the desirable technological aspects of the industry for future development. That subsidy will be applied, and it is a matter of detail and of work to find out where it is needed and in what way it can be applied. Nothing in the report of the Tariff Board or in the decision of the Government automatically solves that problem. I would be pleased to have discussions with my colleague, the Minister for Secondary Industry, and other people who are concerned, and meet with people from the industry and the unions and other people concerned to ensure that we maintain the desirable technological aspects of the industry for the future. I also will be concerned to see that the provisions for assistance, retraining and so on that I have mentioned are applied properly.

I am concerned also about the latter aspect of the honourable member’s question, namely, that the consumer receives the benefit of the tariff reduction. This will not follow automatically. We are dealing with an importing system that is far from perfectly competitive, and simply to believe that all one needs to do is to reduce the tariff and one gets a cheaper set is nonsense. It will be necessary for the Government to act through the Prices Justification Tribunal and the use of its prices power, if the people next Saturday vote for the Government proposal for a price control power. If the people vote on that proposal sensibly and wisely in their own interest, we can ensure that the benefits of the tariff reduction on television sets will be passed on to the consumer.

page 4282

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

Mr LYNCH:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA

– Has the attention of the Minister for Overseas Trade been drawn to the Treasurer’s answer to my question of 29 November in which he stated that we should not be thinking of the Australian Industry Development Corporation in terms of an investment fund of $50m; rather should we be thinking in terms of$500m? What is the AIDC’s upper borrowing limit under the Act? What is the level of borrowings held by the Corporation? What level of funds is required to undertake all projects for which the Corporation has given conditional approval? Finally, to which projects did he refer as being jeopardised by the non-passage of the Australian Industry Development Corporation Bill and the National Investment Fund Bill through this House?

Dr J F CAIRNS:
ALP

– HadI not anticipated that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition would ask this question, I would have had to ask that it be put on the notice paper. I am very pleased that he has asked the question because I will now be able to direct his attention to the relevant sections of the Act and the Corporation’s annual report, which are available to him and from which, had he directed his attention to them, he could have answered his own question. Section 24(1) of the Act states:

There is payable to the Corporation in accordance with this section, as the capital of the Corporation, One hundred million dollars.

However, the full $100m has not been paid to the Corporation up to now. Sub-section (3) states:

An instalment of capital shall be paid at the expiration of twelve months after the Board requests the Treasurer to pay that instalment.

When sub-section (3) has been given effect to, the Corporation will have capital from the Treasury of $50m. Sub-section (5) states:

Subject to sub-section(7) -

Sub-section (7) provides that the capital can exceed $50m if it is necessary for the discharge of the Corporation’s obligations - payment of an instalment of capital shall not be made to the Corporation where the total of the amounts paid to the Corporation under this section exceeds-

I will abbreviate the quote-

  1. . four times . . .

    1. the amount of the capital of the Corporation as at that date; and
    2. any amount set aside, as at that date, by the Corporation as reserves.

Reference to the annual report of the Corporation will show that at present, $37.5m has been paid in capital and another $12. 5m has been agreed to but has not been received and will be received as soon as the provisions of section 24 (3) are given effect to. That will then take the capital of the Corporation to $50m. If the Deputy Leader of the Opposition looks at the annual report, he will find that it shows that the amount borrowed by the Corporation for 1973 was$42,784,892 and for 1972 was $16,826,389. He will see, therefore, that the amount borrowed does not exceed by 4 times the capital of the Corporation. So, the amount borrowed limits the ability of the Corporation to draw more capital from the Treasury and until the Corporation can borrow more money in Australia or overseas - this is what I was trying to say the other day and I thought I had made it clear - it cannot obtain any more capital from the Government. I hope that is clear. I should also like to draw to the attention of the honourable member sub-section (8) of section 24 which was put in by his Party when it was in government. It states:

It is the intention of the Parliament in providing moneys as capital-

Mr Sinclair:

– Let us deal with the next clause.

Mr Anthony:

– Why do you not seek leave to make a statement after question time?

Dr J F CAIRNS:

– It would not be a bad idea if members of the Australian Country Party listened to this because I would have hoped that they were interested in the AIDC.

Mr Anthony:

– This is an abuse of question time.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! I think that honourable gentlemen would agree that the question invited a rather detailed answer. The Minister is quite in order.

Dr J F CAIRNS:

– Sub-section (8.) states:

It is the intention of the Parliament in providing moneys as capital of the Corporation that the moneys so provided will serve principally as an inducement to persons to make loans to the Corporation for use by it in the performance of its functions and will not ordinarily be applied by the Corporation in the performance of its functions . . .

That sub-section, put in by the Opposition when it was the Government, makes clear that the Corporation is not to use the capital it secures from the Treasury to perform its ordinary functions but is to use it simply as an inducement to obtain capital from the market. So we must turn to the market but at present we are unable effectively to turn to the market for 2 reasons. One is that the Corporationis limited by the law which was passed by the Opposition when it was in government that the Corporation must borrow principally from overseas. It cannot turn to borrowing in Australia out of proportion because it must borrow principally overseas. In the amending Bills which the Deputy Leader of the Opposition spoke against, I was asking members opposite to remove that provision. It has not been removed and therefore the Corporation -

Mr McMahon:

– You do not want to -

Dr J F CAIRNS:

– I do not have time for the right honourable member for Lowe on this question. He tried to prevent the AIDC from coming into existence. He tries to restrict it and tie it up on every occasion. The last point I want to draw to the attention of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is that because of this restriction on the AIDC - its inability to raise enough money to meet its commitments - I received a letter from Sir Alan Westerman to which I have referred before. I said that if the Deputy Leader of the Opposition wanted to look at it, he could do so. But he has not asked to look at the letter, so I will quote from it. The letter from Sir Alan Westerman to me is dated 13 November 1973 and the last paragraph reads:

Such is the state of urgency that AIDC’s operations will have to be curtailed at its next Board Meeting (Thursday, 22 November) unless we can be assured that by one means or another we will be able to obtain the funds we must have for new business.

Following upon the receipt of that letter I made arrangements with Sir Alan Westerman and with representatives of the Life Offices Association for Australia and other institutional lenders so that the immediate difficulties could be overcome. I am happy to say that we have succeeded in overcoming those immediate difficulties. So AIDC is able to continue with the commitments it has made to the Redcliffs operation and other operations of that sort. But within two or three months AIDC will again be in the same position and I will be asking the Senate and the Opposition to widen the scope of the AIDC so that it can, if necessary, go to $500m for projects which are in the national interest and projects which are carried out in association with overseas capital and other Australian domestic capital, and so that it will not be tied up with the ideology of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition which is not shared by big business leadership in Australia. Business leaders in Australia want to see AIDC follow the kind of role it is doing in Redcliffs, and so do most of the people in this country. It is time the Opposition did.

page 4284

QUESTION

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND CONSTRUCTION: APPRENTICES

Mr NICHOLLS:
BONYTHON, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Minister for Housing and Construction. Having regard to the large direct labour force his Department employs, will the Minister inform the House the extent to which this force and the resources of his Department are used in the training of apprentices?

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– The Department of Housing and Construction has the largest construction force in Australia. That construction force was also the largest in Australia when it was part of the then Department of Works. There has always been a sense of responsibility demonstrated by these departments in regard to the employment of apprentices and I understand that more than 480 apprentices are employed by the Department of Housing and Construction at present. The apprenticeship intake for 1974 will be about 250 new apprentices. This will represent an increase of more than 100 over the intake figure for 1973. The Department feels very strongly about the responsibility it has to set an example. It is important that the example which I have mentioned in terms of the intake figures for next year should be taken notice of and regarded by industry as an example which might be emulated. Australia could well be heading for a crisis if we do not take significant steps to expand our construction force. The Minister for Labour has taken significant steps to provide new incentives to employers to encourage them to increase their intake of apprentices. I certainly will not go into the details today, but I understand the incentives amount to as much as $16 a week in some cases. Details of these incentives are available from the Minister for Labour and his Department. As the Minister for Housing and Construction I feel very strongly about the need to make 1974 a very significant year for the building up of our tradesman force in Australia. I hope that the example set by my Department will be faithfully followed by the leaders of the construction industry.

page 4284

QUESTION

PIPELINE AUTHORITY

Mr GRAHAM:
NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Having regard to the promise of the Minister for Minerals and Energy to table in this House those opinions establishing the constitutional validity of the Pipeline Authority Act and having regard to the enormous national significance of the measures introduced by the Minister last night, is the Minister prepared to fulfil his promise to me, if possible before the House rises for the Christmas recess?

Mr CONNOR:
Minister for Minerals and Energy · CUNNINGHAM, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I owe the honourable member for North Sydney an apology. The information has been ready for some time and should have been transmitted to him. I will get it to him today.

page 4285

DISALLOWED QUESTION

(Mr Hurford proceeding to address a question to the Prime Minister) -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Griffith beat me to the punch. The Prime Minister is not responsible for the manning of booths, even if the matter is the subject of a report.

Mr Hurford:

– On the point of order, it is just a report from which my question will arise.

Mr SPEAKER:

– We will hear the question and see whether it is in order. (Mr Hurford continuing to address his question to the Prime Minister) -

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

Mr Speaker, I take a point of order again.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The question is not in order.

Mr Hurford:

– May I come to the question?

Mr SPEAKER:

-The Prime Minister is not responsible for what any other Party does, particularly the Liberal Party or the Australian Country Party. The question is out of order.

page 4285

QUESTION

LIFE OFFICE AND SUPERANNUATION FUND INVESTMENTS

Mr WILSON:
STURT, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Prime Minister. How does he reconcile the statement of the Treasurer that life offices and superannuation funds would be required to invest 10 per cent of their increased assets in Australian Industries Development Corporation securities with the diametrically opposite view of the Minister for Overseas Trade that he has no desire to use compulsion to force such investment? Will voluntary compulsion be achieved by the tax concessions now available to life offices and superannuation funds being withdrawn unless funds are invested in the AIDC?

Mr WHITLAM:
ALP

– Insurance companies are not compelled to invest in Government bonds. The taxpayer, however, gives insurance companies very considerable incentives to do so. I have no doubt that comparable incentives would persuade the insurance companies and superannuation funds to invest in the AIDC. I have been putting this proposal to the public for about 5 years myself. I believe it is overwhelmingly accepted by the community now.

page 4285

QUESTION

VASECTOMY

Mr JAMES:
HUNTER, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Has the Minister for Health noted widespread comment in support of cheap, even free, and easily accessible vasectomy operations for men? Is he concerned that in the event of such a development promiscuity may be encouraged among young men? In such an event, has he any proposals for the preservation of the virtue and moral rectitude of the young men of our society?

Dr EVERINGHAM:
Minister for Health · CAPRICORNIA, QUEENSLAND · ALP

– I believe that the good book, from which the honourable member frequently quotes in this place, says that he who looks after a woman to lust after her has committed adultery with her already in his own heart, so I do not really hold much hope for improving the morals of people by making another method of birth control more freely available than in the past. In fact I see no possible impact on moral rectitude one way or the other. However, I would point out that vasectomy is not performed by responsible doctors in any State of this country unless they are satisfied that it is the best solution possible to the patient’s problem, and it would be extremely unlikely that a young man who

Mr SPEAKER:

-I ask the Minister not to keep looking at me all the time.

Dr EVERINGHAM:

– I assure you, Sir, I meant no reflection on your age. It would be very unusual for a young man who, in a doctor’s opinion, may want to have a family in years to come, to resort to this method of birth control. There are other methods almost equally effective, far cheaper and more easily available.

page 4285

QUESTION

BLACK COAL

Mr KATTER:
KENNEDY, QUEENSLAND

– In addressing my question to the Minister for Minerals and Energy I refer to his recent criticism of the Queensland

Government’s permitting the acquisition by overseas interests of black coal deposits which the Minister believes are intended for hydrogenation purposes. I ask: What percentage of Australian equity would be regarded as an acceptable minimum in these circumstances? I also ask him whether he has any overall policy priorities in the development of Queensland coal deposits and whether he is restricting the exportation of coal from certain deposits in accordance with this policy. I ask him specifically whether he is disallowing certain black coal export contracts from Queensland of more than 9 months duration. If so, what are the criteria on which he bases the disallowance of such export contracts?

Mr CONNOR:
ALP

– There has been no disallowance of the type raised by the honourable member. There have been record exports of coal from Queensland and I have every reason to believe that they will continue. I will be very happy to support this provided that proper prices are being obtained. In point of fact, as a result of the introduction of export controls administered for this purpose, very substantial gains have been made that would not otherwise have been made.

Mr Anthony:

– Have you disallowed any?

Mr CONNOR:

– No. As to what would be an acceptable policy in terms of foreign equity, I point out by way of contrast the position in New South Wales where the Australian equity in the black coal industry is of the order of 85 per cent, compared with 20 per cent in Queensland. I think that is the answer to the question.

page 4286

DEFENCE FORCES RETIREMENT BENEFITS BOARD

Mr BARNARD:
Minister for Defence · Bass · ALP

– Pursuant to section 14(1) of the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Act 1948-1973, I present the twenty-fifth report of the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Board on the operation of the Act for the period 1 July 1972 to 30 September 1972, together with financial accounts and the report of the Auditor-General on those accounts.

page 4286

DEFENCE FORCE RETIREMENT AND DEATH BENEFITS AUTHORITY

Mr BARNARD:
Minister for Defence · Bass · ALP

– Pursuant to section 16(1) of the Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits

Act 1973, I present the first report of the Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits Authority dealing with the general administration and working of the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Act 1948-1973 for the period 1 October 1972 to 30 June 1973.

page 4286

DEFENCE FORCES RETIREMENT BENEFITS BOARD

Mr CREAN:
Treasurer · Melbourne Ports · ALP

– Pursuant to section 14 (2) of the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Act 1948-1973, I present the first report of the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Board dealing with the administration of Part III of the Act for the period 1 October 1972 to 30 June 1973, together with financial accounts.

page 4286

AUSTRALIAN MEAT RESEARCH COMMITTEE

Dr PATTERSON:
Minister for Northern Development and Minister for the Northern Territory · Dawson · ALP

– Pursuant to section 17 of the Meat Research Act 1960-1968, I present the seventh annual report of the Australian Meat Research Committee for the year ended 30 June 1973. An interim report of the Committee was presented to the House on 19 September 1973.

page 4286

MIGRANT EDUCATION

Mr GRASSBY:
Minister for Immigration · Riverina · ALP

– Pursuant to section 12 of the Immigration (Education) Act 1971, I present the annual report on migrant education for the year ended 30 June 1973.

page 4286

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY POLICE

Mr ENDERBY:
Minister for Secondary Industry and Minister for Supply · Australian Capital Territory · ALP

– For the information of honourable members, I present the annual report of the Australian Capital Territory Police for the year ended 30 June 1973.

page 4286

METRIC CONVERSION BOARD

Mr MORRISON:
Minister for Science · St George · ALP

– Pursuant to section 24 of the Metric Conversion Board Act 1970-1971, I present the third report of the Metric Conversion Board for the year ended 30 June 1973.

page 4287

EDUCATION OF RECREATION WORKERS

Ministerial Statement

Mr STEWART:
Minister for Tourism and Recreation and Vice-President of the Executive Council · Lang · ALP

– by leave - The document I am about to table will, I believe, make a significant contribution to finding the most appropriate training program for recreation workers. Throughout Australia, educational institutions are wondering how to provide the expert leadership which, in the 1980s, will guide the community to a greater appreciation of and creative involvement in leisure. In preparing this paper Mr Elery Hamilton-Smith has had the assistance of many individuals from educational institutions and recreation administration. The names of the people are listed in the paper and I wish to record my sincere thanks for their contributions to the study.

Mr Hamilton Smith has done a fine job and at a later date, after consideration of his findings and consultation with my colleagues, the Australian Government’s program and policy on education for recreation workers will be announced. I propose to table the document now to enable honourable members and the public to read it and to express any views they may have on the subject, which has far reaching implications for the ultimate success of the Government’s plans for the enrichment of the growing leisure hours of all Australians.

I shall give honourable members a very brief rundown on the report. Mr HamiltonSmith identifies a requirement for 3 basic types of recreation workers. Firstly, he deals with people responsible for administration, planning, consultation training, program development and resources provision to other workers or other activities at national, state, regional or municipal level. Positions for these kinds of workers are found in a variety of governmental agencies as well as many nongovernmental organisations. Secondly, there are those workers more directly concerned with the management and operation of a recreation and sporting facility. These workers would be involved in the management and operation of single or multipurpose sports centres, youth centres, swimming centres, urban or national parks and commercial establishments such as health and fitness centres.

Lastly, there are recreational workers whose primary job is the face to face ‘operative’ task whether as a youth leader, a sports coach, a ski instructor, a drama producer or any of the hundreds of different tasks at this level. Mr Hamilton-Smith suggests that professional education should be established at the diploma and bachelor level, in school of recreation studies at universities, colleges of advanced education and teachers colleges. For facility managers, he suggests associate diploma or technical certificate level and for his third type, intense job oriented courses. Mr Hamilton-Smith also stresses the importance of voluntary workers and the need to foster this important group in Australian recreation. These volunteers, the report says, are the key to any large-scale recreation scheme in any country. He then goes on to make recommendations on how the Australian Government can facilitate training.

Our Government is firmly committed to facing the issues involved in planning opportunities for a more creative use of leisure time. Our program so far has introduced many new initiatives. They cover capital assistance for the development of recreation facilities to assistance to sporting teams and research and information dissemination. This creative use of leisure is an issue of which Governments are aware. We can meet the challenge if we begin now to plan towards the time when, early retirement, shorter working hours and longer vacations will be a reality. The universities, colleges of advanced education and technical colleges have sensed the need for trained leadership and I believe this document, with its many positive recommendations, is timely in that it helps to paint a clearer picture of training requirements for recreation workers. I table the report.

Mr LYNCH:
Deputy Leader of the Opposition · Flinders

Mr Speaker, I seek leave to make a statement.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Mr LYNCH:

– As the Minister for Tourism and Recreation (Mr Stewart) has mentioned, the document he has tabled should make a significant contribution to developing the most appropriate training program for recreation workers in this country. The Opposition parties welcome the report and, in so doing, congratulate the Minister for the initiative he has taken in commissioning the report by Mr Hamilton-Smith. The question of leisure time is one which has been subject to widespread debate in many countries. It is probably true to say, with regret, that the debate has taken place more vociferously in other countries. I think specifically of the United States of America. The document which has been brought down will certainly assist in remedying the absence of an informed public debate and the development of an informed public opinion in this country.

The trend toward greater periods of leisure time obviously calls for Government involvement. As the report points out, the satisfactory development of recreation in Australia is in so many aspects dependent upon the education of recreation workers. The report makes a number of very useful recommendations for the education, firstly, of professional recreation workers and, secondly, of volunteer recreation workers, and stresses the importance of interdisciplinary communication between persons in the recreation area and those in other specialised fields. The Minister, in closing his comments, indicated that his Government is firmly committed to facing the issues involved in planning opportunities for a more creative use of leisure time in this country. That ideal and that commitment are certainly shared by the Opposition parties. I believe the report provides a sound basis for policy development. We on this side of the House look forward to the presentation by the Minister of a number of initiatives in this particular area. We congratulate the Minister. It is a very helpful report and I believe it augurs well for what he may foreshadow in the future.

page 4288

TURTLE FARMING PROJECT IN NORTHERN AUSTRALIA

Ministerial Statement

Mr Lionel Bowen:
KINGSFORD-SMITH, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– by leave - For the information of honourable members I table 2 reports which have been prepared by consultants retained to advise the Special Minister of State on the turtle farming project which has been initiated in Torres Strait and elsewhere in northern Australia. These consultants were retained following a letter which the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) wrote to Senator Willesee on 23 August asking him to arrange for various aspects of the project to be studied. The report on the ecological implications of the project was prepared by Professor A. F. Carr of the University of Florida in conjunction with Professor A. R. Main of the University of Western Australia. Professor Carr is an acknowledged world authority on sea turtles and a conservationist of note. Professor Main, a zoologist, is a Fellow of the Australian Academy of Science and a member of the Council of the Australian Institute of Marine Science. These 2 experts were retained on the advice of the Secretary of the Department of the Environment and Conservation and other expert sources. The report dealing with the organisation management and market prospects of the project was prepared by Mr L. P. Smart, a partner in Marquand and Co., the Melbourne firm of chartered accountants. He was engaged in the light of his outstanding record as a business consultant and his background of relevant experience in the meat industry.

Mariculture, including turtle farming, is a relatively unexplored field of knowledge fraught with complexities. There is only one other significant commercial enterprise in the world and that is a capital-intensive operation by a company called Mariculture Ltd, which was launched about 5 years ago at Grand Cayman Island in the West Indies. It is based on an approach different from that adopted in the project in northern Australia. Against this background it is apparent that every effort should have been made at the outset to ensure that the project was launched on a sound basis. It is clear, however, from both reports that the turtle farming project has been allowed to develop without there being a proper basis of adequate research and sound administration. Because of this it has made little discernible contribution to research, to the conservation of the species involved or to the development of a sound commercial industry. For this situation the previous Government, in whose term the project was initiated, must bear prime responsibility. In commissioning these studies Senator Willesee sought to discover whether the project, as it now stands, can be developed on a basis that is ecologically and commercially sound.

In summary, Professor Carr and Professor Main consider that at present the project is not having an adverse effect on the wild turtle populations or on other resources in the area. They observed no great adverse effect on farmed turtles from existing husbandry procedures, although some stunting of growth was apparent, and a worm infestation affecting turtles on at least one island in Torres Strait has subsequently been discovered. It is their view, however, that several years’ research should have preceded the establishment of the project on a production basis and that further growth should be held back until a research program has provided answers to some of the biological and ecological uncertainties encountered. The consultants have stressed the absence of an adequate impact statement and recommend that such a statement be made a minimum requirement for any future growth. They also recommend a comprehensive program of research including the development of large enclosed areas in the sea - sea crawls - for growing turtles and the establishment of a breeding program to make the project independent of eggs taken from wild populations. A major theme in their recommendations is the need to allay the fears of conservationists about the project’s implications for the conservation of turtles throughout the world.

Mr Smart recommends that the growing of turtles for meat and shell should proceed as a commercial undertaking. The step to commercial production would involve establishing a large sea crawl in which turtles would grow from their 2-3 year weight of 15 lb reached on the individual farms to slaughter size of 100 lb-plus at 5-6 years. This step need not involve - and for the present should not be allowed to involve - any increase in the present base of the project, that is, the annual intake of hatchlings by present farmers. Mr Smart recommends re-organising the management of the turtle project to establish producer co-operatives and a processing/ marketing company. The present company organisation would be abandoned, although the company Applied Ecology Pty Ltd would be retained with a new and limited role as a purely research and advisory body to serve the turtle project - and possibly other projects envisaging utilisation of particular native species by Aboriginal and Island people.

After consideration of the various courses open to it in the light of these reports, the Government has decided to approve the continuation of the turtle farming industry as a pilot experimental project in which research is emphasised, as recommended by Professors Carr and Main, to determine the feasibility of developing it on the lines described by Mr Smart. In view of the many complexities which the reports have revealed, a final decision on the commitments of the capital funds required will be deferred pending the preparation of an adequate environmental impact statement, study of the constraints identified by Mr Smart in his report, and pilot research into the space and feed requirements of large turtles. The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs will see to it that these studies are put in hand. At the same time other research of a longer term character which has been recommended by the consultants will be commenced. The Premiers of Queensland and Western Australia, where the project is operating, have been advised of this decision by the Prime Minister. The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs will arrange for the Government’s position to be fully and promptly explained to the turtle farmers and for appropriate consultations to be held with the National Aboriginal Consultative Council.

Mr HUNT:
Gwydir

– by leave- I thank the Minister for making these reports available to the Parliament at this time. I do not believe for one moment that these reports are the last chapters in what has been a sordid story. Here is a project to which funds have been allocated, without adequate research and scrutiny, ostensibly in the interests of Aboriginal advancement. For too long the Council of Aboriginal Affairs, the office of Aboriginal Affairs and now the Department of Aboriginal Affairs have been able to invest funds in Aboriginal enterprises without proper research, programming and supervision from the capital fund in the trust account. No-one quibbles at the expenditure or the investment; indeed, it is essential that great sums of money be made available to assist in Aboriginal advancement. Perhaps nobody would doubt the sincerity of those who were trying to find adequate enterprises and projects for the Aborigines of the Tones Straits and elsewhere in Australia, but every effort must be made in the future to ensure that Aboriginal enterprises do not end up as failures.

Of course, there is going to be the odd one, but here is a significant - a very important - Aboriginal enterprise that has obviously ended up in a very sad way. Now we have before us reports that have been prepared by consultants, and I cast no reflection whatsoever on the integrity or the ability of those who have been engaged; they are eminent gentlemen, and they represent wellknown firms of consultants. But why have we not had a report from the Auditor-General? I asked the former

Minister for Aboriginal Affairs a question in this House, and he replied that he had called for a report from the Auditor-General. I placed a question on the notice paper, as follows:

  1. Will the Minister make available to the Parliament the Auditor-General’s Report on the conduct of Applied Ecology Pty Ltd and Islander Marketing Pty Ltd.
  2. If so, when will the report be presented to the Parliament.

The answers given to those questions are as follows:

  1. and (2) A firm of chartered accountants and riot the Auditor-General was appointed by the directors as auditor, for the purposes of the Australian Capital Territory Companies Ordinance 1962-1973, of Applied Ecology Pty Ltd and Aboriginal and Islander Marketing Pty Ltd. Consequently it is not the Auditor-General’s responsibility to report on the conduct of these companies or to inspect and audit their accounts and records.

The Auditor-General’s responsibilities are limited under the Audit Act to ensuring that payments made to the companies from the Public Account have been approved by the competent authority. A similar situation exists with regard to his responsibilities under the Aboriginal Enterprises Assistance Act in respect of payments made to the companies from the Capital Fund for Aboriginal Enterprises.

I might add that the Audit Act makes no provision for Ministers to request reports from the Auditor-General on particular matters. In accordance with that Act the Auditor-General includes in his report to the Parliament such information as he thinks desirable in relation to those examinations and inspections carried out by him in pursuance of the provisions of the Audit Act or any other Act.

I think it is a most regrettable state of affairs that the Auditor-General, who was called upon to examine and to report on the affairs of these companies - I understand that he undertook some examination - is not being brought into this picture. I hope it is not the Government’s intention to smother up the right and proper processes of investigation. We have seen a pretty sordid run of events, including the sacking - if one wants to use that word; perhaps that is unfair, but the removal - of a former Minister for Aboriginal Affairs from his portfolio. I think this was followed then by statements by a senator in another place, making rather serious allegations against the way in which funds were being spent to advance Aborigines. In fact, I recall his very phrase - that the whole area is a disaster area littered with failures.

Then only a few days ago we heard that the Chairman of one of these companies had sacked Dr Bustard, and what has happened? Only yesterday the present Minister for

Aboriginal Affairs informed us that Senator Georges had been sacked as the Chairman of one of these companies and that Dr Bustard had been reinstated. It has created a rather curious set of events, and I do not think that we have heard the full story. I have had questions on the notice paper. If it is permissible, may I read a question that is on the notice paper?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Scholes)If it is relevant.

Mr HUNT:

– It is quite relevant. Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. The question states:

  1. With reference to the Minister’s answer to my question No. 1298, does the Audit Act make provision for the collection and payment of public moneys and the audit of the public accounts and the protection of public property.
  2. Is the Minister the sole shareholder in Applied Ecology Pty Ltd, Islander Marketing Pty Ltd and Aboriginal and Islander Marketing Pty Ltd.
  3. Has the Minister contributed any funds other than moneys appropriated by the Parliament.
  4. Was there any other source of revenue to any of these companies, other than public funds, in the year 1972-73.
  5. In establishing 3 companies to spend public money, was it intended to avoid the scrutiny of Parliament and avoid the purposes of the Audit Act; if not, does it effectively do this.
  6. Will the reports of the chartered accountants who audited the affairs of these companies be made available to the Parliament.

The latter part of that question has been answered by the tabling of these reports this morning.

I have had on the notice paper for some time a further question directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. It reads:

  1. In view of the Minister’s statement on 25 October 1973 that he favoured an all-party standing committee to screen all applications for loans, advances and grants for Aboriginal enterprises, did he authorise a statement which appeared in the ‘Australian’ of 8 November 1973 that a review committee of 7 second division officers of the Department would be established.
  2. If so, why was the statement not made in the Parliament which was then sitting.

We had an undertaking from the Minister that he would set up a parliamentary select committee to screen and to review all Aboriginal enterprises. But on 8 November we were informed - not in the Parliament, but through a Press release which perhaps was issued by the Department - that there would not be an all-party committee screening these Aboriginal enterprises but that 7 Second Division officers of the Department would examine them. Is this another indication that somebody is trying to cover up the real facts of the situation? We cannot get away from 3 simple facts in relation to this matter. The turtle farming project was started and much money was spent on it, without the necessary permit to export being obtained. I put a question on the notice paper about that matter also.

Dr Jenkins:

– That started while you were a Minister.

Mr HUNT:

– I am not denying that.

Dr Jenkins:

– Be fair.

Mr HUNT:

– I am being quite fair. I think the whole project is a disaster. I do not think that it has been improved much by the current events. I hope that we do not see any further operations of this kind without proper research and without proper provision being made to ensure that the project has some hope of success. I think that in the past too many fingers have been in the pie. I think the Council for Aboriginal Affairs has been regarded somewhat as the final arbiter in these matters and, in fact, has been looked upon as fulfilling the role of the Minister. It was in the time of the former Minister. I understand that the present Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has now insisted that the Council for Aboriginal Affairs be directly responsible to him. If that is so, it is a very good step in the right direction to ensure that the Minister has complete responsibility for the conduct of Aboriginal affairs and the conduct of his Department. I return to what I said earlier. The turtle project was started without the necessary permit to export being obtained and without the position in relation to sales tax being ascertained. I think it is true to say that the exercise got off to a very bad start. I think that it has been somewhat of a disaster. I hope that heads are not being rolled unscrupulously to try to cover up a situation that has not yet improved.

I conclude by saying that I hope that all these allegations by Senator Georges which have not yet been proved or disproved are not swept under the rug. He is a man who has had a sincere and genuine interest in Aboriginal affairs, probably for as long as the former Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. I gauge from his reaction that he is a very distressed and unhappy man because of the way in which he has been treated just to preserve the status and position of Dr Bustard. Dr Bustard has been reinstated, whilst Senator Georges has been sacked as the chairman of a company in respect of which he was given a charter to try to overcome some of its difficult economic and financial problems. I hope that it is not the intention of the Government to try to whitewash the whole of this turtle farming project on the basis of the 2 reports which have been presented today. I do not believe that those 2 reports are good enough. I ask that the Auditor-General make a report to the Parliament in the not too distant future on the operations of the 2 marketing enterprises.

Mr Wentworth:

Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek leave to make a statement not exceeding 2 minutes.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Scholes)Order!

Mr Lionel Bowen:
KINGSFORD-SMITH, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Mr Deputy Speaker, 1 seek leave to give a very short answer before the honourable member for Mackellar speaks.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

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

Mr LIONEL BOWEN (KingsfordSmithPostmasterGeneral and Special Minister of State) - The honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt) was concerned about the position of the Auditor-General. I should like to draw his attention to the Supplementary Report of the Auditor-General, dated 29 November 1973, which was tabled in this House in the last 2 days. For the record, it states, under the heading ‘Department of Aboriginal Affairs’:

Audit representations were recently made to the Department of Aboriginal Affairs on apparent departures from the requirements of the Audit Act and Treasury Regulations and on certain deficiencies noted in the financial and administrative control over the receipt and expenditure of public moneys and of moneys of the Commonwealth Capital Fund for Aboriginal Enterprises which was established under the Aboriginal Enterprises (Assistance) Act 1968.

The Auditor-General then refers to those representations, on which I will not expand here. The report continues:

Comments were recently sought from The Australian National University on certain features noted during Audit examination of records relating to pay. ments by the University from moneys advanced from the Aboriginal Advancement Trust Account for expenditure on the turtle and crocodile farming research projects.

At the date of preparation of this Report, replies to the Audit correspondence were awaited from the Department and The Australian National University.

Mr Wentworth:

Mr Deputy Speaker, I have not had an opportunity to read these reports-

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! Is the honourable member seeking leave to make a statement?

Mr Wentworth:

– If I may, Mr Deputy Speaker. I wish to make a statement not exceeding 2 minutes.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

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

Mr WENTWORTH:
Mackellar

– I have not had an opportunity to read these reports. I therefore make no comment at all upon them. The turtle project was started, as an experimental project only, when I was the Ministerincharge of Aboriginal Affairs. Ibelieve at the moment that it is a sound project. I shall read the. reports presented today and perhaps modify my views in the light of them. The only point I want to make is that in this discussion the main consideration is the interests of the Torres Strait Islanders who have committed themselves to this project on the advice and encouragement of the Government. I hope that any decision that is made will have regard particularly to the interests and morale of the Torres Strait Islanders who have cooperated, I think, in circumstances of great difficulty, in the development of this project. I agree that it seems at first glance that things have not gone right as it has expanded into a commercial project. As an experimental project it was fully justified and, as far as I know at present, it should be continued as such. I shall read the reports with the very greatest of interest.

Mr Gorton:

Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek leave to make a statement.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

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

Mr GORTON:
Higgins

– To me, the importance of the reports that have been tabled and the matter that we are now discussing is not directly whether this particular project has or has not worked correctly or whether it has turned out to be economically viable; rather, the importance is that it highlights something which I think should not be allowed to continue. That is the process whereby the Parliament grants to the Minister and his Department an in globo sum of money which as time goes by he can spend as he wishes on such experimental projects.

I can understand a department or a government wishing to ensure that the Treasury, for example, does not have complete control over money to be used experimentally to set up viable Aboriginal enterprises. I can understand also that a sum of money may be set aside by the Parliament for this general purpose, and I do not object to that. However, I believe that before money is taken from that general grant and applied to a particular project, the project should be presented to Parliament. Whether it is proposed to enter into a crocodile, turtle or cattle farm, or whatever the project may be, the department and the Minister responsible should come to the Parliament and obtain from the general funds being provided money to embark on the project. If we intend to embark on a project, it will require a certain sum of money to be set up, and each year an audited account of what has been spent and a report in the progress of the project should be presented to Parliament. It may be said that this was not done by the then Government, and it should have been done. I do not object to that. However, I think it has been shown that there is a danger in the way it is being operated at present. Time has shown that that danger should be overcome in future by ensuring that sums of money provided for general purposes are spent only on particular purposes after Parliament has debated the matter and expressed an opinion on those purposes.

page 4292

SEAS AND SUBMERGED LANDS BILL 1973

Assent reported.

page 4292

SHORTAGES OF GOODS IN AUSTRALIA

Discussion of Matter of Public Importance

Mr SPEAKER:

-I have received a letter from the Leader of the Australian Country Party (Mr Anthony) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:

The serious inconvenience and disruption being caused to the lives of the Australian people by widespread shortages of goods.

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

Mr ANTHONY:
Leader of the Australian Country Party · Richmond

– Every member of this House, and every Australian, knows that we are suffering the effects of acute shortages of goods. Every housewife knows that supermarket shelves have empty spaces in them. People trying to set up home can get neither the building materials nor the furniture without months of waiting. Tradesmen cannot get parts and farmers cannot get supplies. Warehouses all over the nation are emptying and there is no sign of supplies coming forward to refill them. Shops have signs up apologising to customers for shortages caused by industrial disputes.

One would think that we were in a post war-time situation where industry had not been able to gear itself up to meet the demands of a free society. So serious is the position - and so much worse is it likely to become - that I think the House would do well to consider it. I do not propose to try to place all the blame for the shortages problem on the Government; the matter is much more complex than that. But I do say that the Government must carry a considerable amount of the responsibility for the development of a situation that has fostered and generated the shortages that are of concern to the whole community.

I issue this warning at the outset: If there is one thing calculated to worsen shortages, it is controls over prices and incomes. Why produce more when your chance to earn profits is interfered with by controlled prices? Why work harder to produce more when your wage packet is to be controlled? The Australian people should keep this in mind. Shortages are bad enough now, as every supermarket and warehouse shows, but they will be much worse if the Government depresses productivity even further by screwing down the lid on prices and wages.

The word ‘shortages’ is on everyone’s lips. For example, there is a 7-week delivery period for refrigerators. A steel shortage has restricted supply to food canners and builders. Customers are waiting 9 to 10 weeks for supplies of fencing materials. Nails, and a whole range of building materials, are in short supply and are disrupting building programs. Delivery time for furniture is up to 20 weeks. Aluminium is in short supply. Clothing items and footware are in short supply. Grocery shortages in certain lines are the worst in 20 years - toys,’ plastic goods, timber, joinery, so the list goes on.

The central force behind the situation is booming consumer demand. Retail sales in

October - except for motor vehicles and parts - were 20 per cent above the 1972 level. The figures show a tremendous upsurge in retail demand from the beginning of this year. The domestic boom in Australia has not been simply a national phenomenon; it coincides with, and draws strength from, an international boom. When this Government came to power, it inherited an economy heading for a boom and it inherited a strong external balance. The Government took the view that our oversea reserves were excessive in relation to import requirements and that our balanceofpayments position was excessively strong.

So, it revalued the dollar in an effort to reduce a payments surplus that was expanding foreign reserves and making more money available for spending in Australia. The idea was to control the money supply, and hence demand. Yet the money supply continues to expand strongly, and demand booms upward. For this, the Government deserves censure. It deserves censure for its failure to exercise proper economic management. It has failed in its task of national leadership. It was obvious at the beginning of this year that we were heading for a boom, yet for the first few months of this year the Labor Party failed to act. Because of an ideological mental block on this matter it ignored the evidence of excessive liquidity to which it was a major contributor. The advice to the Government was to increase interest rates by a comparatively small i per cent to 1 per cent, but the advice was ignored. Action was postponed as the money supply escalated.

Of course, the steam valve eventually blew open. Drastic action was demanded and, as a result of months of languid inaction, interest rates were pushed up to record levels. The short-term Commonwealth bond rate rose from 4i per cent in March to 7.7 per cent in September. And while all this was going on, strikes were undermining the capacity of industry to produce the goods people were seeking. Then the Budget introduced the largest increase in Commonwealth expenditure for 20 years. More than anything else, it was a consumer Budget. Bigger allocations to consumer interests were paid for by deficit budgeting and by the large-scale withdrawal of investment incentives to producer areas of the economy. The emphasis was shifted from production to consumption. We sowed the wind - or the Government did - and now all of us are reaping the whirlwind. There was a rapid consumer boom, and suppliers were overwhelmed, and they are still overwhelmed.

Production is increasing, but not fast enough. And what happens when people cannot buy what they want, and when they sense the possibility of a worsening position? They try to buy faster in an effort to beat coming shortages, and make things even worse. People pay premium prices to get preference treatment and graft creeps into the handling and supply arrangements. Those in remote areas from the point of production tend to be disregarded. Country industries and tradesmen, businessmen and farmers are certainly complaining about lack of supplies.

In circumstances such as these, one would have expected the Government to have acted much sooner, and differently, than it did. One would have expected it to have acted promptly at an early stage to limit demand. One would have expected it to encourage productivity and production. One would have expected it to severely limit its own demands on resources. One would have expected it to have tried to reduce the industrial strife that is a major factor in the shortages crisis. One would have expected it to try to restrain the trend towards shorter hours - the 35-hour week - and longer holidays, a trend that is making the situation worse. But it has done precisely the opposite.

Sitting suspended from 1 p.m. to 2.15 p.m.

Mr ANTHONY:

– And because it has done the opposite, the people of Australia are experiencing a crisis of shortages - a crisis which will take on a new meaning as Christmas demand mounts. The Government has shown a lack of courage and statesmanship in failing to place the real interests of Australia ahead of its own spending commitments. It sowed the seeds of monetary severity by postponing action on interest rates. The crunch was much worse when it came. By raising Commonwealth spending by 19 per cent in one year at a time of boom, our resources were overloaded. Inflation was intensified. Demand has been built up and is now frustrated. It cannot be met.

The problem, and the causes of it, are identifiable. But what are the solutions? Firstly, we have to understand that the worth of the Government’s social welfare programs is being largely negated by the inflation they intensify.

There is little point in spending heavily on social welfare if that spending is simply going to generate inflation that takes away the increased benefits. There is little point in big Commonwealth spending if the pressures on resources are going to worsen inflation and create greater shortages. And to get rid of shortages it would be logical to provide incentives for producers, both rural and industrial, to respond to the situation by increasing productivity and production. But instead of holding out new incentives the Government has eliminated even the existing ones. Food prices, as measured by the consumer price index, rose by 18 per cent between the September quarter of last year and this year. Yet, faced with food shortages, both present and prospective, it is strange logic indeed that compels this Government to eliminate incentives to agricultural productivity and production and then to reallocate those resources to the consumers of foods.

It is obvious too that labour shortages are a serious bottleneck in the path of increased output. An increased migrant intake may be worthy of consideration. It is by no means clear that, even if the migrants were available, they would relieve the short-term strain on our resources to a greater extent than they would impose additional strains. But at least we ought to look at the situation. It is undoubtedly time to broaden our outlook on the use of labour. There is considerable scope for increased involvement of married women in the work force. Their increased participation, particularly on a part-time basis, should be encouraged. The Jaguar car company in Britain is proposing to introduce a scheme whereby retired workers may continue employment on the basis of different working hours, wages and tasks. There is no reason why years of accumulated experience should be completely lost to the community. We should consider such proposals in Australia.

The number of working hours lost in 1973 in industrial disputes has increased by nearly 30 per cent on the 1972 level. This is a major factor in the shortages crisis. This Government, before the election, promised industrial harmony. It was given a mandate to introduce industrial harmony. It has presided over industrial anarchy. The Government, using its affinity with labour, should act to prevent the perpetuation of situations in which industry is being prevented from meeting shortages through continual strikes and stoppages.

There should be a major change in the Government’s attitude to business and industry. Instead of antagonising industry and sapping its confidence so that investment in productive capacity has so seriously dropped, the Government should do all it can to encourage investment so that industry can equip itself to achieve higher production. The Public Service should be subject to close examination in view of its expanding numbers and financial requirements at a time of labour shortages and spending pressures. The number of fulltime civilian staff engaged under the Public Service Act has increased by 4.1 per cent in the 9 months between November 1972 and August 1973 - a very high rate of increase.

The Government’s inquiry into tariff by-law policy should be expedited. It should be possible to have a system under which physical supply constraints are alleviated by duty-free entry of necessary imports, without causing any damage to our own industries. But such procedures must be flexible and selective. The 25 per cent tariff reduction was neither, and could rebound in our faces if the forecast severe international recession eventuates in 1974.

In summary, the problem of shortages is a deep-rooted one. The solutions must be comprehensive and broadly-based. I have outlined some of the remedies that should be applied. But their implementation will require political courage and statesmanship. It is unfortunate for the Australian people that this has so far been lacking by the Government at present in charge of the affairs of this nation.

But what I must repeat, and emphasise, is that as bad as shortages are now, they will get far worse if a system of price control is imposed. Nothing is more likely to reduce the supplies of goods in the supermarket and the store than price control. Nothing is more certain to reduce the range of goods than price control. Nothing is more certain to destroy the incentive of manufacturers to try to catch up on production than price control. Nothing is more certain to discourage people from investing in industry, and from starting new industries, and from expanding existing industries, than price control. In the present situation of serious and worsening shortages of goods of all kinds, the worst possible thing the Australian people can do on Saturday is give the Government power to control prices. This is a very serious situation. One would think that we were living in a post-war era at the moment, where a free enterprise system was just starting to operate. One would never believe that the situation could change so dramatically in a period of 12 months as it has done, with people in almost every section of industry being delayed and prevented from increasing production because of a shortage of goods created largely by the actions of this Government.

Mr ENDERBY:
Minister for Secondary Industry and Minister for Supply · Australian Capital Territory · ALP

– One is torn twixt wanting perhaps to thank the Leader of the Australian Country Party (Mr Anthony) for introducing this subject - it is an important subject; there undoubtedly is a widespread shortage of goods in the Australian economy at the moment, and no one would deny that - and the urge to follow his example and be political. I will try to resist the urge, but I will yield to it for a moment. We heard at the outset of the speech of the Leader of the Country Party a reference to his real motive in raising this matter of public importance today and we heard him return to it at the end of his speech, namely, a plea to the people of Australia to vote No on the referendum on prices control. Unfortunately for the Leader of the Country Party, the polls as I understand them are strangely against him on that point. The reports that I saw yesterday showed that something like 70 per cent of Australians who were polled in the recent Gallup polls indicated that they will vote Yes on the prices control measure. However, I am not in a betting mood at the moment.

I return to the central theme of this matter of public importance, namely, the widespread shortage of goods. It is true that there is such a shortage. Why has this occurred? It is because the people are in full employment. Why? Because there is money in the country and because the economy is booming as it has probably rarely boomed before. Let me quote some figures from the last ‘Treasury Information Bulletin No. 72’ of October 1973. Under the heading ‘Secondary Industries’ at page 16 there Ls a table which shows that industrial production in virtually all sectors of manufacturing for the recent September quarter was well above the levels of a year ago. This is in the context of the proposition that there is a widespread shortage of goods. Honourable members might think that is a contradiction, but the shortage is real, nevertheless. We are told by ‘Treasury Information

Bulletin’ No. 72 that production is well above the level of a year ago when the previous Government was in power. Of the 31 items shown, 29 recorded increases, 15 by more than 20 per cent in this year of a Labor Government. Production has been at an all time record level. After 12 months of a Labor Government the Australian economy is producing more than it has ever produced before. There were particularly large increases in the production of tinplate, plastics, synthetic resins, most consumer durables and electric motors. This is from the Treasury Bulletin, an authentic, objective-

Mr Graham:

– Why are plastics in such short supply?

Mr ENDERBY:

– I will come back to that. Why are there shortages? Let us return to the proposition. We know there are shortages. Previous governments followed policies which allowed the economy to run down. I can be accused of being political in saying that, but it is a fact. We have heard and we should remind ourselves of the word ‘stagflation’. Do honourable members remember stagflation? Stagflation was the word associated with the Liberal-Country Party administration in its declining years when inflation ran away but the economy died. Stagflation was the word applied to members of the Opposition in those last 3 or 4 years of their administration when inflation took over but no production took place. That was also the period when money poured into this country from overseas to buy up this country on the cheap. This happened because the Parties opposite had not faced up to the proposition that the Australian dollar was hopelessly undervalued and that the country was over protected through the general tariff.

I remind honourable members of the issue that arose and was fought out in the Cabinet of the Liberal-Country Party Government in 1971, I think it was, in reference to revaluation. The Liberal Party, recognising the seriousness of the situation in which it found itself, wanted desperately to revalue. That Party knew that revaluation had to take place. It was widely reported and never denied that the present Leader of the Opposition (Mr Snedden), who was then the Treasurer, was urging that revaluation take place. He was not allowed to bring it about because of the rump on which the Liberal Party rested for its support to form a government - the rump being the Country Party - would not let the then Treasurer revalue. The debate or argument went on in this Parliament House behind closed doors for a full week, but the Country Party refused to allow the Liberal Party to revalue the Australian dollar. So, money poured into Australia to buy up the place on the cheap. Foreign takeovers occurred, there was land speculation and so on, and the money poured in. The percentage increase in money in that year rose to about 26 per cent. What is inflation if it is not too many dollars chasing too few goods?

The former Government followed policies that produced stagflation and almost a failure to increase the productive capacity of the country for about 20 years. It followed policies which encouraged inflation and money to pour in to buy Australia on the cheap. An inflationary time bomb was set to go off early this year, and it did go off this year. It was starting to go off last year. This has been confirmed by every publicist who writes on the subject in Australia, whether it is Dr Porter or anyone else including newspapers for the International Monetary Fund. They have all said that gross economic mismanagement by the Liberal-Country Party, particularly over the last 4 or 5 years, produced this time bomb. What did we do? We saw what was happening and we took the monetary policies that are well known. We reduced tariffs by 25 per cent to encourage imports.

Today we are talking about a shortage of goods. No imports were coming in last year. Money was pouring in to buy up the few Australian goods which were being produced while the Government at that time followed policies encouraging people to sell their goods overseas and not in Australia. The Labor Government reduced tariffs by 25 per cent. Members of the present Opposition would not have had the courage to do so. The Labor Party did it. The Labor Party was said to be the high protection party, but it had the courage to reduce tariffs because it recognised the seriousness of the situation which had been bequeathed or devised to it - depending on whether it is regarded as personal property or real property. The Opposition parties left us with this mess so we took 25 per cent off the tariff. We revalued virtually 3 times. Dr Porter estimated that without the Labor Government’s economic measures the monetary supply would have grown by 48 per cent in this country this year giving a level of inflation of 20 per cent.

The Leader of the Country Party (Mr Anthony) talks about courage. Has there ever been courage such as has been displayed by this Labor Government in its first year of office? It has had the courage to make monetary policies of this kind, to make tariff reductions of 25 per cent and to revalue the Australian dollar 3 times. At the same time it has been carrying out the policies that it was elected to carry out. It has been increasing public expenditure on education, housing and social welfare. Has there ever been economic management to match that? We have held inflation down to 12 per cent or so when it would have reached 20 per cent if the Opposition Parties had remained in power.

Mr Edwards:

– Oh!

Mr ENDERBY:

– That is what Dr Porter says. Does the honourable member deny what Dr Porter said? Would the honourable member for Berowra, in all honesty - I do not know whether he is to follow me in this debate - suggest that if the Liberal-Country Party had remained in power and had inherited this mess, a horror budget such as this country had never ever seen would not have been introduced? It would have been introduced. The Opposition Parties would have tightened up money to such an extent that no one would have had a dollar in his pocket and unemployment would have been created.

I will recall to honourable members the measures of the previous Government. I refer to the Budget of 1971. The previous Government thought that the economy was going into a boom stage so it put on the stops, full brakes, and put people out of work. That is all the previous Government knew. Mr Gorton even turned off the fountain in Lake Burley Griffin to indicate how he was going to cure inflation and the boom conditions in Australia. Of course he was completely wrong. The economy was not rising at the time; it was going down. The brakes applied by the then Government brought things to a screaming halt, so much so that in 1972 it had to pour fuel on the fire - kerosene or petrol, whatever we want to call it - to such an extent that although the then Treasurer said he went to the limits of responsibility in that 1972 Budget, every publicist since who has written on the subject has said that he went way beyond the limits of responsibility. It was a most overexpansionary Budget. Of course we know the reasons for that Budget. The previous Government was trying to float itself through an election. That was pretty clear.

I suppose politicians can understand the need or the fear of a government that has run out of steam and run out of ideas after 23 years. The previous Government tried to save its power structure at any cost. It said, more or less: ‘Who cares about tomorrow. If we lose, the Labor Party people inherit the mess. If we get back in, well, people have short memories and something will come ‘up somehow’. The previous Government came down with the 1971 Budget, which was completely misjudged and in gross error, and inflated the problem into the situation which we inherited in December of last year and which carried through into January February and succeeding months of this year.

For one short moment I thought the Leader of the Country Party was going to place some emphasis on the fact that there is a gross shortage of commodities throughout the entire world. People on the Government side recognise that the world has become a very small place. The growth of communications and the growth of multi-national corporations means that decisions can be taken in New York one minute and implemented in Zurich the next; in Berlin one day and Paris the day after; in Sydney-

Mr Katter:

– East Berlin?

Mr ENDERBY:

– The right side of Berlin, if my friend is so sensitive. Decisions can be taken in Sydney one day and Tokyo the day after. So, the upturns and downturns in the trade cycle are far shorter and everything seems to point to this being a developing trend. The recovery which took place in the Australian economy between 1971 and 1972, when nearly 2 per cent of people were unemployed, has been effected in a much shorter period than might have happened 20 years ago. But, we on this side at least take account of these things, whereas the previous Government left us completely defenceless economically because it did not revalue the Australian dollar and did not think of the tariff instrument of economic management in any real sense. We had to revalue the Australian dollar and cut tariffs.

The question is: What can be done about the situation? The Australian Government is determined to increase production. It has had magnificent success already. I read out the figures, and they bear repeating. Of the 31 items shown in the last Treasury bulletin, 29 recorded increases, with 15 recording increases of more than 20 per cent. Production is up to an all time high. But, because of the excessive amount of liquidity caused by the inflow of foreign capital which the previous Government encouraged through its refusal to do anything about the position, we inherited the situation.

There are other aspects, of course, on which I should touch in the very short time left to me. Whatever the instruments of economic management available to the Australian Government might be - and there are some - there are many others. This Labor Government seeks to have the power to exercise them in this ever-changing, rapidly-changing world. We seek to give Australia proper restrictive trade practices legislation. Where does the opposition to that legislation come from? It comes from the Liberal Party and the Country Party. We seek to give the Australian Government power over prices and power over incomes and to let the people have a choice on whether we should have these powers. Where does the opposition come from? It comes from the Liberal Party and the Country Party. Yet members of those parties here say that there is a widespread shortage of goods, notwithstanding that more are available now than ever before; but the demand - demand brought about by gross economic mismanagement - measured in money, of course, far exceeds the supply.

There are some people who talk about a conspiracy of manufacturers and suppliers to withhold goods from the market. I repect that theory. But there is a first cousin to it that perhaps bears some comment. It is this: There are manufacturers who take the view that, seeing the Government’s policy to bring about new restrictive trade practices legislation may not be thwarted in this Parliament by the Liberal and Country Parties, it is better to push up prices now by withholding supplies so that if some form of price control is introduced it will be easier to justify a price increase in the long run. That is a first cousin to it that is not without merit at all-

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The Minister’s time has expired.

Mr EDWARDS:
Berowra

– It is something of an irony that the Minister for Secondary Industry (Mr Enderby), who preceded me in the debate, talked about the economy being in a mess at the time when the Australian Labor Party took over government. It is the mess that the economy is in now that this debate is all about - a mess that exists after 12 months of Labor Government rule.

Mr Whittorn:

– It is a mess the Government created.

Mr EDWARDS:

– As my colleague says, the Government created the mess. There are shortages of steel affecting the building and consumer durables industries. There are shortages of cement, consumer durables of all sorts, including furniture, and food products. My colleague, the Leader of the Australian Country Party (Mr Anthony), has stressed the position. It is a situation which the Minister almost accurately described. He said that it is one of too much money chasing too few goods. It is too much demand chasing too few goods that is the cause of the trouble. Money is one thing; it is when it is exercised as demand that it starts to cause the sorts of trouble about which we are talking today. It shows up in a fundamental shortage of labour. It is true that some of the present problems are due to power shortages in New South Wales and Victoria, which in one State at least were fostered by a Minister of this Government, and an enlarged incidence of industrial unrest, absenteeism and labour turnover, all of which contribute to the present situation. They all reflect basically the situation of too much demand chasing too few goods, showing up in a dominating shortage of labour.

One statistic bears eloquent testimony to the whole tale. At the end of October the number registered for employment was just short of 60,000, which is one per cent of the work force, and employment vacancies numbered 86,000, which is way above the number of unemployed. The Minister referred to the situation that existed 12 months ago, when there were higher levels of unemployment. I do not like high levels of unemployment, but inflation rates of 14 per cent per annum are also a great social and economic evil. Let me add, without time to elaborate, that the unemployment at that time was by no means due to the Budget to which the Minister referred.

The Minister said that under the Labor Government production performance, albeit there are shortages, has been great stuff. We have had increases in many items. I think he said that we have had increases as large as 20 per cent in many items. That is true. I might say, though, that to achieve it all the stops have been pulled out. There has been a record increase in the work force, especially in the number of married women in employment. In the month of August there was an increase equivalent to an annual rate, I believe, of the order of 8.2 per cent; and overtime is right up. But that is the end of that road. The stops are all out. The expansion rate of the production performance which has been recorded until just recently cannot possibly continue. That applies to the short run. In the short run that sort of expansion of the labour force is not possible. It applies even more importantly to the medium run and the longer run, because so many of the actions of this Government have created uncertainty and an uncertain basis on which to plan. Investment in productive equipment, which is the long term basis of increased supplies, is inhibited and is not proceeding as it should. So, in the future the situation of shortage that we now have can only get worse.

The position is that demand is way out in front; hence the shortages that plague and disrupt us. This position is due to the policies of the Government. The Government has taken a few steps. It has cut tariffs by 25 per cent. The Minister talked about courage. What hypocrisy! He himself stressed the shortages of available supplies in the world and the virtual inability to obtain goods from overseas. In that situation this courageous Government cut tariffs by 25 per cent. It has raised interest rates to the highest level on record - that has been a great performance by this Government! But its free spending from the very time it took office, superimposed on the recovery which was then under way at an appropriate rate, plus the Government’s recent Budget - irresponsible, dishonest and inflationary as it was - which provided a stimulus to spending superimposed on the resurgent private sector, have contributed to the present situation. So when this Government says that it has done all it can to contain inflation it deludes itself and it deludes the Australian public. Its policies to control inflation amount to a nimble footed but pointless operation with one foot hard on the accelerator and the other administering some light but ineffectual jabs on the brake.

I would like to say more about what the Government should do but in the time available let me say one thing that it ought not to do. In this situation the Government now seeks from the people powers to bring in price control. It also talks about incomes control but we would not see any of that even if the people of Australia chose to confer the power on the Government. It is a cruel delusion that the Government would foist on the Australian people that in these circumstances price control is a solution to our problems.

Mr Whittorn:

– It is a cruel Government.

Mr EDWARDS:

– It is a cruel Government, as my colleague says. To think that in this situation of excess demand chasing goods already in short supply you can cure anything by imposing price control is a delusion that this Government has led the people of Australia to accept. We heard calm words to a different effect from the Treasurer (Mr Crean) in this House yesterday but that is what the people of Australia expect - a panacea for these problems. In fact, the effect will only be the creation of a vast bureaucracy to run it and to create worse shortages, blackmarkets and all the difficulties that go with them. The only solution is that this Government should adopt proper policies to bring demand and the supply of goods back into balance. Then and only then will the Government not frustrate the social and economic policies that it seeks to implement.

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

– The House has just been privileged, I suppose, to hear an address on economics by the honourable member for Berowra (Mr Edwards) who I understand had the most esteemed position of professor of economics before he entered this Parliament. However, his speech on this matter leads me to believe - and I am sure those who listened to him would believe - that since coming here he has degenerated to nothing better than a party hack. The stumbling way in which he put his case to this House leaves one in no doubt that he either knows nothing about the subject with which he was expected to deal or else he does not believe in the cause and speaks with tongue in cheek. He says that the economy is in a mess. I am sure that as a professor of economics the honourable gentleman will know that the economy of a nation like Australia cannot be likened to a Holden motor car that can be started and stopped at will. Rather, it is like the boiler of a locomotive that takes some time to build up steam and some time to run down.

As the Treasurer (Mr Crean) has told us on so many occasions, we inherited an economy that was ‘bad. This debate started out with a reference to a shortage of goods in the community and the inconveniences and disruptions caused by those shortages. The right honourable the Leader of the Australian Country Party (Mr Anthony), who I have been told is not much of a farmer and proves himself no better as a politician, put to us that the debate related only to the prices and incomes referendum which, is due to be dealt with next Saturday. He made a rather curious statement - an argument that I found very difficult to follow - when he said: ‘If you control prices you will create shortages of goods. People will not produce.’ I am wondering how deeply he believes in the private enterprise system because I have always believed that those who believe in the private enterprise system support it because its guiding light is profit.

A company which started in Melbourne very many years ago is now a very successful retailer throughout Australia. I refer to G. J. Coles and Co. Ltd, without wishing to give any free advertisement. It started out on the basis of a very small profit and a very big turnover of goods. It has been successful. Does the right honourable gentleman want this House to believe that restricting the amount of profits that people can make will cause them to cease production - that they will limit the supply of goods and will not do their utmost to maximise their capital investment in their machinery and their labour? Of course they will. The control of prices has nothing to do with this. We have heard many catch-cries on this subject. Have not we heard the mechanical intonation from >a gentleman who shall not be named who tells this House about the continuing industrial fermentation in this country? How often have we heard it? Never does he support it. Even today when the honourable member for Berowra was speaking he could not help but use another cliche that has become one of the crutches of the ailing Liberal Party. High inflation is a social evil, he says. Perhaps it is an axiomatic statement but does he expect people to believe it because he says it? Does not he believe that they are entitled to an explanation? Is it ever given?

One of the other comments of the learned and honourable member for Berowra was that because there is a shortage of labour there is a shortage of goods. The honourable member was not in this place when the previous Government brought down a Budget that placed 130,000 Australian people on the labour market. There were 130,000 people who were denied the right to produce goods and services. This adds up to 200 million man-hours of production lost in one year. That was done by the stroke of a pen to get the previous incompetent Government out of some sort of difficulty in which it found itself. There was an election looming in December 1972 and it lost. But one of the prices that the people of Australia had to pay was that 130,000 people were denied work at some time for a whole year. Labor has corrected that situation. There are now more job vacancies than there are people to fill them. Yet honourable members opposite still complain about labour shortages. Where is their consistency? Did honourable members opposite raise the fact that by the stroke of a pen their Government denied the production of goods and services in this country to the tune of 200 million manhours in one year? Honourable members opposite cannot deny that.

Mr Bourchier:

– There are 80,000 out of work now.

Mr SPEAKER -Order!The honourable member will cease:

Mr SPEAKER -Order!The honourable member will cease interjecting.

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

- His interjections are so puerile that they are not worth acknowledging. The honourable member for Berowra spoke about a shortage of building materials and a shortage of consumer durable goods including furniture and furnishings. Would the honourable member like to know where those excess materials have gone? Would he like to take a tour of the cities of Melbourne and Sydney? Would be like to walk around and see the high rise office buildings which have been constructed for investment purposes by entrepreneurs in the hope of making profits in the future? Those buildings are lying idle. They are not occupied. They were constructed with the same sorts of materials that are used to build houses such as steel, bricks and concrete. They have furnishings, carpets, curtains, desks and chairs but they are not being used. Does the honourable gentleman know that they exist? Is not that part of the reason for the shortage of building materials? He talks about the shortage of manpower. It takes men to construct buildings, too. Whilst men are erecting these high rise buildings in the cities of Melbourne and Sydney they cannot be erecting villas in which workers can live. That is how the shortage of building materials comes about. I move back quickly to the high price of food. One of the highest priced food commodities that my wife buys is meat. The reason that she has to pay so much for meat is that the local butcher who supplies her must compete with overseas buyers for the meat that we eat. Will the Australian Country Party stand up and be honest about this? The honourable gentleman who claims to represent the farmers of Australia will not come into this House and tell us that he will be prepared to support a proposition to ban the export of Australian meat to ensure that the price to consumers drops. Of course he will not. Yet that action would be a logical solution to the problem and everybody knows it. The man in the street knows it, but the erudite gentlemen who sit opposite do not. When we talk of the shortage of manpower we are really talking about the shortage of tradesmen in Australia. How did we get a shortage of tradesmen? I shall tell honourable members: We have this shortage because the previous Government had a policy of employing contractors on its jobs rather than training its own tradesmen. The effect of this flowed through to industry generally. Contractors had to compete with one another to get the jobs. This procedure was justified on the basis of saying: ‘We got the job done as cheaply as we could’. But did the previous Government look at the longterm social consequences to Australia? No, it never did.

Because the contractors had to cut corners and get the job done as cheaply as they could to compete with their fellow-contractors they were not in a position to spend the money that was necessary to be spent to train tradesmen. So the previous Government imported fully-fledged tradesmen from overseas. Now we suffer from a chronic shortage of Australian born tradesmen trained in Australia for Australian conditions. Why? Because of the bad management of the previous Government. The Opposition members stand up here today and speak with their tongues in their cheeks as only members of the Liberal Party or members of the Australian Country Party can speak with tongues in cheeks. They have done it and they have tried to convince this House and this nation that what they did was right and that what this Government is doing is wrong. History will show them and the people will show them the next time that we go to our masters just who was right and who was wrong. There is no doubt in my mind that the people of Australia today support more than ever before, more than in December 1972, the measures taken by the Australian Government and will continue to support them. As long as there is a Labor Government in Australia there will be stability and industry will know where it is going because there will be proper planning.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Mr Eric Robinson:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

– Just over a year ago the Australian economy was in good shape, inflation was at a controllable level and although we had problems, employment opportunities were growing strongly. There was a wide choice of goods throughout the nation. A year later, with all the problems we have - there are too many to enumerate - goods are dearer and scarcer, with substantial shortages. One key industry is the building industry. What sort of a future faces the home-maker? In steel, bricks, cement, timber, aluminium and nails, there are difficulties and shortages. There is a tremendous delivery problem in furniture and in many ranges of home appliances. There are shortages of plastic goods and cotton goods - not only wearing apparel but even surf life saving equipment. We will not get sufficient surf life saving equipment this summer to protect the swimmers at Australian beaches. The Surf Life Saving Association cannot even get the cotton nets it needs to protect people in the stinger areas.

There are shortages in paper products, pharmaceutical products and in grocery lines. If honourable members go into any supermarket they will find substantial numbers of shelves empty. Hundreds - that is not exaggeration - of grocery lines are in short supply and this is an increasing problem for the small grocer. Why is this? We all appreciate that there is excess demand. Nobody disputes that. There is an over-supply of money. There is a world problem in the supply of commodities. We are entitled to ask: What has this Government done to alleviate the problem within Australia? Let us give it credit for- revaluation and tariff reductions, although selectivity should have been used. But of course revaluation and tariff reductions do not mean anything unless we can get deliveries from overseas, and with fuel problems delivery difficulties will increase.

The Minister for Secondary Industry (Mr Enderby) talks about trade practices. The Liberal Party and the Australian Country Party support legislation against restrictive trade practices, but not of a kind that will disrupt acceptable commercial practices throughout Australia. What did the Government do in the Budget? The thrust of the

Budget was not only undesirable, in many areas it was also irresponsible. We have excess demand; that fact is accepted by everybody. Yet we have a government which increases public expenditure at the rate of 20 per cent per annum. The Budget documents stated:

We expect wages to increase by 13 per cent but productivity by only between 2.5 per cent and 3 per cent.

If we are to have increased productivity and increased goods for the market place we have to encourage business confidence. But the Budget and the Bills that have flowed on from it have eroded business confidence. If we want to increase productivity we must give encouragement by way of investment allowances and not produce policies that increase interest rates to an all-time record for peacetime. We must not add additional taxes and burdens on private enterprise which generates this nation’s wealth.

What has the Government done about industrial relations? Before the election we had this extraordinary approach of the Government: The Liberal-Country Party Government has had some problems in the industrial area, but if the people elect a Labor government of course the Labor Party can talk to trade unionists and we will have industrial peace’. That was the promise; what is the record? There has been a 65 per cent to 70 per cent increase in industrial turbulence and industrial stoppages. Does anybody dispute that industrial stoppages add enormously to costs and the shortages of goods? The power strike had a substantial impact on the ability of companies and manufacturers to supply the Australian market. But the problem has been further exaggerated. Not only has the Government done nothing about that, it also has an extraordinary attitude on the 35-hour week. The nation’s political leader, the Leader of the Australian Labor Party, will not withdraw his promise to implement a 35-hour week in the Public Service. His Minister for Labour (Mr Clyde Cameron) publicly encouraged him to do so in the national interest. It is well known that the promise to use the Public Service as a pace-setter has encouraged industrial disputes. The power strike was a very good example of that. At least the Minister for Labour had the honesty to say to the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam): ‘Delay introducing the 35-hour week in the national interest’. I do not suppose the Caucus will let the Prime Minister do that. The Treasurer (Mr Crean) is supposed to be in charge of the direction of this nation’s economy, but when I asked him a question on the economic situation he would not face up to this tremendously important responsibility.

If all that were not bad enough, we now have these extraordinary proposals for price control. It is a pity that some Labor members cannot remember back to the post-war years. If they could, they would know that price control does not work. It did not work then and if there is some grave misunderstanding - that could be the only explanation if the Australian electorate agrees to price control; I do not believe it will - and price control power is given to the Government we will find that productivity will be further eroded. Confidence is not built by imposing a lot of bureaucratic controls. With price control we will find abuse in the market place and a tremendous number of problems appearing with regard to black markets. All the present Government has to do is to look at the record of this nation to accept those eventualities as absolute certainties. The Labor Government has been in office for one year and it has set a few records. We have a record rate of inflation, a record rate of industrial unrest and now record shortages of commodities throughout the country. What a mess it will be for the Liberal and Country Parties to clean up.

I have read speculation that we could have a double dissolution or an election before the middle of next year. We look forward to it heartily, although the new Liberal-Country Party Government will have to ‘be responsible for cleaning up the mess in the economy. What is needed is a little bit of courage in industrial relations to say to militant trade unionists: ‘Look here. You take into account the nation’s capacity to pay when you are making demands.’ Some members of the Labor Government must drop the obsession with the growth of socialism and the growth of nationalism. If honourable members opposite want to generate wealth they should see whether they can produce policies which will increase the nation’s productivity - the nation’s capacity to produce goods. They should stop the business bashing and get the economy back on the rails. If this is done - a lot can be done by a responsible government - Australians will then start to enjoy the standard of living to which they are entitled.

Dr PATTERSON:
Minister for Northern Development and Minister for the Northern Territory · Dawson · ALP

– This matter of public importance is just one more attempt by the Opposition to continue its barrage of criticism of the Government, attempting to blame the Government for almost anything it can find or remember. It is an example of humbug.

Mr Whittorn:

– You are the Government.

Dr PATTERSON:

– The honourable member is about the biggest humbug in the Opposition. The prime motive of the Opposition is to attempt to influence a few voters in the forthcoming referendum against the Government’s wish to have the same powers as are possessed by every other national government to control the economy and to control the financial sector - powers over prices and incomes. The Leader of the Australian Country Party (Mr Anthony) introduced this matter. One must marvel at the inconsistency of the Country Party. Most of his speech was a condemnation of the implementation of price control. But only about 2 weeks ago the leader of the Country Party in Queensland, Mr BjelkePetersen, threatened to introduce price control with respect to petrol and bread if the manufacturers did not do something about their threatened increase in prices. Here we have on the one hand the Federal Leader of the Country Party condemning price control and on the other hand the leader of the Country Party in Queensland threatening to implement price control.

The Opposition continues to attempt to blame the Government for inflation, rising costs and now a shortage of goods and services. The forces of inflation and rising costs and the forces that brought about the current day shortages were bred in the days of the previous Government. Anyone would think from listening to the honourable member for Mcpherson (Mr Eric Robinson) who has just resumed his seat, that when this Government came to power it inherited a sound economy, an economy which was in good shape. What it inherited was a sick and staggering economy, policies of stop and go.

Mr Edwards:

– Not a chance.

Dr PATTERSON:

– ‘Not a chance’, says the honourable member. The voters of Australia delivered the verdict. Somebody told me that the honourable member has quite a number of people opposing him for pre-selection and they must also be looking very seriously at his performance in this field.

Mr Edwards:

– You must be misinformed.

Dr PATTERSON:

– Let us have a look at the record. Let us have a look at a few facts with respect to one of the arms of criticism of costs and prices. Let us have a look at the period from 1949 to 1972 when the Liberal and Country parties were in Government. The official figures show that the actual price of materials, services and wages in that period rose by over 250 per cent. What did the previous Government do to prevent increases in prices? Nothing. What did it do?

Mr Cooke:

– Plenty. There were not the shortages then.

Dr PATTERSON:

– It did nothing. Perhaps there is a greater degree of shortages today than there was. I do not dispute that. But let us look at what happened a few years ago in the farming sector which the Country Party represents. We had protest marches by farmers in New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia. There was no shortage of goods then because they did not have the money to buy the goods. Of course, the Country Party has been dedicated to a policy of wiping out the small farmer through its subsidy policy. Most of these subsidies have gone to the richer farmers, and the best example of that is the dairy industry. In this period something like $500m to $600m went into Victoria, to those farmers who did not need it. Northern New South Wales and southern Queensland, where the demand needs to be generated, is where some of that money should have gone to help reconstruct industries.

There is a shortage of goods; that is not denied. There is even a shortage, for example, of farm products and the capital goods that are needed to increase productivity. Let us look at the basic reason for the excess demand. Let us look at the volume of money in Australia today compared with a couple of years ago. Let us look at the forces behind this excess demand in the beef, wool, wheat, sugar and coarse grain industries - the major primary industries in general, with a few exceptions in the fruit industry. They are at record levels of production. There are record levels of value in terms of the export income earned or the value of production, going into the pockets of farmers. Let us look at one of the factors causing this excess demand. Let us take the wheat industry. The latest figures show that the estimated value of production this year is over $l,000m. The average of the last 3 years has been about $400m. So on top of this volume of money that is in Australia today an extra $600m will be pumped into the economy - into the wheat industry.

Let us take a minor crop like sorghum. An increase of something like 546m will be pumped into the economy this year. Taking the total value of crops, it is estimated that an increase of something like $800m has been pumped into the economy in the last 2 years. Taking the total value of rural production, it is estimated that an increase of more than $ 1,000m will be added to the economy. Of course, this does not suit the Country Party. What do the Liberal and Country parties want? Here are the 2 basic premises. They want low wages. Apparently they want low prices for primary products. They want a measure of unemployment. Then there will be plenty of goods. In the depression days there was no shortage of goods, ‘but nobody had the money to buy them. There was no shortage of goods 3 or 4 years ago when world prices for primary products were down. But people did not have the money in their pockets to buy the goods.

The official figures show a major increase in the volume of money in the last 18 months. A major problem in the next 12 months also will be how to slow down the velocity of money in this country in terms of its volume and rate. But what do the Liberal and Country parties want? Do they want to have low wages, unemployment, low prices and no shortage of goods or do they want what the Australian Labor Party wants - good wages, reasonable profits, reasonable prices, so that the consumer and the producer are satisfied? There may be periodic shortages of goods in this country - there must be if the factors of full employment and growth suddenly cause a record inflow of income into the producing and consuming sectors. This is in fact what has happened. It is quite true, as we on this side of the House have said, that there is a growing shortage of goods, but there is also a growing record production of goods in the field where these twin forces are causing excess demand. But why does the Opposition not criticise the middle man? Opposition members all the time are casting doubts on the level of retail prices; but let us look at one factor alone - the middle man. We have already had a discussion on meat, for example. In the last two or three weeks the saleyard prices of cattle, pig and sheep meats have gone down, but in Brisbane, Sydney and Melbourne the retail prices have gone up or remained stationary. Who is getting the cop in this? Is it the primary producer? Of course it is not, because his cattle prices have gone down. It is not the consumer, because he is paying equal to or more than the price he paid previously. These are the fields - the fields of the middle man - that we must get into.

Mr McMahon:

– Such as transport costs?

Dr PATTERSON:

– Transport costs are one of them, as also are agents’ costs. Look at the Opposition’s friends in commission agencies. The vested interests in the wool industry are making record profits. These are the people who are fleecing the primary producer-

Mr SPEAKER:

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

page 4304

REPORT OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE

Mr JARMAN:
Deakin

– As Vice-Chairman, I present the one hundred and forty-eighth report of the Public Accounts Committee.

Ordered that the report be printed.

Mr JARMAN:

- Mr Speaker, I seek leave to make a short statement.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Mr JARMAN:

– Honourable members will recall that on 28 November I tabled the one hundred and forty-seventh report which relates to expenditure from the Advance to the Treasurer for the financial year 1972-73. The one hundred and forty-eighth report which I am tabling today relates to expenditure from the Consolidated Revenue Fund for that year and covers the remaining items included in the Committee’s annual examination of the expenditure results of departments. In examing expenditure from the Consolidated Revenue Fund each year, the Committee seeks to ascertain whether or not the principles relating to the formulation of estimates have been adopted by the departments under examination. These principles, which are included in Treasury Direction 16/9, have also been set out in Chapter 1 of the one hundred and forty-eighth report. In recent years the Committee has paid particular attention to the estimates and related expenditure of departments. As a poor standard of estimating has wide ramifications, the Committee has concerned itself not only with excess expenditure charged to the Advance to the Treasurer but also with the overprovision of funds. The Committee has made it clear that such over-provisions are undesirable, misleading and perhaps unfair to other departments whose financial needs might not have been satisfied.

At the same time, the Committee has emphasised that it does not regard the total expenditure of available funds under a particular appropriation item as an objective to be sought without regard to other important considerations. Indeed, undue emphasis on the need to match expenditure and available funds can give rise to unnecessary and uneconomic expenditure and oan result in the distortion of administrative practices. In this regard, ‘the Committee has, on previous occasions, criticised departments that have accelerated payments in order to prevent an appropriation from lapsing. As this and previous reports relating to expenditure from the Consolidated Revenue Fund show, there are explanations for expenditure variations from the estimates which are acceptable to the Committee. In this report, however, the Committee has also found it necessary to refer to cases of unsatisfactory estimating, inadequate administrative performances that have resulted in shortfalls in expenditure and inaccurate and inadequate submissions to the Committee. Attention has been drawn to these inadequacies where they have arisen. I commend the report to honourable members.

page 4305

CONSTITUTION ALTERATION (MODE OF ALTERING THE CONSTITUTION) BILL 1974

Bill returned from the Senate with amendments.

Motion (by Mr Whitlam) agreed to:

That the amendments be taken into consideration in Committee of the Whole forthwith.

In Committee

Consideration of Senate’s amendments.

Clause 2.

Section 128 of the Constitution is altered -

Title.

page 4305

A BILL FOR AN ACT

To facilitate alterations to the Constitution and to allow Electors in Territories, as well as Electors in the States, to vote at Referendums on Proposed Laws to alter the Constitution.

Senate’s amendment No. 1 -

In clause 2, leave out paragraph (c).

Senate’s amendment No. 2 -

In the Title, leave out To facilitate alterations to the Constitution and’.

Mr WHITLAM:
Prime Minister · Werriwa · ALP

– I move:

That the Senate’s amendments be disagreed to.

The Constitution Alteration (Mode of Altering the Constitution) Bill proposes amendments to section 128 of the Constitution. Section 128 describes the mode of altering the Constitution. It describes how the proposed law for the alteration of the Constitution must be dealt with in the Parliament. Section 128 then states:

And if in a majority of the States a majority of the electors voting approve the proposed law, and if a majority of all the electors voting also approve the proposed law, it shall be presented to the Governor-General for the Queen’s assent.

The Constitution Alteration (Mode of Altering the Constitution) Bill would alter that paragraph to read as follows:

And if in not less than one half of the States a majority of the electors voting approve the proposed law, and if a majority of all the electors voting also approve the proposed law, it shall be presented to the Governor-General for the Queen’s assent.

Because reports of the earlier debate in this chamber the week before last might have given a false impression to readers of the newspapers, perhaps I should reiterate that it would not be sufficient for the proposed law to be carried by a majority of the electors in not less than one half of the States. It also would have to be carried by a majority of all the electors voting throughout Australia. It should not be necessary to point out that it would not be sufficient to carry the proposed law if it gained just a majority in not less than one half of the States. It would still have to gain a majority of all the voters in the whole of Australia.

I do not propose to take up very much time because this very point was discussed in Committee a fortnight ago by my predecessor and me. The Government is still of the same view, namely, that the Bill, as proposed and carried in this chamber, should be put to the people. The Government does not believe that the deletions suggested in the Senate should be accepted. I need quote only 2 passages in support of the Government’s view. One is from the 1958 report of the Constitutional Review Committee. It states:

It is, in the Committee’s opinion, more in accord with democratic principle and the developments since

Federation that it should be sufficient to obtain separate majorities in at least one-half of the number of States.

The other is 2 sentences from the 1959 report of the Committee. It states:

  1. . for every State in which there is an adverse vote there must be a favourable vote in two States
  2. . A Constitutional change has to be supported not only by a majority of States but by two-thirds of the States.

For the reasons which the Committee gave in its reports of 1958 and 1959, the Government persists with the constitutional amendment which the Committee proposed all those years ago and which this chamber carried a fortnight ago. I recall again to honourable members that the member of that Committee who supported the amendment to the Constitution which the Senate now wishes the House of Representatives to abandon were the honourable Sir Neil O’Sullivan, a former Attorney-General, the honourable Sir Alexander Downer, son of one of the founding fathers of the Australian Constitution, a former Minister and later Australia’s High Commissioner in Britain and the honourable Mr Justice Joske as he now is, all members of the Liberal Party, the honourable David Drummond, a former member of the Legislative Assembly of New South Wales and Mr Len Hamilton, both of the Country Party; and Senators McKenna and Kennelly together with Messrs Calwell, Ward and Pollard - whom I am happy to see in the gallery this afternoon - and myself of the Australian Labor Party. The only member of the Committee who dissented from the recommendation which is embodied in this Bill was Senator Wright. For those reasons, the Government asks that the Senate’s amendments be disagreed to.

Mr MCMAHON:
Lowe

– Rightly, the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) has confined his remarks to one clause of the Bill, clause 2 (c), which proposes that section 128 of the Australian Constitution should be altered in order to make it easier for a constitutional change to be brought about in the manner set out in proposed new section 128 of the Constitution. Regrettably, the Prime Minister failed to mention the fact that, when the Bill was first debated here and later in the Senate, the Opposition requested that the title of the Bill should be amended in order to make clear the purpose of the legislation.

Mr Whitlam:

– The long title.

Mr MCMAHON:

– Well, the title. The title, in fact, is very short. If the Prime Minister wishes to call it the ‘long title’, let him use that phrase. But title is good enough because it is the title of the Bill. I do not think that an adjective needs to be attached to it. In any event, the Prime Minister did not touch on the question of the title or the long title of the Bill. In a few moments I shall explain the reasons why the Opposition believes that the title does not accurately set out the thrust and tenor of the Bill itself, why it is capable of deceiving people - it is capable of deception - and why the amendment that the Opposition proposed here and which the Senate carried should be accepted. In other words, it is our strong belief, fortified by everything that we have heard since 21 November, that the 2 amendments proposed by the Opposition here and carried in the Senate should stand. Consequently, we should agree to the amendments that have been made, after most mature and careful consideration, by the Senate.

The Prime Minister stated that one of the two critical changes that we seek to achieve relates to clause 2 (c) of the Bill which provides for an easier method of altering the Constitution. It proposes that the words ‘in a majority of the States’ be omitted and the words ‘in not less than one-half of the States’ be substituted. In section 128 of the Constitution, as it now exists, is a requirement that before the appropriate papers can be placed before the Governor-General for his signature assenting to a referendum proposal on behalf of the Queen, there should be a majority of electors in all the States as well as a majority of electors in a majority of the States in support of that referendum proposal. The Government wishes to omit the words ‘in a majority of the States’ and put in their place ‘in not less than one-half of the States’.

The sum total of these proposals is that as the Constitution stands a majority of 4 out of 6 States together with a majority of all the eligible electors will need to vote in favour of any proposed alteration to the Constitution. I have no doubt whatsover that if honourable members read the Constitution - particularly if they read the various debates that took place prior to the Constitution being accepted and, much more importantly, if they read Quick and Garran, the recognised authority on constitutional matters - they will find that there are various reasons why we should insist on the principle of a majority of people in a majority of States supporting a referendum.

We must accept that the Constitution is a deed of trust, or a compact between the States and the Commonwealth and between the people, the Commonwealth and the States. As it is a compact between the States and the Commonwealth the strongest precautions should be taken to ensure that changes are not made to the Constitution without proper consideration and thought by the people. This compact should truly reflect the fact that we live in a federal system of government and consequently that changes should not be made which would deprive the States of power and give it to the Commonwealth. Without at least a majority of people and a majority of people in a majority of the States supporting the proposals. That is the first point I make.

I believe there are good reasons for recommending that the Government should accept the amendments suggested by the Senate. While I believe that a Constitution such as ours must always be regarded as a document that is dynamic, alive and capable of being changed to meet the changing environment, changing economic and social circumstances, a changing culture, changes in our international status and relations and the growth of a greater national spirit, I do not believe that changes should be made to it unless such changes have received mature consideration by the Australian people. The people should not be rushed into making a hasty decision that they may regret when the consequences of their decision become apparent as a result of legislation that is passed by the Government that succeeds in getting a referendum passed.

The Opposition takes the view that the Government’s proposals should not be agreed to. Adequate time was not available to debate this matter when it was first before this House. There has been such a rush of legislation that I have previously called it in the House a diarrhoea of legislation’. Few of the measures that have been introduced to the House have been either adequately prepared and publicised or well thought out by the Government. The Prime Minister’s own attitude during the Committee stage was a clear indication that he was ill prepared to debate the matter. He obviously does not know very much about it because he had to read nearly every word he said.

Mr Uren:

– Rubbish!

Mr McMAHON:

– It was rubbish. What we heard from him was rubbish.

Mr Uren:

– You are being pompous.

Mr MCMAHON:

– You talk about pomposity! That is all you have. In any event, that is the first point I make. My second point relates to the title - or, as the Prime Minister chooses to call it, the long title - of the Bill. I do not think either description matters very much but the shorter title of the Bill is the one that appeals to me. The long title to the Bill describes this legislation as ‘A Bill for an Act to facilitate alterations to the Constitution and to allow Electors in Territories, as well as Electors in the States, to vote at Referendums on Proposed Laws to alter the Constitution’. I do not believe that the words ‘to facilitate alterations to the Constitution’ adequately reflect the thrust and the intent of clause 2<c) of the Bill which was previously before us and which has now been brought hack as a result of recommendations made by the Senate. 1 could understand it if the title was ‘to make it easy’ or even ‘much easier to amend the Constitution’, because that is exactly what is intended. Instead of requiring a majority of the people in a majority of States, we could provide for a majority of the people in at least half of the States, therefore making it ever so much easier to get an amendment. As I said, the problem of federalism is involved and we should be ready to protect the Federal Constitution.

There is one other critically important factor we must remember, namely, that the title of the Bill will, in fact, be put on the ballot papers or each section of the ballot paper, and it is that and that alone which the people will read. Therefore, if they read something that does not honestly reflect the thrust and substance of the referendum proposal, they could be misled, lt could be considered an act of deceit, and I do not believe that, willingly, the Prime Minister would want to be involved in an act of deceit of this kind when a matter as important as a referendum proposal is being considered. Therefore, we want acceptance of the original proposals made by the Opposition in this House. First, relating to the substance of the Bill, we want clause 2 (c) struck out and the words ‘to facilitate alterations to the Constitution’ removed from the title.

I wish to make one other point which, admittedly, is not associated with the amendments before the Committee. I want to emphasise, because the honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Calder) is present, that there is one other part of the Bill of which we strongly approve and which we would like to see go through at a referendum. We want to give a vote to the people of the Northern Territory.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! I point out that the right honourable member’s time has expired.

Mr Daly:

– I move: That the right honourable member be granted an extension of time.

The CHAIRMAN:

– There is no need to move for an extension of time. The right honourable member for Lowe, being the only member on his feet, may take his second period.

Mr McMAHON:
Lowe

– The other point I wish to make is: Many of us who have listened to the debates in the House and to statements made outside the House should ask ourselves why the Labor Government wants to introduce any amendments at all, because it is well known that the Prime Minister has frequently said, ‘We can never use the Constitution as an alibi for not taking action’. If he believes that that statement is generic in concept and applies everywhere, we should take him at his word and ask him: ‘Why do you want a change?’ We have no doubt at all that we will object to the proposals made on behalf of the Prime Minister and we will divide on them.

Mr CALDER:
Northern Territory

– I support the remarks of the honourable member for Lowe (Mr McMahon) and I support the amendment which has been returned from the Senate and which was originally moved in the House. I support the form of the original Bill, particularly clause 2 (a), which would omit the words ‘in each State’ from section 128 of the Constitution, thus allowing Territorians, in both the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory, to have their votes counted at a referendum. However,1 regarding clause 2 (c), I strongly support the amendment and read again briefly what two legal men in the Northern Territory and one professional man had to say about it in the Northern Territory Legislative Council. At the time it was being discussed, they did not know that the Prime Minister or the Government had included in the Bill clause 2 (c), which seeks virtually to lower the number of States that would have to show a majority in favour of a referendum proposal from four to three.

They did not know that when they made these remarks.

Still, Mr Withnall, a leading lawyer in the Northern Territory, found it somewhat odd, in view of the fact that this provision in the Constitution is to come under very careful scrutiny by the Standing Committee of the Constitutional Convention, that we should be asking the Commonwealth Parliament to put before the people a referendum in advance of the decision of that Convention. Mr Withnall would like to see the people of the Northern Territory have a vote. So would I, and so did the Opposition when it moved the amendments in this House and in the Senate. However, these legal men in the Northern Territory have their reservations. Mr Withnall said that he would like to see them have a vote, but that it ought to be on terms more carefully considered, on terms that seek to determine the exact way in which section 128 is to be amended. Mr Withnall was supported by the Leader of the Labor Party in the Northern Territory Legislative Council, Mr Ward, who said that he agreed with the honourable member’s remarks. Mr Ward said that this matter should be brought to the attention of the right authorities, but that it was a question of who the right authorities were. These are the legal men in the Northern Territory spelling this out. He said: ‘We certainly could not by-pass in any way the Australian Constitutional Convention’. Why is the Government hurrying the Bill through the House? The Country Party Leader made the following remarks, which are well worth quoting:

Undoubtedly the collective wisdom which will be brought together in the executive of the Constitutional Convention should arrive at a better and more balanced decision and one which will carry more force in an Australian referendum on the subject than a decision of one Parliament or one man (the Prime Minister) or the Federal Parliament.

Those are the people of the Northern Territory. I heartily support the amendments as they were introduced and spelled out to the House and to the Senate when the Bill was before the House on an earlier occasion.

Question put.

That the amendments be disagreed to.

The Committee divided. (The Chairman - Mr G. G. D. Scholes)

AYES: 59

NOES: 52

Majority . . 7

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Resolution reported.

Motion (by Mr Whitlam) put:

That the report be adopted.

The House divided. (Mr Speaker - Hon. J. F. Cope)

AYES: 61

NOES: 52

Majority . . 9

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative. Ordered:

That Mr Barnard, Dr J. F. Cairns and Mr Whitlam be appointed a committee to draw up reasons for the House of Representatives disagreeing to the amendments of the Senate.

Mr WHITLAM:
Prime Minister · Werriwa · ALP

– On behalf of the committee, I present the reasons for the House of Representatives disagreeing to the amendments of the Senate. (Thereupon the Clerk read the reasons as follows):

The Senate’s amendments are not acceptable because they would remove the important provisions of the Bill that would enable the Constitution to be altered by a national majority and a majority in not less than one half of the States. These provisions are necessary because the existing requirement of Section 128 of the Constitution (that the proposal to alter the Constitution must be approved by a majority of States as well as a majority of electors voting) has proved a stumbling-block to desirable reforms, as evidenced by the history of proposals to alter the Constitution.

Motion (by Mr Whitlam) proposed:

That the Committee’s reasons be adopted.

Mr McMAHON:
Lowe

– It will be remembered that, when I was speaking, in Committee, to the motion that the amendments proposed by the Senate be disagreed to, I pointed out that the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) had neglected to look at what he chooses to call the long title of the Bill. I said then that I believed that, far from facilitating changes in the Constitution, the Bill made changes much easier to make or, if I may put it in different language - language used in the ‘Reasons’ which were prepared by the Prime Minister in the few seconds which were available to him - the Labor Party wants the change because the form in which section 128 of the Constitution is drafted has proved to be a stumbling block. In other words, the Government wants to remove any sort of a block to constitutional change. I believe that that applies right through the legislative process. The Government wants to get its way. It wants to get its way in the easiest possible manner and in the quickest possible time.

This is one of the reasons why I pointed out to the House that when there is a proposal for a constitutional change we must be certain, first of all, that the federal relationship is being maintained - unless the people who, after all, are the sovereign people of this country agree to a change - and, secondly, that the people have adequate time in which to bring their thinking to bear on the proposal. We must ensure that only after the most careful and mature consideration are changes made. That is the first reason why we believe not only that section 128 should be amended in the manner recommended by the Senate but also that the proposal by the Prime Minister as to section 128 should be rejected.

I also point out that we have to come back to fundamentals. In a Federal Constitution we must accept the fact that we are trustees for that Constitution and we should not lightly make changes to section 128 or, for that matter, to any other section of the Constitution, unless we find in that Constitution sections which have to be dealt with satis factorily in order to ensure that the federal system is maintained during the period the people want it maintained and we ensure that the people have the opportunity for consideration in the way I have mentioned.

For those reasons we reject the reasons which have been presented setting out why the Government believes that the Senate amendments should be rejected or, as the Prime Minister said, are not acceptable to the Government. The Senate amendments are acceptable to us. We stated quite positively when the Bill first came into the House that we believed that our amendments were correct. The Senate, after more mature consideration, has come to exactly the same conclusion. It must be obvious to the Government that there is a very strong opinion in the whole of this Parliament - the Senate and House of Representatives combined - which does not want these proposals put to a plebiscite or referendum. I hope and trust that when the proposals are put they will be beaten decisively and that when the people of this country - I repeat that after all they are the sovereign people of this country - have an opportunity to express their view they will do so in an emphatic way; that is, that they will vote no at the referendum.

Mr WHITLAM:
Prime Minister · Werriwa · ALP

– in reply - I hope that the right honourable member for Lowe (Mr McMahon) will not take it amiss if I express disappointment that he has departed from the views which were espoused 15 years ago by such distinguished colleagues of his as Sir Neil O’Sullivan, Sir Alexander Downer and Mr Justice Joske.

Mr McMahon:

– It is the fourth time he has said this.

Mr WHITLAM:

– The right honourable gentleman is disowning them now, 15 years later. There were also Mr Drummond and Mr Hamilton. The fact is that there is nothing particularly revolutionary or novel about the amendment to which the right honourable gentleman and his Senate colleagues now object. It was put in 1958 and 1959 by a Constitutional Review Committee sponsored by Prime Minister Menzies. Nobody in the intervening years has objected to the proposal.

The other proposal, which is not objected to, also involves an amendment to section 128 of the Constitution to allow the voters in the Territories to be counted in the national total which must be obtained in favour of any proposed law to alter the Constitution as well as a majority in not less than half of the States. This proposal is one which has been made since the Constitutional Review Committee report. It was proposed under Prime Minister Gorton and was proposed under Prime Minister McMahon. It is being put to the people under the present Prime Minister. Perhaps I can conclude with this thought: This is one case where the Senate cannot prevent the people expressing their voice because if, after another 3 months, we put this Bill and the attendant Constitutional Alteration Bills through the House and the Senate again rejects them, shelves them or unacceptably amends them, then without any limitation of time the Bill can be put to the people.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 4311

SEWERAGE AGREEMENTS BILL 1973

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

Second Reading

Mr UREN:
Minister for Urban and Regional Development · Reid · ALP

– I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of this Bill is to provide for an agreement between the Australian Government and the States for a program to eliminate the backlog of sewerage. The Bill will appropriate funds for loans to the States for carrying out this program during 1973-74. The details of the program are set out in the agreement which is contained in the Schedule attached to this Bill. On 16 December last year, the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) wrote to each Premier seeking information from each State sewerage authority.

Replies from the States showed that 17 per cent or one in six of the population of Australia’s major cities are without adequate sewerage services. In addition, every city has deficiencies in sewerage treatment facilities. As honourable members would realise, the number of people without adequate services and the standard of treatment varies considerably from region to region. Different starting times for sewerage construction, different rates of growth, different priorities within State programs and different geological conditions - all these complex factors need to be taken into account in formulating an agreement. Following these replies, officers of my Department held discussions with State authorities. The various State submissions, together with these discussions, clearly indicated that the formulation of a long-term agreement was not possible in the time officers had available to them. So the agreement which is attached to this Bill provides for the year 1973-74 only.

In the recent Budget, the Government allocated $30m for a beginning to the sewerage backlog program. I would like to stress that this allocation is only the first step in our program to overcome the sewerage backlog in our major cities. In setting the level of assistance, the Government was fully aware of the pressures on resources, both men and materials, this year. There are 10 cities which will receive moneys this year under the program. They are: Sydney, Wollongong, Newcastle, Melbourne, Brisbane, the Gold Coast, Perth, Adelaide, Hobart and Launceston. The amount of financial assistance for each State is as follows:

Moneys will be made available by way of repayable loans for a period up to 40 years. The rate of interest to be charged is the longterm bond rate at the time payments and advances are made. Under the agreement, a State can repay equal 6-monthly repayments of capital together with interest on the reducing balance. Alternatively, the State can elect to pay under credit foncier terms which provide for equal 6-monthly instalments. Under this alternative, payments would be lower in earlier years. Part III of the agreement details the conditions of financial assistance. Honourable members will be aware that in the past sewerage authorities have normally paid the local government interest rates which are generally one half per cent higher than the long-term bond rate, Also, the repayment period has normally been much shorter than 40 years. For example, in New South Wales the authority there has borrowed at one half per cent above the long-term Commonwealth bond rate and repaid normally over 20 years. I have been aware of the criticism from some quarters concerning the Government’s decision to make this year’s allocation on an interest bearing loan basis. Sewerage authorities are considered as business undertakings which should generally rely on loan funds. However, no one is more aware than I of the difficult position many sewerage authorities find themselves in today. Sydney, Newcastle and Perth are generally paying 50c in every dollar to service their debts. The Melbourne Board of Works is paying 58c in every dollar. I would point out that this situation was not created by the present Australian Government. It was created in the main by the previous Australian Government and conservative State governments. It would be irresponsible of this Government to start giving away money this year without full awareness of the complex matters I have already mentioned. The present Australian Government does not intend to bail out these authorities without conducting a proper analysis of their indebtedness and future programs and the way these programs relate to each other.

The Department of Urban and Regional Development is ultimately responsible for formulating the national sewerage program. It has enlisted the assistance of the Cities Commission. In addition, a steering committee has been established to help formulate the program. This committee consists of experts from the Sydney Metropolitan Water, Sewerage and Drainage Board, the Melbourne and Metropolitan Board of Works, the Australian Department of Housing and Construction and the Cities Commission. Members of this committee sit on it because of their expertise and not because of their various State origins. A long-term program will be worked out in close co-operation with the States. No one should underestimate the magnitude of the task that the various officers face in formulating this long-term program. In the first instance, there is the question of the inter-connected nature of this Government’s policies in urban and regional development.

Provision of funds for sewerage works is only one part of the Government’s overall program for improvement of the environment and living conditions in cities throughout Australia. The sewerage program must be integrated with Australian Government policies and programs in land commissions, housing, urban public transport, area improvement programs and growth centres - both regional centres and system cities. I predict that it will be increasingly recognised that one of the great strengths of this Government’s policies for the cities is its willingness and ability to see the various investments which the Australian Government has made in the past coupled with the initiatives we are now taking, as being interconnected. These investments must increasingly be seen as an interconnected parcel of policies, not as isolated programs. Secondly, neither the Australian Government nor the various State governments will be able to fulfil their duties to relate these investments unless we are served with better data or better information than has been given in the past. The paucity of data’ is a major problem. It is through co-operation in this sewerage program that more data can be made available to all governments about the basic conditions underlying this problem.

This initial allocation represents the historic step in the continuing involvement by the national Government in one of the major problems of our cities. It was the present Prime Minister who had to endure the misplaced mockery and disregard of honourable members opposite and the disdain of some editorial writers when he sought to involve the previous Government in assisting the States to overcome this problem in our major cities. This present Bill is a tribute to his persistence.

With the co-operation and assistance of the States, I am confident that we can now formulate a long-term agreement. Such an agreement will both overcome the backlog in sewerage services and provide improved treatment facilities at modern environmental standards. Together with allied programs for other urban services, this Government will overcome the results of 23 years of under-investment in our cities which has produced so many inefficiencies and inequalities. I commend this Bill to the House.

Mr Gorton:

– Is it appropriate for me to continue the debate straight away?

Mr Uren:

– No. The usual practice is to adjourn the debate.

Mr Gorton:

– I know but I want to say a few words before I move the adjournment of the debate.

Mr Uren:

– The normal procedure is to move the adjournment of the debate.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Drury:
RYAN, QUEENSLAND

– Order! I point out that under the Standing Orders the practice is for the debate to be adjourned.

Mr Gorton:

– Has there been a motion that this statement be noted?

Mr Uren:

– No. It is a second reading speech on a Bill.

Mr Gorton:

– Then I ask leave to make a statement on it.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– This is not in accordance with practice.

Mr Gorton:

– I can ask leave to make a statement.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Is leave granted?

Mr Gorton:

– I want to take only a few minutes and then I will ask for leave to continue my remarks.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Is leave granted for the right honourable member to make a statement, continuing the debate. There being no objection, leave is granted.

Mr GORTON:
Higgins

– I propose to speak only for a few minutes before asking leave to continue my remarks at a later stage. There are 2 or 3 comments which I would like to make on the Bill which has been presented to the House. The first is that we have no objection at all to the purposes of this Bill. Indeed I congratulate the Minister for Urban and Regional Development (Mr Uren) on bringing this Bill forward. But I do have some comments to make on the method by which the money is to be made available. In the first place, I do not see why the Government is continuing to insist on charging interest on money provided for the purposes set out in this legislation. If the money is originally borrowed then I can understand the necessity for a government to charge interest in order that it can repay the interest to the people from whom it had originally borrowed the money.

I believe that it would be borne out by examination that a great deal of the money that is being provided under this Bill is in fact not money which has been borrowed at all but is revenue money which has been raised by the Commonwealth Government. It is to be given to these authorities under the guise of loan funds. But they are not loan funds because there is no interest to be paid by the Commonwealth Government. This is not something new. I am not attacking the Government for doing something that is new. This practice has been continuing for a long time.

Mr Uren:

– Surely you are aware that the Commonwealth has a deficit Budget?

Mr GORTON:

– I do not interject when the honourable member is making a statement so he should not interject when I am making a statement. The excuse which the Minister seeks to make for the necessity to charge interest on money which has not been borrowed and on which the Commonwealth does not have to pay interest is that the Commonwealth has a deficit Budget. I cannot see that that has any bearing on this because the Commonwealth does not have to pay interest on the money which it is providing for the purposes set out in the Bill. Therefore there is no reason why the Commonwealth should charge interest on this money. I hope that we will get away from what previous governments have done and what this Government is continuing to do in this regard because it makes an enormous difference to the States and municipalities concerned whether the money is provided by way of a grant which in my contention it should be if the money comes from revenue or whether it is provided by way of a loan which bears interest over 40 years and therefore costs twice as much in the end as the amount borrowed in the beginning. But the excuse made by the Minister in his second reading speech as to the reason for charging interest is along the lines that the sewerage authorities are considered to be business undertakings which should generally rely on loan funds. I cannot for the life of me imagine why a sewerage authority should be regarded as a business undertaking. I have never heard of sewerage authorities selling the end product which is what happens in all the business undertakings about which I know. For example, those involved in generating electricity, supplying gas or providing water. To regard a sewerage authority as a business undertaking and to put this forward as an excuse for charging interest is something which I am sure if the Minister had had real time to consider he would have eliminated from his speech because it really is a rather absurd proposition.

The second excuse which has been presented is that the present Australian. Government does not intend to bail out the sewerage authorities without conducting a proper analysis of their indebtedness. By all means let us have a proper analysis of their indebtedness so as to ascertain whether something should be done about their existing indebtedness. That is what bailing out means. But do not add additional indebtedness on top of their present indebtedness on the ground that this Government does not know what the present indebtedness is and that it does not know whether it should bail them out. I would like to see this Parliament really examine the question of the provision of funds to States and to other authorities. By all means charge interest on money when interest is required, that is, when the money has been borrowed originally, but do not charge interest on funds which come from revenue money. If we do that then we will turn back the clock. We will be reversing what a previous government did when, for the very reasons I have just put before this House, it relieved the States of the requirement to pay interest on so-called loan money because in the past that loan money had been provided from revenue funds. That was a proper path to follow. I hope we will be able to continue to follow it. I ask for leave to continue my remarks at a later stage.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 4314

APPROVAL OF WORK- PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE ACT

Stokes Min Power Station, Darwin

Mr Les Johnson:
Minister for Housing and Construction · HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I move:

That in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969-1973, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the Committee has duly reported to Parliament.

Construction of stage 6 extensions of the Stokes Hill Power Station - Darwin, ‘Northern Territory.

The proposal involves the provision of two 23. 5 meggawatt turbo-alternator sets with associated oil fired boiler plant, auxiliaries, switchgear, unit transformer, and 66 kV switchyard: construction of a concrete chimney; construction of a 24,000-ton capacity fuel oil tank; supply and installation of two 66 kV underground cables linking the power station and city zone substation together with modifications to overhead transmission lines in the Frances Bay area. The estimated cost of the proposed work is $10. 8m.

The Committee concluded that it was reasonable to plan for the future on the basis of a growth rate of 17 per cent per annum, that there was a need for additional generating plant to be operating by 1977, that the present site was suitable for the final additions to the Stokes Hill Power Station, and that the work proceed to construction in this instance. The Committee also recommended that the proposed timetable for the work be adhered to. Upon the concurrence of the House in this resolution, detailed planning can proceed in accordance with the recommendations of the Committee.

Mr CALDER:
Northern Territory

– I should like to speak in support of this proposal for extensions to stage 6 of the Stokes Hill power station. In doing so, I should like to commend the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr Les Johnson) and his colleagues for the work that they did in getting the Stokes Hill power station back onto the power stream, despite all the trouble that they had and still are having. I realise the sincere efforts that the Minister made and I commend him for them. But in speaking to the proposal for the concluding stage of the project, I notice that stage is for a power station using fuel oil, which is used also throughout the rest of Stokes Hill power station. I see in the report that the site for the new power station is to be on Quarantine Island off East Point. I urge very strongly that the Public Works Committee examine that proposal with a view to recommending the use of natural gas to power the station’s motors. For one thing, there is a lot of gas available locally just west of the area and there is also a tremendous amount of gas in the Palm Valley fields 900 miles to the south. I shall not delay the House. I am glad to see that the work is going ahead and I hope that the work is also proceeding with speed on the standby power station that the Minister and his colleagues arranged to be put on the site.

Mr Les Johnson:
Minister for Housing and Construction · HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– in reply - I thank the honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Calder) for his remarks and I am pleased that the very serious position in regard to the power shortage at Darwin appears to be at least temporarily relieved. Very strong efforts were made by my Department to keep up the power supply to Darwin. As the honourable gentleman knows, every bit of equipment available in the north was pressed into service, and in addition strong efforts were made to find plants that could be taken from other parts of the world. Even the possibility of using a power ship from New Zealand was investigated but, regrettably, it was not available. Then the ‘Department looked in Tasmania at a generator which weighed about 126 tons, I think. That would have to be broken up into small modules of, I think, about 15 tons each, to enable it to be transported by Hercules aircraft. If it was broken up into these components a very big program would have been involved to reassemble it. Obviously that was not the way to resolve the problem. Finally we brought out experts from Sweden who are now keeping the equipment going. I hope that the new equipment, which is the subject of this proposal today, will be the long term answer.

The only other matter I want to mention is that of course, due regard will be given and has been given to what the honourable gentleman put about the possible utilisation of natural gas for the generation of power in the Northern Territory. Consideration will be given to this for several reasons, foremost among which is the developing world shortage of fuel. In addition, there is the secondary but still very important factor that natural gas is available in the north off the North-West Shelf and in the vicinity of Alice Springs at the Palm Valley fields. The power generation equipment proposed is of a convertible nature, and if it proves to be undesirable to use oil for power generation purposes it will be quite inexpensive to switch over to the use of gas. I hope that the honourable member will find some satisfaction in that assurance.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 4315

DRIPSTONE HIGH SCHOOL, DARWIN

Mr Les Johnson:
Minister for Housing and Construction · HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I move:

That in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969-1973, it is expedient to cany out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the Committee has duly reported to Parliament:

Construction of Dripstone High School - Darwin,

Northern Territory

The proposed school provides teaching facilities, including science laboratories, library/ resource centre, theatre/ assembly area, a canteen, and administrative and other support facilities for 1,100 pupils. Several of the facilities will be available for use by the community outside school hours. Construction is of steel and reinforced concrete with non load bearing concrete masonry walls. Normally occupied areas will be air-conditioned. The estimated cost of the proposed work is $4.8m. The Committee concluded there was a need for an additional high school in the Darwin area, that the Dripstone site was suitable, and that the work should proceed to construction. Upon the concurrence of the House in this resolution, detailed planning can proceed in accordance with the recommendations of the Committee.

Mr CALDER:
Northern Territory

– I support this motion and commend the people who put this program into operation, namely, members of the previous Government. The proposal is to be carried on by this Government. The Darwin High School was upgraded and in the last few years a new high school has been built at Nightcliff and another one at Casuarina. Now it is proposed to spend an estimated $4.8m to build a high school at Dripstone. All these projects are for the northern part of Darwin, which is the direction in which the city has been spreading. I notice that the school is to be built to a new design on a faculty basis. As the Minister said, various parts of it are to be air-conditioned and so on. I am glad to hear that the Government is looking at new designs and putting them into operation. Each high school that has been opened in Darwin has been very good and I am certain that the proposed high school will be up to the previous high standard. I notice that it is planned initially to have 1,100 pupils at the high school when it opens in 1977, and I know that the number of students at high schools in Darwin will increase very rapidly to 5,000 or 6,000. I only hope that prices do not escalate too much and that the building program is able to keep ahead of the development of the city and the increase in the number of children.

Mr KELLY:
Wakefield

– I think it is proper that I should not let this motion be passed without drawing attention to one significant fact; so far as I know, this is the first open space secondary school proposed for the Northern Territory or the Australian Capital Territory. It is quite a step forward. The Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr Les Johnson) will remember that the Public Works Committee had some very interesting inquiries into the open space system of teaching in primary schools, but this project is breaking new ground in open space usage in secondary schools. I think that fact should be mentioned.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 4315

EXTRADITION (FOREIGN STATES) BILL 1973

Sta Committee

Consideration resumed from 4 December (vide page 4266).

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

Bill reported without amendments; report adopted.

Third Reading

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

page 4316

EXTRADITION (COMMONWEALTH COUNTRIES) BILL 1973

Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 17 September (vide page 1060), on motion by Mr Enderby:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

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

page 4316

CUSTOMS BILL 1973

Message received from the Senate intimating that the Senate had agreed to the amendment made by the House of Representatives to the Customs Bill.

page 4316

CUSTOMS TARIFF VALIDATION BILL (No. 2) 1973

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 29 November (vide page 4103), on motion by Dr J. F. Cairns:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr ANTHONY:
Leader of the Australian Country Party · Richmond

– I wish to address my remarks on this Bill to the 25 per cent tariff reduction enacted by the Government in July this year. Most Australians will always appreciate it if some worthwhile reduction in tariffs can be made so that the cost impost on the community at large is kept to a minimum level. But, as the previous Minister responsible for the operation of the tariff system, I must say that I am critical of the crude way in which this across the board reduction was made, without any discrimination being applied. I believe that the nondiscrimination will act unfairly and unjustly on certain industries. Because of this and because the Chairman of the Tariff Board was involved with the recommendation that this should be the procedure, the confidence of industry has been undermined quite considerably. It has been given a shake.

This action had all the hallmarks of a hasty decision. There was not the investigation in depth that there should have been. The decision took no account of industries that have been before the Tariff Board recently, when adjustments have been made to the level of protection allotted to them by the Government after recommendation by the Tariff Board. These are significant industries. As a result of recent investigations, some of them had the level of protection reduced. Now, immediately on top of that decision, the Government has stripped another 25 per cent off that level of protection. People in those industries must doubt the credibility of the functioning of the Tariff Board if, after a recommendation made only in recent times, the Chairman of the Tariff Board can accept that another 25 per cent should be taken off. Also, the decision had all the indications that it had been made hastily and crudely, because there was no consideration or discrimination in respect of special preference tariffs that are provided under the New Zealand-Australia Free Trade Agreement and less developed countries which are allowed to bring in certain commodities at a much reduced or concessional rates. When the full impact of these concessions is felt, I am sure that industries will suffer.

The Minister for Overseas Trade (Dr J. F. Cairns) said that the employees of any industries affected would be compensated. That is a rather spurious argument to use. I find it somewhat contradictory and confusing and certainly, administeratively, nearly impossible to justify special unemployment relief for those who can claim to have been affected by the competition from imports as compared with other people in the community who receive normal social services unemployment relief. In conjunction with the statement about the 25 per cent across the board tariff cut, the Government announced that employees affected by this decision would be given special unemployment treatment; that, in fact, they would receive from the Government compensation at the wage rate they were earning during the previous 6 months. This is a rather unusual set of circumstances. How long that policy commitment will apply, nobody knows; but certainly we all knew that it would not have any immediate impact on industry, that with the booming circumstances of trade around the world the cold winds of competition from imports would not be felt this year but possibly would be felt next year.

The decision to reduce tariffs by 25 per cent was made in relatively unusual economic circumstances. The economy was in a period of pronounced boom. Retail demand was surging ahead and, with the quickening pace of activity, resources were coming under strain. The supply capacities of industry were stretched as demand pressures were fed by the high level of liquidity in the economy. Industrial production was increasing, but at an uneven rate, and serious shortages already were evident in certain areas, such as the building and construction industries. That was the domestic situation - a climate of boom and shortages.

Faced with a deteriorating situation, the Government looked for ways of relieving the pressure on resources. For months it had been rejecting advice to raise interest rates. It was framing a Budget which would increase Commonwealth expenditure by the largest amount and the highest percentage increase since the early 1950s. It clearly was not prepared to act at that stage through financial and monetary policy. One avenue of approach appeared to be particularly attractive, and that was the idea of reducing tariffs. When the Australian Labor Party came to power our foreign exchange reserves were at a very high level - $4,800m, or considerably more than our annual import bill. Our balance of payments situation was strong, despite revaluation of the currency. The Government proposed to increase imports by making them more competitive in terms of related price. An increase in the flow of imports would alleviate the strain on resources in Australia. Our balance of payments could stand it. The assumption was that our industries could do so, too.

Following a report of officials, tariffs were reduced unilaterally by 25 per cent in July. At the same time provision was made for assistance to employees who might be unemployed as a result of that decision. At face value, the decision seems to have paid off. Imports are now rising strongly and only a handful of workers has been obviously disadvantaged to date. But for the workers in the textile and clothing industries considerable concern is growing. If the forecast of increased imports next year as world trade tends to slacken proves correct, there is a chance that the jobs of something like 80,000 people will be put at risk. Many of these 80,000 people are associated with decentralised industries and many of them are women in the work force who find it difficult to get alternative types of work. The decision was hailed as being courageous but it was nothing of the kind, and I said so at the time.

Our boom was matched by and drew strength from an international boom. Shortages in Australia were matched by shortages overseas. It was clearly naive for tie Government to expect this move in itself at that time to induce a dramatic increase in imports when industries in supplying countries -were at full strength. Reduction in tariffs may have been able to alter relative prices, but it could not in itself increase the volume of imports. Similarly, Australian industry was embarrassed by an abundance of orders - not by a threat of import competition. Clearly, lags would apply and any adverse effects would be later ones. Imports are now increasing across a wide range of products, probably largely in response to the considerable revaluation of the Australian dollar against our major trading partners, as well as to growing efforts to obtain supplies from overseas to supplement domestic supplies. The effects may well be felt in 1974 when world demand may ease considerably. We may be caught between the scissor blades of rising costs and falling commodity prices. Overseas industries will be looking for markets, and their prices will be more competitive.

Clearly the tariffs reductions have had an uneven impact. In some industries where the margin of surplus protection was considerable the impact will be muffled. But what of those industries such as clothing, footwear and food processing where tariff protection under normal circumstances was crucial? It was because of this mixed picture that we had a Tariff Board to report on the individual requirements in industry. If it is argued that protection levels were excessive in general they are not excessive in particular areas. It is these particular industries and the workers they employ that are in jeopardy.

I repeat that it was a crude decision to apply a decision right across the board, taking into account industries that have been reviewed in recent times. I was attacked in some quarters over my attitude to tariff cuts when I said that to do it in a manner such as this without being discriminating and without taking into account the special circumstances of our tariff protection system was, while bold in some ways, a little absurd. There are many industries where protection has applied for a long period and where there has been no review. The previous Government established a procedure for the review of all tariffs. This review admittedly would have taken a period of 6 years.

I believe that because of the excessive inflationary pressures that we have at the moment there is some justification for the Government’s having an across the board cut but, if it had used a more analytical method and if it had applied a few qualifications, taking into account industries that may have been reviewed in the last 2 years, or if it had taken into account an industry which might be affected by the less developed countries preference or which had come under the New Zealand and Australia Free Trade Agreement, I would have found it a worthy decision that I could have defended. If some of those industries that have not been reviewed for a long time were in a tight protection position, I am sure that the Minister would have acted quickly to see that a form of temporary protection was given.

Dr J F Cairns:

– I will bet you would not have defended it, though.

Mr ANTHONY:

– In reply to the honourable Minister, I accepted the policy of applying it right across the board but not in such a bland way as it was done. I think that the Minister was overseas at the time but if he had participated in the Cabinet discussion I am sure he would have brought up the point that I am bringing up at the moment, because it did shake the confidence of industry when the Chairman of the Tariff Board was prepared to put his name to a recommendation which might automatically mean a further 25 per cent reduction on industries that had been reviewed in the last 12 months, as well as meaning that the Tariff Board was not genuine when it made the recommendations at the level at which they were made to the Government. In other words, it decided that a further 25 per cent could be trimmed off.

The tariff structure is complex and of long standing. Most of the protective arrangements were established before the Second World War, and the overall protective impact may have declined since then. I mentioned that the Government had instituted a review to try to overcome this, and it wanted to try to reduce the impact of the inflationary pressures, many of which have been induced by this Government itself. I am not opposed to tariff reductions. Indeed, tariff protection involves a cost to the community and should be minimised, but I firmly believe that adjustment of our tariff arrangements should be selective and should discriminate. That is why I opposed the 25 per cent unilateral reduction in non-revenue tariffs. Most imports already enter duty free and the impact of the reduction on the remaining industries would be both postponed and uneven.

The situation now is that we are arbitrarily linked to the United States dollar and as that currency gains strength our currency in turn revalues against other major currencies, such as sterling and the yen. So industry which is concerned about overseas competition, is being caught both by the policy of the Government to reduce tariffs indiscriminately and by the changing value of our currency. The effect is that imports from those countries have gained an additional competitive advantage not through the strentgh of our currency but through the changing strength of the United States dollar. It is time to float our dollar and let it find the true market value instead of letting it be fiddled and manipulated by politicians who make the political decisions when currency should be adjusted.

We have seen 3 alterations in our currency this year, two of these by arbitrary and deliberate action of the Government, and one of them by default. I would not for one minute say that there should not have been some alteration to our Australian currency but it is coming into question now whether the currency is the right and proper value. If it is allowed to go free nobody can dispute that the market is not determining what is the correct value. Through that means its value will be free from political manipulation. It will be free to respond to the circumstances of .1974, whatever they may eventually turn out to be. In the meantime the competitive position of Australian industry has been dealt a severe blow, and the impact is yet to come. All the signs are that competition will be more severe in 1974 as we see a slackening in international trade. I only hope that the Government is prepared to take action and to be a little more discriminating when industries are going to feel the full impact of the predictions for 1974.

Mr EDWARDS:
Berowra

– I do not propose to detain the House for long. I have previously expressed the view in relation to the 25 per cent tariff cut that is being validated by this Bill, that it is not the sort of treatment that this side of the House would have meted out to industry. ‘In saying that, I want to underline 2 points. The Leader of the

Australian Country Party, Mr Anthony, has already done so to some extent, so I will not be repetitious. But I do stress that while it was a cardinal principle of policy of the previous Government - of the Liberal Party and of the Country Party - that adequate protection should be afforded to economic and efficient industry, the previous Government did not rest content with existing levels of the tariff. It did institute the so-called systematic review of the tariff, which is continuing, beginning with those areas where protection was the highest and had not been reviewed for many years. The report that we have had on the electronics industry, including specifically the problems associated with the introduction of colour television, was in accordance with that review.

I think it was in April 1972 that the previous Government instituted the so-called 1,000 items margins’ reference. The principal purpose of that inquiry was to provide information for trade negotiations, but it was also to serve as a major indicator of areas of excess protection. The membership of the Tariff Board was enlarged by the previous Government to expedite those inquiries. There can be no doubt that the end point would have been recommendations for reduced tariff rates in many cases on a properly selective basis and after open public inquiry. That was the manner and the policies of the preceding Government.

In contrast we have in this action of a 25 per cent across-the-board cut in tariffs, a measure properly of a long-term character, but introduced in the context of the shortterm management of the economy. In my view, it did not attack directly any of the major causes of the inflationary problem with which the country was faced. It did not attack Government spending directly. When I mention Government spending I usually get a reaction from the other side of the House asking whether the cutting of Government spending is the only sort of approach that I can suggest should be taken. Sometimes that is the only action that can be taken in a situation in which private spending is in a resurgent condition.

Dr Cairns:

– We want you to be specific and to tell us where you would cut it?

Mr EDWARDS:

– The Minister for Overseas Trade interjects. He wants me to tell him where Government spending can be cut. Look, Mr Minister, the answer to that question is that we must look at the overall condition of the economy. There were many responsible commentators at the time of the introduction of the Budget, commentators sympathetic to the Government’s side of politics, who said that the sort of increase possible within all the circumstances for Government spending is perhaps 15 per cent - at the outside an increase of 17 per cent. That indeed would have been the sort of judgment one might have come to. The procedure then is that you come up with the sorts of proposals which amounted within Australia to an increase of 20 per cent. You then look at the effect of a cutback to 17 per cent. If there were particular items where such a cutback would be crucial, they would presumably get some priority. Other areas would be reduced.

This is the sort of choice that we are making all the time. This is the sort of choice the Minister undoubtedly had to make to keep expenditure increases to 20 per cent. I would suspect that the Government’s aspirations would have exceeded even 20 per cent as, indeed, would perhaps mine. But in the circumstances in which members of the Government found themselves, the responsible course of action as enjoined upon the Government - I repeat by commentators many of whom were sympathetic to the Government - was to contain total spending to that sort of level. If, in fact, even so, the Government wished to go beyond that level a possible procedure - with which I have not a great deal of sympathy because of its deleterious effects on wage claims and productive effort - would have been an increase in taxation beyond those increases that the Government in fact did implement. It implemented plenty of those. For that action, the Government has had advice given to it by people I am sure it will regard as sympathetic to its cause, Dr Coombs and the Federal President of the Australian Labor Party, Mr Hawke, I believe, and, in an earlier speech which I could easily turn up, by the Minister for Social Security, the honourable member for Oxley (Mr Hayden). That would have been the responsible course of action.

But that, I repeat, is by way of digression. The tariff cut has no effect in that area. It could have been predicted that it would not have a short-run effect on the problem of excess demand because as my colleague, the Leader of the Country Party, said, the position of world supply was such that no surge of imports in response to it could be anticipated. It could have a marginal effect only on the cost-price spiral which was beginning to take over at that time as a predominant cause of inflation. I could add that it could have only only a marginal effect on the problem of imported inflation. At no stage have I suggested that our current inflationary problems do not have a considerable element of imported inflation. But a good deal of that imported inflation is by way of so-called ‘exportables’, and there specific action could have been taken. The Government set up a committee. It eventually came in with a report as to what might have been done about meat prices in particular. Something could have been done about meat prices in particular but not, in my opinion, along the lines laid down in that report in which there are, in my views, major errors which invalidate it. But this action could have been taken earlier on and would have been a good thing. So, on any of these points on the matter of Government expenditure which is one thing under the Government’s control, and on its impact on the imported inflation the tariff cut could have only a very minor effect via the cost of imported goods. And, in terms of its impact on the wage-cost spiral, the short term impact was very limited.

I say, therefore, that to the extent that the decision did involve courage - I have suggested previously that perhaps the suggestion that it did has been overrated in the circumstances in which ft was clear that the anticipated boost to imports could not take place for some time - I can only express a hope as to the longer term potential benefits of this sort of change, in terms of forcing some reallocation of resources and in eliminating the so-called water’ in the tariff which should have some ultimate effect on the cost-price spiral. But that is something which could have been considered directly - the Government had the report on the 1,000-item inquiry. I believe in fact that was considered in this Report - Ways of Increasing Imports which was brought down for the consideration of the Government.

I express the hope that these potential longer-term benefits may outweigh the other long-term and overriding, in my view, disadvantage of this move, that is the potentially harmful and damaging effect on business confidence. It is that long-term planning by industry on which the thrust of continued sound economic growth depends and, therefore, on which many of the social and economic aspirations of the Government also depend. It is, as the Leader of the Country Party pointed out, superimposed on a very considerable revaluation of the Australian currency. I take this opportunity to repeat what I have said on several occasions, that for my own part a revaluation of the Australian currency was indeed inevitable. I have commented, on the timing and magnitude of that revaluation. I noticed in a report of calculations by the National Westminster Bank, which provides a service that is reproduced regularly in the Economist’ of the movement in currencies of most countries since Smithsonian, which was December 1971, that we are at the top of the league in terms of up-valuation. In fact, we are way up now above the Japanese yen and even above the Deutsch mark.

I think one must consider taking a longer view of whether this kind of policy is appropriate, because in the longer term the effect is to make more difficult the achieving of manufactured exports, which in the long run is the big growth area for exports, and on its effect on the stimulus to imports. It is feasible that, without the explicit consideration of these exchange rate matters, we could in this way revalue, so to speak, out of existence the potential surplus or even balance on current account that we have achieved. This is a point I would have thought would be somewhat dear to the Minister’s heart also, namely, that a situation of potential surplus or even balance on current account is the basis for playing a responsible role in world economic development

We are a wealthy country. To revert to the kind of situation that prevailed in the 1960s, when we were a large net importer of overseas capital, is hardly one consistent in my view with our role as a rich nation in a capital-hungry world. So, to proceed in this way to permit a revaluation, the effect of which as things begin to turn around will be to revert to the deficit situation on current account that was characteristic of the 1960s, seems to me to be a policy both unwise in the interests of Australian industry and irresponsible in terms of our obligations as a rich nation in a world in which many countries are in a developing phase and in need of assistance.

The only other matter in the Bill on which I will comment is the Report on Consumer Electronic Goods and Components, a report with which it is almost impossible to deal in any detail. The Tariff Board is to be congratulated on such an insightful and wide-ranging report. No doubt my colleague the honourable member for Wakefield (Mr Kelly) will endorse my view. Yet, for my own part I confess to some unease, which evidently is shared to some extent by the Government. So far as I am aware, of all the decisions we are validating today, this one represents the only case in which there has been a significant departure from the Board’s recommendations. To say that the report is accepted - I think the phrase was ‘the thrust of the Board’s report was accepted’, and perhaps we can agree with that - is one thing, but the precise recommendations that there should be a 25 per cent tariff on components and a 30 per cent tariff on finished products were not.

What we have is a decision that there should be a 35 per cent tariff on components and on the finished products. On the face of it, and taking those figures in the formula for effective protection, it really does not change the protection afforded the assemblers at all, but leaves much to depend on the Government’s actions regarding what it has said it proposes in respect of subsidisation. In this technological age the importance of a viable electronics industry to the future of Australia is strongly supported by the Opposition Parties. Still unresolved, as we have yet to have the second instalment, so to speak, of this inquiry, is the major question of how far the viability of the industry, including the capacity to maintain a nationally independent program of research and development, is dependent on an integrated operation combining a thriving consumer product division together with production for the professional market.

I suggest that the Government has taken the view in its decision for a 35 per cent protection that the consumer products section of the industry must be afforded reasonable assistance - although less than the industry would regard as adequate. A great deal will depend on what the industry can achieve by way of rationalisation and restructuring of its operations in response to the Government’s proposed subsidies for components. The problem of potential unemployment in this industry was raised during question time this morning by the honourable member for Melbourne (Mr Innes), if I remember correctly. The Tariff Board’s report refers to unemployment or a change in employment in this one section of the industry of about 4,500 persons. However, the Board sees this situation being offset by increased employment in the production of coloured television sets and in the servicing of them. That is a matter about which I would have some reservations. I repeat that the Opposition supports the importance of a viable electronics industry, and assures the Government that it will not hamper its attempts through these proposals for subsidisation to achieve such an effective and viable Australian industry.

Mr KELLY:
Wakefield

– I did not come prepared to debate the question of the 25 per cent cut, although I will refer to it later in my speech. I came to take part in the debate on this very unimportant Customs Tariff Validation Bill that takes place in the closing stage of each Parliament when we validate these proposals that come up for future debate. I do not know when that will be. A measure such as this was always regarded as a machinery measure which gave legality to the proposals, because we were not able to debate them in detail. Because of that and because I hope that at some future stage these proposals will be debated in detail, I do not propose to do any more than make one point which I want the Minister for Overseas Trade (Dr J. F. Cairns), who is at the table, to absorb because he himself has suffered under the system. The previous Government used it and I am sorry to see that his Government is now using it.

By passing this Bill, we will validate 16 proposals. One year’s work of the Tariff Board will go through the Parliament without a proper debate and the proposals will come up for debate at some time in 1974. However, by that time, other proposals will be added to the ones already listed for debate. This is not a good way to treat an important part of the political and economic system. As the honourable member for Berowra (Mr Edwards) said many of these proposals are important. The recent report on colour television is one which I should like to debate in great detail, but it is not proper for that proposal to be dealt with in the debate on a validation Bill. My plea to the Minister for Overseas Trade, which I should like him to take up with the Leader of the House (Mr Daly) for future consideration, is that it is not proper for the Committee stage of this Bill to be dealt with in this chamber. The second reading stage having been finalised and the principles on which the Government is operating having been examined, the only proper way to deal with these proposals is by an intimate committee system such as the Senate uses. If we did that we all would be able to sit around and educate ourselves and perhaps influence the Minister. At least we would be able to discuss the matter sensibly.

I have suffered under the system. I remember coming here once and making prepared speeches on 16 different proposals. I have said before and I will say again that I do not mind boring other people, but in the end I was boring myself. Yet there were important principles at stake, and I dealt with them to the great discomfort and boredom of the whole House. The House is not a proper place in which to consider these proposals. The proper situation in which to handle them in detail is sitting around a small committee table where one can analyse Tariff Board reports. Knowing something of the way in which the committee system works, I know that there would be a first class examination of these proposals. We all would understand the problems much better and be able to make sensible comments on them. This is important now because, as I repeat, next year these 16 items will come up for debate. One of them, by the way, is a relic of the previous Government. It came in on 1 December and is related to our old friend phthallic anhydride which I remember with a good deal of bitterness over past years. But, when the time comes to debate these proposals, another group of proposals will have to be considered.

What kind of examination can we give them in a House such as this? One of the problems we face in the way that this Parliament uses its time is the pressure that the Leader of the House puts on us. It is not altogether his fault, although I do not hold him entirely blameless. This pressure is due to the increasingly difficult and complicated government system. One way in which we could use the enthusiasm and ability of members of this House is to deal in detail with proposals contained in Tariff Board reports in the committee system so that we could get a sensible understanding of the proposals.

I turn briefly to the question of the 25 per cent tariff cut. I do not know whether it will embarrass the Minister for Overseas Trade if I defend him, but I will just take a chance on that. I have made it quite clear that I support the Government’s action. I think that, certainly, it was a courageous action. People have criticised the tariff cut as being too rash, but we must look upon it as being equivalent, to some extent, to an appreciation of the currency. That is one thing that should be done quickly and cleanly. I know that the Minister for Overseas Trade probably has pretty vivid memories of the necessity for it to be done quickly. This is one of the fundamental facts of life. One cannot flag this kind of action; otherwise one would have people taking advantage of it in a way that I believe is wrong.

I think it is proper that I should defend the Chairman of the Tariff Board, Mr Rattigan, in relation to this matter. His committee was not assigned the task of examining what rates of tariff protection should be applied. The task of bis committee was to find some proper way of increasing imports - a completely different task from the one normally undertaken by him and the Tariff Board when they are asked to assess the level of protection that is needed for a particular industry. On this occasion, he and his committee were given the task of establishing the proper way of increasing imports. I repeat that this action was equivalent, to the extent of at least half, to a currency appreciation. My economics is not as good as it ought to be, but I understand that the tariff cut was equivalent to about a 6 per cent appreciation of our currency in relation to its effect on imports. I do not know whether that figure is exactly right; but, because it was equivalent to that action to that extent, it must have had the effect of increasing imports. I defend the Chairman of the Tariff Board because on this matter he made a judgment on quite different bases from those he uses when he and his Board measure the amount of protection that an economic and efficient industry needs.

I should like to say something in support of the statements made recently by the Leader of the Australian Country Party (Mr Anthony) about floating the Australian dollar. Such a move would get us away from this problem of revaluation decisions. If we had a currency that floated, we would have each day an automatic movement in our currency which would tend to bring the imports and exports into balance. This always seems to be such a simple solution - so simple that I suppose many people look at it with suspicion. I know that this system used to be used; it probably was abused. But today we find that the currencies of many of our trading partners are floating and that those that are not floating are tied to currencies that are floating. We find ourselves bobbing uneasily on the economic sea, with some currencies going up and some going down. I support the Leader of the Country

Party in his statement that floating the Australian dollar would be a sensible economic move. We would make day to day adjustments instead of allowing things to reach a trauma situation in the end, where people suddenly say: ‘We have to move the currency’. We then have a great kerfuffle, people start to talk about revaluation compensation, and everything gets fouled up with politics.

I do not carry any banners for myself. I do not think that I and many of my fellow politicians have very much ability to assess what the changes ought to be, but I do think that a floating system is the proper system to use. Perhaps in this way we would not have to implement these 25 per cent tariff cuts. However, I say quite definitely that I am not in any way critical of the Government for introducing the tariff cut. I made that clear at the time.

Dr J F Cairns:

– What does the honourable member think would happen if we did float the dollar?

Mr KELLY:

– I would not call my judgment a very educated judgment, but I would think that our currency would appreciate a little. I have not seen the figures. I am being asked to advise the Minister what he thinks the movement should be. I think the Minister would be able to get even better advice. I have an adviser whom he could use if he thought fit.

Dr J F Cairns:

– Do you mean Eccles?

Mr KELLY:

– Yes, his charges are reasonable and he gives his milk down when patted pleasantly. I think the Minister would find him a useful adjunct to his advisory service. Let me make my position clear, in case there is any disagreement or uncertainty as to my attitude. I have supported in the past and I still support the Government’s action on the 25 per cent tariff cut. If members of the Government do not like being associated with me in that manner I am sorry for them.

Dr J F CAIRNS:
Minister for Overseas Trade · Lalor · ALP

– Let me begin with the point made by the honourable member for Wakefield (Mr Kelly) about the unsatisfactory circumstances that come from discussing in this House the details of many tariff proposals such as those that are before us now. I agree with the honourable member completely. I hope that before next year, when we will be involved in the discussion of quite a number of important changes, we will be able to make some changes in the way we handle the situation. It is rumoured within my own Party that I am in favour of making some changes. Those rumours are sound. I am also in favour of making some changes to the way in which the House or the members of the House may be able to handle tariff matters. The honourable member said that it is not proper to handle in the House tariff matters such as those we are discussing at the moment. He said that we should try to have a more intimate committee system such as the one used in the Senate. He said this House was not a proper place to analyse matters of this sort in detail.

The honourable member referred to boredom. I am worried whether members are interested in these matters. I have been taking part, as has the honourable member, in debates on tariff matters for some 17 or 18 years. Generally speaking there has been a small number of contributors to these debates. I am not sure that the House consists of members who are dying to take part in discussions about tariff changes. Before long we will have a number of significant changes proposed for specific industries such as the domestic appliance industry and the automotive industry. A number of other matters which will be referred from the Tariff Board during the course of the year will affect the employment directly of many tens of thousands of people. We may not then have the general state of excess demand which has prevailed in the last 12 months. We will have to handle those matters fairly carefully.

I should like to give a warning not only to those in the House but also to people outside in industry and the unions who will be concerned with these matters after the events. It would be much better if they could become concerned before the event and be in a position to express their interest and point of view before we have to make a decision here in the last few hours of a session. I will be concerned to attempt to bring about changes in the way that these matters are handled by the House next year so that we can have a better opportunity - I refer to those who wish to take that opportunity - of analysing the questions in the kind of detail to which the honourable member for Wakefield referred.

Of course a number of proposals are before us now. They involve part of action taken by the Government to attempt to deal with the inflationary situation that we have experienced in the last 12 months. The proposals also reflect, in part, the attempt by the Government and its advisers to arrive at a suitable policy for the particular industries concerned. Both those things have been happening. I think the result has not been perfect. No one can suggest - I have not suggested and the Government has not suggested - that what we have done has been perfect. But what we have done, I think, has not been too bad.

I listened to the Leader of the Country Party (Mr Anthony) a while ago and noted that he was forced to recognise that the 25 per cent tariff cut seems to have paid off. Imports have increased, he said. Imports have increased, as measured by a comparison of the quarters ending in September 1972 and 1973, by 34 per cent. There have been some $400m or $500m more of imported goods, some of which might have come in anyway if there had been no tariff cut.

Mr Edwards:

– Such as defence items.

Dr J F CAIRNS:

– There are some defence items. All these things can be taken into account. But in taking them into account I would hope for some open recognition from the Opposition-

Mr Peacock:

– Do you feel that tariff cuts would have contributed-

Dr JT F CAIRNS:
Minister for Overseas Trade · LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– The tariff cuts would have done something to increase the quantity of imports in 1973 above the quantity which we would otherwise have obtained. All I am asking from the Opposition is for some frank admission that the tariff cuts might have done some good, but I am still waiting for it. Apart from what was implied in what the honourable member for Wakefield said, the Opposition has displayed a tardy attitude in this respect-

As the honourable member for Wakefield rightly said, we were not asking the Rattigan Committee to reform tariffs. It was given the task of recommending to the Government some way of helping to increase imports. We did not say that we wanted to do it dramatically. Nowhere did anyone say that, but the Opposition speakers say that the tariff cut had no dramatic effect. Who said it would? Only the Opposition, which is building a straw man for the purpose of knocking him down. As the honourable member for Wakefield said, the Rattigan Committee was given the task of recommending to the Government how it could, with fairly quick action, increase imports. The Committee made a considered report, containing many pages, which I would assume has been read by some members of the House. The Committee considered an appreciation of the currency. It turned away from that course because of the adverse effect an appreciation might have had on the rural sector - upon our friends in the Country Party corner. The Committee could have recommended for an appreciation of the currency. We did appreciate the currency. But having appreciated twice already and in a de facto way a third time we did not want to go any further in perhaps cutting the income of the rural sector. We wanted an increase in imports without appreciating the currency. The Rattigan Committee report analysed the situation. It is available for honourable members to read. The Committee considered various possibilities of tariff cuts; not just across the board possibilities but also various other possibilities. The Committee gave its considered unanimous view that a 25 per cent tariff cut was the best one to choose in the circumstances. We did not just pluck that decision out of the air. It was not,, as someone has been saying, some politicians* decisions, although I give politicians a thorough place in this matter. I do not look down on the views that politicians might express on this matter. The Committee’s recommendation was a considered view and so we chose it. It has had benefits. The Leader of the Country Party said it has paid off. There has been a considerable increase in imports and no one apparently has lost his job. He said that it should have been selective, but he also said that a selective change in tariffs may take a long time, may take up to 6 years. We did not have a long time. We did not have 6 years. We had to do something fairly quickly. I would expect somewhere from the Opposition - I think I can say I gave it when I was on the Opposition side - a recognition of the limited objective we had and of the extent to which we might have gone towards achieving that limited objective. I came away feeling that the Leader of the Country Party was saying: ‘Whatever you have done cannot do any good, and it is pretty certain you will have a lot of trouble next year’. I remember the Leader of the Country Party saying last week that there was no such thing as a free meal. I know there are farmers who refuse to give free meals, and listening to the Leader of the Country Party I thought at times he sounds a bit like that kind of farmer who will give nobody a free meal.

The honourable member for Berowra (Mr Edwards), who spoke for the Opposition, began by telling us that the action the Government took was not the sort of treatment that his side would have meted out to industry. He said that the policy of the Opposition is adequate protection. He said that the Opposition believes in a systematic review. He cited the electronics industry as an example of that - the 1,000 items margins cases. I presume he agrees with the electronics industry decision, although when he came to the report on colour television in the electronics industry as a result of this systematic review of the Board he said that he feels some unease. He believes that the decision we made to adopt a 35 per cent tariff rate instead of 25 per cent on components and 30 per cent on sets really does not change the position at all. He said, in effect, that that was not worth doing.

I think that if we had not decided on a tariff rate a little higher than the one the Board recommended surely we would have been more open to a criticism of having caused unease, the very thing about which the honourable member complains. He feels unease. If we had not gone on to 35 per cent he would feel a little more unease, surely. I would have expected him to have, from a somewhat more detached judgment, a willingness to recognise that the safety margin of the slightly higher tariff rate was worth having. But he said that much depends on subsidisation, the Government’s plan to use subsidies to retain worthwhile technology. I agree with that, and I am glad to hear him say that the Opposition will support a viable electronics industry and does not propose to hamper attempts by subsidisation. I hope that that is not forgotten because I consider that it is more than likely that the Government will have to come up with proposals for subsidising certain parts of this industry to retain the kind of technology we should retain. I would hope that we can arrive at a result that will allow the Opposition to carry into effect what the honourable member for Berowra has just said, namely, that the Opposition does not propose to hamper attempts by subsidisation that may be needed.

There is one other question only with which I want to deal at this point, and that is the way in which the Opposition speakers have referred to the effect of currency appreciation. I mention for the information of the House, and I will not deal with it in any detail, a discussion that took place at the winter school of the Economic Society in Sydney on 9 November, in particular a summary paper by Dr Porter of the Reserve Bank, who looked at inflation and who saw it essentially or substantially as an international matter and that in dealing with it appreciation of the currency had to be taken into account. He said at one point:

Attempting to resist world inflationary trends without revaluation causes the domestic currency to become overvalued and this then generates speculative inflow.

He went on to say:

The implication is that if Australia had revalued earlier, say, in late 1971, then the current inflationary pressure on the Australian economy would have been markedly diminished . . . We are thus left with the inflationary consequences of failure to revalue in 1971.

I think that when the critics from the Opposition side look at what we did after 3 days in office, on 5 December, about revaluation they ought to take into account the judgments of qualified people who refer to what might have happened in 1971 and 1972. They ought to take that into account in arriving at a judgment.

The final point made by the honourable member for Berowra is that we have made certain tariff reductions and certain currency appreciations at times when inflation was fairly high, and he pointed to 1974. We do not know what will happen in 1974, but I assure the Opposition, the Parliament and the people outside that if economic conditions change in 1974 we will come up pretty quickly with an appropriate policy operating in an opposite direction. I would hope that we will get realistic constructive suggestions from the Opposition, and I hope we will be able to arrive at a way of using the resources of this House to allow more constructive proposals to be made at earlier stages than unfortunately has been the case when matters of this kind are debated in this way, when the debate seems to be very largely party political in nature.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

Bill (on motion by Dr 3. F. Cairns) read a third time.

page 4326

INDUSTRIES ASSISTANCE COMMISSION BILL 1973

Bill returned from the Senate with amendments.

Motion (by Mr Whitlam) agreed to:

That the amendments be taken into consideration in Committee of the whole House forthwith.

In Committee

Consideration of the Senate’s amendments.

Clause 20.

Clause 22.

Clause 23.

Clause 24.

Clause 25.

In this Part, “Commissioner” includes an Associate Commissioner.

Clause 26.

Where it appears to the Minister that urgent action may be necessary to protect an industry, in relation to the importation of any goods, pending receipt and consideration of a report of the Commission in relation to those goods, he may request the Chairman to nominate a Commissioner to undertake an inquiry, either in relation to the importation of those goods generally or in relation to the importation of those goods from a particular country or countries, and to report to the Minister -

Clause 27.

Senate’s amendment No. 1 -

In clause 20, after sub-clause (2), insert the following new sub-clause: “(3) A Commissioner shall not exercise any power by this Act conferred upon him in any matter in which he has a direct or indirect pecuniary interest unless his interest -

is recorded in the minutes, and

is disclosed in any report in which he participates.”.

Senate’s amendment No. 2 -

In clause 22, sub-clause (1), after paragraph (a), insert the following new paragraph: “(aa) encourage those economic activities in Australia, and the producers of the goods and services concerned, which contribute to improving the efficiency with which the community’s productive resources are used;”.

Senate’s amendment No. 3 -

In clause 23, at end of sub-clause (3) add “or to provide financial assistance to an industry in accordance with, or for the purposes of, a law of Australia that is passed or made after the commencement of this Act and before 1 July 1974 “.

Senate’s amendment No. 4 -

In clause 23, sub-clause (4), leave out paragraphs (f) and (g), insert the following paragraphs: “(f) whether financial assistance for a period exceeding two years should be provided to an industry by the Australian Government, whether or not any financial assistance has previously been provided to that industry by the Australian Government; “(g) whether financial assistance for a period not exceeding two years should be provided by the Australian Government to an industry to which financial assistance (not being financial assistance provided after inquiry and report by the Commission or the Tariff Board) has previously been provided by the Australian Government, where -

the period, or the sum of the periods, of the financial assistance that has previously been so provided (excluding so much of that period or those periods as occurred more than six years before the commencement of the period of the proposed further financial assistance or occurred before the commencement of this Act) is not less than two years; or

the sum of so much of the period or periods of the financial assistance that has previously been so provided as is required to be taken into account under subparagraph (i) and the period of the proposed further financial assistance exceeds two years; or”.

Senate’s amendment No. 5 -

In clause 23, lines 22 and 23, leave out “twelve months “, insert “ two years “.

Senate’s amendment No. 6 -

In clause 23, leave out sub-clause(5).

Senate’s amendment No. 7 -

In clause 23, after “ industry “ (wherever occurring), insert the following words, “or to a particular group or groups of primary or secondary industries “.

Senate’s amendment No. 8 -

In clause 24, line 23, leave out “ six years “, insert “ ten’ years “.

Senate’s amendment No. 9 -

Clause 25, leave out the clause, insert the following clause - “25. (1) There shall be a Temporary Assistance Authority, comprising not more than three persons, appointed by the Governor-General on a full-time or on a part-time basis as appropriate.

Members of the Temporary Assistance Authority shall hold office under such terms and conditions as the Governor-General determines.”.

Consequential amendments -

In clause 26, leave out “he may request the Chairman to nominate a Commissioner “, insert “ he may request the Temporary Assistance Authority “.

Clause 27, leave out the clause, insert the following clause: “ 27. (1) Upon receipt of a request under section 26, the Temporary Assistance Authority shall forthwith undertake the inquiry.

The Temporary Assistance Authority undertaking an inquiry under this section in relation to any goods shall conduct the inquiry in such manner as it thinks fit.”.

In clause 28, leave out, “Commissioner” (wherever occurring), insert “ Temporary Assistance Authority “.

In clause 29, leave out “ Commissioner “ (wherever occurring), insert “Temporary Assistance Authority”.

In clause 30, line 9, leave out “ Commissioner “ insert “ Temporary Assistance Authority “.

In clause 31, line 7, leave out “Commissioner”, insert “ Temporary Assistance Authority “.

Mr WHITLAM:
Prime Minister · Werriwa · ALP

– I move:

That the amendments be agreed to.

Some of the amendments were adopted in the Senate on the initiative of the Government, some on the initiative of the Opposition. I shall go through them clause by clause as appearing on the schedule of the amendments. First, there is an amendment to clause 20. The Opposition moved this amendment; the Government accepted it. Next there is an amendment to clause 22. The Government moved this amendment. It did so in order to meet the Australian Farmers Federation’s concern that the position of self-employed groups was not sufficiently recognised in the policy guide lines laid down for the Industries Assistance Commission. The Government was pleased to show in this way that it had the interests of self-employed persons, for example the man on the land or the small businessman, in mind. It was glad to receive the support of the Opposition on this amendment.

In regard to clause 23 the Government moved the first 4 amendments numbered 3 to 6 inclusive on the Schedule and the Opposition moved the fifth which is No. 7 on the Schedule. The Government added to sub-clause (3) a provision which met representations by the Australian Farmers Federation thai the new Commission should not be plunged immediately into the complex task of providing recommendations on rural matters such as the wheat industry stabilisation and marketing arrangements and the review of the CommonwealthState Sugar Arrangement. This means that there is now a phasing in period secured by providing that the mandatory provisions should not take effect in respect of financial assistance until 1 July next at the earliest. This is in line with Sir John Crawford’s report. The Government welcomes the Opposition’s support on this amendment. The Government, having decided to accept the proposed amendment by the Liberal Party which would extend from 1 year to 2 years the period for which financial assistance can be granted to an industry without reference to the Commission, decided to redraft paragraphs (f), (g) and (h) of sub-clause 4 to make them clearer. The redrafting incorporated the 2-year period recommended by the Liberal Party. Sub-clause (5) was omitted as a result of the redraft. The Government accepted the Liberal amendment which adds the words ‘or to a particular group or groups of primary or secondary industries’ after the word ‘industry’ wherever occurring.

The next amendment is to clause 24. This was moved by the Liberal Party. It means that the Commission cannot begin inquiries on its own initiative until assistance has been unreviewed for 10 years rather than for 6 years. The Government accepted this amendment. In relation to clause 25, the Opposition moved this amendment. There were consequential amendments to clauses 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 and 31. The amendments have the effect of establishing a Temporary Assistance Authority outside the Commission. The Government accepted these amendments.

Mr EDWARDS:
Berowra

– In this matter of the Industries Assistance Commission Bill, the Party for which I speak has seen very much eye to eye with the Government. As the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) said, the amendment to clause 22 was introduced by the Government. It seems important that in that clause, which sets out in detail the objectives of this legislation, there should be this explicit reference to the producers of goods and services engaged in economic activities. I think that applies not’ only to self-employed persons but also to producers generally.

The Government’s amendment which seeks to add certain words at the end of sub-clause (3) of clause 23 is one in which we would join with the Government in saying that it is important that some of these measures, particularly those which assist primary industry, should foe permitted to get under way and to that extent be free from the mandatory provisions until 1 July next.

The amendments relating to the 2-year period were, as has been said, proposed from this side of the chamber. We believe this will allow for a more effective assessment of the assistance offered. Amendment No. 7 on the schedule relates to clause 23. The purpose of this amendment which was moved by the Opposition was to minimise the possibility - we do not say it was necessarily intentional - of the requirement for mandatory reference being by-passed. The original clause referred to ‘industry’. That meant that where industries A, B or C had to be referred separately if they were referred together then the provision could be by-passed. I see no reason to detain the Committee any longer. I concur with the remarks of the Prime Minister and I express the gratification of the Opposition that these amendments to the Bill have now been accepted.

Mr STREET:
Corangamite

– I am pleased that the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) on behalf of the Government has accepted these amendments that he has just mentioned, particularly in regard to the pecuniary interest provisions of the original Bill which could have prevented experts, particularly in the field of primary industry, from making a full contribution to the work of the Industries Assistance Commission; also in regard to the wise decision to make financial assistance other than by way of tariff or import quota operate for 2 years instead of 12 months. The amendment which I think will have the most far reaching effects will be that which permits a phasing in period for the mandatory references for primary industry. I congratulate the Government on accepting this amendment because it is vitally important for the future reputation and success of this Commission that it should have full and adequate resources to deal with primary industry issues.

This will be a new area for what will now be the Commission - formerly the Tariff Board. It is only natural that it will take some time for the necessary support staff to be assembled to enable the Commission to do the first class job which we expect it to be able to do in respect of primary industries - a field in which it has not had to deal before to any extent. We believe that this phasing in period will enable it to get itself organised in such a way that, when the major primary industries references are made to it, it will be in a position to give full and considered reports on them. It would have been a great tragedy had the Commission been forced in too much of a hurry into tackling jobs for which it was not really adequately prepared. For all those reasons we are pleased that the Government has accepted the amendments.

Mr ANTHONY:
Leader of the Australian Country Party · Richmond

– Whilst we do not oppose these amendments that have been brought forward, the position of the Australian Country Party in relation to the establishment of the Industries Assistance Commission is still that we abhor the idea of creating a central planning body with such total authority for investigation and examination. We believe that it will lift itself above the normal responsibility of representatives in this Parliament. I made a speech describing the feelings of my Party on this question. Some of the amendments that have been brought forward will ameliorate the immediate harshness of this Bill.

The amendment which provides that the wheat industry and the sugar industry will not have to go before the Industries Assistance Commission is a very pious sort of amendment. The amendment provides that those industries are excluded from the provisions of the Bill for the first 6 months of next year and after that period any further discussions and negotiations with those industries will, first of all, have to be under the auspices of the Industries Assistance Commission. The amendment is nothing more than a palliative to try to keep the people of these industries at arm’s length so that they will not rise in strong opposition to what is being done by the Government. In other words, the amendment will mean that all future industry discussions will, firstly, have to be with a group of economists and bureaucrats who will listen to the evidence and then make recommendations to the Government for the Government to make a decision.

We know only too well, from the recent decision of the Tariff Board in relation to colour television, how difficult it is to oppose the recommendations of an authority with the prestige of the Tariff Board. Of course, this new body will be built up with very much more prestige than the Tariff Board. What happened in relation to colour television? We had the drama of the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) standing up in this chamber and threatening to resign if his Party would not adopt the attitude of the Tariff Board. I have been saying that if a body such as the Industries Assistance Commission makes recommendations, it is very difficult for members of this Parliament or the Government to alter those recommendations very drastically.

When I was Minister for Trade and Industry and had the responsibility for Tariff Board recommendations, I saw that it was very difficult to buck a recommendation of the Board if the media and public opinion seemed to favour the Tariff Board recommendation. They normally do because the Tariff Board, in dealing with industries item by item, generally is dealing with a minority group. So the interests of the consumer are generally dominant as far as the Press and the media are concerned. But I see-

Mr Whitlam:

– Hear, hear!

Mr ANTHONY:

– The Prime Minister says: Hear, hear!’. Of course he thinks of the consumers. That has been his attitude all along - to the detriment of industry and industry organisations, particularly the rural producers to whom he has been so harsh and vindictive this year. (Honourable members interjecting)

The CHAIRMAN (Mr Scholes:
CORIO, VICTORIA

– - Order! I ask honourable members to remain silent and I ask the right honourable gentleman to relate his remarks to the amendments. He is making what appears to be a speech in a second reading debate.

Mr ANTHONY:

– There are several amendments before the Committee and I think that they give one a pretty wide charter within which to talk. However, I was dealing firstly with the amendment which provides that within the first 6 months of the operation of the Act the Government will allow the Wheat Board and representatives of the sugar industry to have discussions with the Minister for Primary Industry (Senator Wriedt), but that system will last for only 6 months. Those industries will be back before the bureaucrats - the wooden-faced officials before whom they will have to sit and give evidence. Then, if the industry representatives do not like the Commission’s recommendations, they may have another bite at the cherry by going before the Government. As I said, it is very difficult to get a government to move once a body of this magnitude has made its decision.

Sir John Crawford, in appendix 4 to his report, has listed the primary industry assistance measures. These measures might be examined by the Commission in 1973-74 and 1974-75. The wheat industry is to be excluded in the present 5-year scheme - a special privilege.

Dr Patterson:

– Because of the stabilisation scheme on the due date; that is all.

Mr ANTHONY:

– The scheme is to be negotiated and it will involve Government assistance. I hope that it will involve a certain Government guarantee. The case of the sugar industry has to be reviewed. But what about the canned fruit industry, including the marketing arrangements, the guaranteed prices and the associated Fruit Industry Sugar Concession Committee? Is that body to be included in the sugar negotiations? I would be interested to hear the Minister for Northern Development (Dr Patterson) who has been interjecting. He has not opened his mouth about the FISCC because he is not the Minister responsible for that body; it comes under the jurisdiction of the Minister for Primary Industry.

What about the tobacco industry? It will not be given the privilege given to the sugar industry and the wheat industry. The apple and pear stabilisation scheme has been included in the provisions. It is fortuitous for that industry that the Bill is now before the Parliament and the industry has been able to negotiate with the Minister for Primary Industry. Of course, the Government did not review the abolition of the brandy differential at all. It just took action on brandy and imposed additional imposts. What about the rice industry? Apparently it will not be given any special privilege; it will have to go before the new Industries Assistance Commission. The dairy industry stabilisation arrangement, the bounties - including processed milk products bounties - and the industry -

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! The right honourable gentleman is going very wide of the amendments -

Mr Ian Robinson:
COWPER, NEW SOUTH WALES · CP; NCP from May 1975

– Do you think so?

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! This is not a second reading debate. The Committee is discussing whether the Senate’s amendments to the Bill should be accepted.

Mr Whitlam:

– He is getting stuck into the Liberals. Let him go.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! The Prime Minister will remain silent while I am talking. A degree of latitude is given to the leaders of parties and I think I have given a fair amount of latitude. But it is very difficult to relate the remarks being made by the right honourable gentleman to the amendments that are under consideration.

Mr ANTHONY:

– I respect your remarks, Mr Chairman, but I say that my remarks have a direct relationship to the amendments because 2 industries are being excepted this year in the amendments brought before the Committee. 1 am referring to other industries which apparently do not have the same influence with the Government. Apparently they are not politically important or there is no immediate worry about negotiations with them. The Prime Minister referred to Sir John Crawford’s report. Sir John Crawford said that the wheat industry would come before the Board this year. In appendix 4 to the report the nitrogenous fertiliser bounty is included. Apparently this question will have to come before the Commission. The phosphate fertiliser bounty also will have to come before the Commission. Of course, if one accepts the Coombs report, both of those bounties will be eliminated.

I strongly object to the creation of this new bureaucracy with such a wide-ranging charter. Its examination criteria are enormous. It will be able to set up underneath it sections to delve into almost every aspect of life throughout Australia. People who represent industry in Australia - whether mining, secondary or rural industry - will rue the day that this body was created and bureaucrats started to dictate to parliaments how the resources of this country should be used.

Mr SINCLAIR:
New England

– At a time when we are considering amendments to the Industries Assistance Commission Bill and the ratification of amendments made in the Senate, there are a number of amendments which I am disappointed have not been accepted by the Government, some which go to the substance of the question-

Mr Whitlam:

– Or by the Liberal Party.

Mr SINCLAIR:

– Precisely. The ones that have been accepted are those that have been moved either by the Government or by the other member party of the Opposition. As far as those moved by the Government are concerned the Leader of the Australian Country Party (Mr Anthony) has just been adverting to some of the industries that apparently are now to be excluded for a period from the inquiries to be undertaken by the Commission.

One industry to which he did not advert and which concerns me is the wool industry. We all know that this year there has been an extension for only 12 months of the provision of funds for wool research and promotion. Presumably, henceforth the wool industry is to be brought within the ambit of the Commission. I find it extraordinary that the wheat industry and the sugar industry should be excluded but not the major Australian exporting industry. I find it equally unfortunate that, in the amendments that are being accepted to clause 22, there are still being passed to an advisory body outside the immediate control of this Parliament and the Government responsibilities that are so wide as to pass to it almost complete control over the direction of significant areas of the Australian economy. Certain amendments are being accepted in respect of clause 22. Yet I find clause 22 in its present form to be completely objectionable. It is a clause which expresses, more than any other clause of this Bill, the policy guidelines on which this Commission will operate. Those policy guidelines will give to the Commission powers which it will be extraordinarily difficult for the Government or this Parliament to reject even if they feel they may want to do so.

Part of the function of this Commission, as I see it, is to divest the Government of responsibility for action in economic areas. There are many areas where the Tariff Board is already able to operate and does effectively advise the Government. There are obvious difficulties in rejecting the advice of the Tariff Board. How much greater will those difficulties be when the policy guidelines applicable to the Commission are so much broader and so much more comprehensive? In industries, particularly in the rural sector where there is necessity for a flexible approach, where seasonal conditions and world and domestic market conditions change so rapidly, I find it most regrettable that the Government has not been prepared to see the need for flexibility and to accept the amendments we moved originally in this place for that purpose.

In another area, a somewhat less controversial area, I find it equally unfortunate that in clause 29 to which the Government is accepting some amendments it is not accepting the amendment that was moved in this chamber that a report should be tabled where an inquiry is conducted with relation to temporary duties and temporary duties are not recommended. It seems to me that where there are circumstances where temporary duties are required the case is adequately covered, but where an inquiry is conducted and temporary duties are not recommended it is most regrettable that no report is to be lodged, because in so many instances in the past there have been occasions when industries have gone before the Special Advisory Authority, recommendations have been made by the industry for temporary assistance of one character or another and they have been rejected. To my mind that type of instance requires an understanding of the reasons for the Authority coming to that conclusion.

Under the new constitution the Temporary Assistance Authority, as I understand it is now to be termed, will not be required to produce a report when temporary duties are not recommended although an inquiry has been conducted. It is most unfortunate that that particular amendment, even though it was moved by the Country Party, was not accepted by the Government. The amendments accepted by the Government will not make the Industries Assistance Commission any less objectionable to those of us in the Australian Country Party. We are concerned both with the lack of flexibility of the Commission and with the degree to which this Bill represents a passage to an outside authority of powers which we believe should be exercised by the Government itself. Although there are a number of modifications, particularly in the field of this Temporary Assistance Authority, which 1 commend, I believe that the Government has gone nowhere near as far as it might have gone, and most of the objectionable features of the Commission remain.

Mr KELLY:
Wakefield

– I want to be critical of the Government for accepting the amendment relating to temporary assistance. I made it clear during the second reading stage of the Bill when it was before the House earlier that I would certainly support the Government and oppose my Party on this question of temporary assistance. I did this for 2 reasons. One is, as some honourable members will remember, that I have fought the battle against the Special Advisory Authority system for many years and have been bitterly critical of the way it has been used in some cases. I saw the possibility that there may be some other authority standing outside the Board which may, in the future, be used in the way the Special Advisory Authority was used. That is why I made it clear in my speech during the second reading debate that I would support the Government’s legislation.

Unfortunately, the Bill was not debated in Committee for any length of time. With the usual tragic kind of trauma that seems to surround Bills that have a great deal of Committee content, it was hurried through the Committee stage. It went to the Senate and the Government accepted it. It has come back to this chamber with a different system from that recommended by Sir John Crawford who said that the temporary protection decisions ought to be taken by a group of people drawn from within the Commission. There are 2 very good reasons for this. One is that it is important that there should be one general philosophy about protection. I think it wrong to have one separate body making temporary protection recommendations, that body being withdrawn and separate from the rest of the Commission. The second reason is more mundane. There has been a lot of criticism about the need for fear of a large bureaucratic machine. There will be permanent commissioners and commissioners coming in on a temporary basis. They will be available, standing ready, with the support of the staff of the Commission to handle these temporary protection references. Some people have been saying that this will be a large organisation. But the Government accepts a separate authority which will be, in itself, a separate bureaucracy with a separate staff,I have no doubt. So I express my regret that the Government has accepted the amendment. I have been steeling myself for some time to cross the floor on the issue. Now I will not have to do that.

But I am sorry that the Government has accepted the Senate’s amendments.

Amendments agreed to.

Resolution reported.

Adoption of Report

Mr WHITLAM:
Prime Minister · Werriwa · ALP

– On behalf of the great majority of the Australian people, producers and consumers represented in this Parliament by members of the Australian Labor Party and the Liberal Party of Australia, I move:

That the report be adopted.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 4332

CUSTOMS TARIFF BILL (No. 2) 1973

Bill returned from the Senate without amendment.

Sitting suspended from 6.13 to 8 p.m.

page 4332

SCHOOLS COMMISSION BILL 1973

Message received from the Senate intimating that it insists on its amendments disagreed to by the House of Representatives.

Motion (by Mr Lionel Bowen) agreed to:

That the message be taken into consideration forthwith.

Mr Lionel Bowen:
KINGSFORD-SMITH, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I move:

That the House insists on disagreeing to the amendments insisted on by the Senate.

This matter has been very well canvassed in the course of debate. There is no surprise about the Government’s intention, because it was clearly indicated in the policy speech of the Leader that we would be setting up a commission of this type. We received a mandate for it. The commission that we propose to set up under this Bill is consistent with commissions that have been set up both for universities and for colleges of advanced education. Under this Bill the Minister has the opportunity to appoint those people who are best equipped to advise and serve the Minister, and it is significant that the Karmel Committee itself referred to the structure of the Schools Commission that would be most advantageous for the people involved in education. It is clearly spelt out in paragraphs 13.5 and 13.6 of the report that people should not be appointed as proposed in the former amendments which were rejected. If it were to be so, as has been indicated in our previous explanation, they would merely be delegates, people bound by other people’s decisions. They would not be acting in the best interests of education and it would be contrary to all precedents that have been established. For those reasons and in respect of other matters with which we have already dealt, the Government insists on disagreeing to the amendments insisted on by the Senate.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
Wannon

– The Opposition does not agree with the view that the Government has taken. The Government says that it has a mandate. Certainly it has the approval of the Australian people in relation to a number of things which it said it would want to do, but that does not mean to say that it has a mandate and can use that claim to support the precise manner in which it wants to carry out certain pretty general policy proposals. I think the Minister is not doing himself justice when he says: ‘We have a mandate’. He may have a mandate to establish a schools commission, if one adopts the theory of a mandate, but that in itself could be debated for some time, time which this Parliament certainly would not allow under the present Leader of the House. But nobody could possibly claim that the theory of the mandate in even its widest and most stretched and foolish form could cover the precise way in which a government wants to carry out a particular policy proposal.

So the Minister’s suggestion that a mandate covers his particular idea of a schools commission - and not the Opposition’s - is, I think, nonsense, and I credit the Minister with sufficient intelligence to appreciate that he would recognise that his use of the word ‘mandate’ was invoking support which he had no right to invoke in this instance. But one of the things that he said was certainly offensive to anyone who might have been selected under the amendments that have been moved and carried by the Senate because under those amendments people would come from particular administrative areas - people who are concerned with school systems. The Minister said that people would be bound by others - in other words that they would not be true representatives, they would merely be delegates who were meant to be carrying the view of some other body or organisation into the commission, and that they would not have room to negotiate in any sense, shape or form and would be bound to report back and to demonstrate to their electors, as the Minister implied, that they had acted on the commission in conformity with their earlier instructions.

If the Minister has so little regard for the people who might have come from the major administrative areas in the schools system of the States and of the independent schools he could have inserted another amendment into the legislation which would have made it an offence for any person to be so bound. That could be done, although it would have been unnecessary. I hope the Minister would also recognise that his clearly stated criticism of people who are representing the independent schools and Government systems and people who might be representing parents was quite unwarranted and unjust.

The only other point I want to make is that the Opposition Parties are supporting the establishment of a schools commission and for that much the Government can claim a mandate. The Opposition believes that the nature of the commission which it is proposed to establish and the powers which it would seek to give the commission, in the terms in which the Opposition expresses those powers by the amendments it moved and by the amendments supported in the Senate, would provide a much better commission than the one which the Government has in mind. We say this because we not only guarantee in the powers that we would want to subscribe to the commission that that commission would have to take into account the requirements of all school children and of all school systems but also take into account the prior and major responsibility the States have for their State schools and independent authorities for theirs. Under the Government’s original proposals there was of course no such requirement and we would have had a system in which State boards could be established which could be expanded and extended to duplicate and overtake the work done by State departments or people in char of Catholic systemic school . aud other indpendent schools. We do not agree with that, and that was the reason, of course, why our amendments were moved and why they have been passed and why we support the message from the Senate.

There is one other reason which has become evident in recent times, and all too painfully evident, and it makes the composition and powers that would subscribe to the Schools Commission all the more important. That revolves around the gross misrepresentation undertaken by the Minister and by other members of the Government as well as by the New South Wales Teachers Federation and by advertisements that have been placed in newspapers over the last week which have utterly distorted in the most plain and blatant manner views that have been expressed from this side of ths House and now expressed this afternoon in the Senate, when every person in this House has voted to support certain legislation and the expenditure of $694m precisely as the Minister and the Government would want.

Mr Lionel Bowen:
KINGSFORD-SMITH, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– That is not true.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

– When the Minister says that it is not true he is telling a complete falsehood and he knows it. The Minister is starting to get slightly annoyed and he would do better to sit and listen.

Mr Lionel Bowen:
KINGSFORD-SMITH, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Why do you not speak to this Bill? You have gone off on to another Bill altogether.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

– Because of the attitude the Minister has taken on another Bill and because of the plain and blatant way in which the Prime Minister has broken solemn promises made on many occasions-

Mr Lionel Bowen:
KINGSFORD-SMITH, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– What is the relevance of that to this Bill?

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

-The breaking of that promise made on 2 May, 20 June and 13 December by the Prime Minister when he made clearly stated and public promises - one of them before 4,000 people - shows quite clearly that if a schools commission is to be established it needs to be so structured that it will look after the interests of all schools and all school systems. It must look after the interests of all students and all children. If that does not happen and if the commission is not so structured we will have a situation in which the Prime Minister, having said that he will support all schools, will support only some, and that old policy doctrine of the Labor Party to support Government schools first will become operative. That is Senator Murphy’s interpretation of Labor policy, it has been for a long time, and it would progressively be put into effect. I know of a school which has been classified in category B and which is still classified in that category for the most plain, patent, false and foolish reasons. I offer no criticism of the motives for that classification. I just think that a tragic error has been made. Anyone in this House who visited that school would know that a tragic error had been made. I think that the situation is such that a commission is needed, one that will look after the interest of such schools and rectify problems such as this. We do not need a situation-

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I remind the honourable gentleman that the scope of this Bill is very limited. He must speak only to the amendments which have been sent back from the Senate to the House of Representatives.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

– I am speaking about the structure of the Commission and the membership of the Commission. I am making the point that, because of the circumstances that have prevailed in recent times, tragic errors have been made in the categorisation of schools and that, therefore, we need to make quite certain in establishing the Schools Commission that the body is properly structured so that the interests of all schools can be properly safeguarded-

Mr Scholes:

– More schools, not all schools.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

– Catholic schools and parish schools classified in category B - is that your objective? It that your idea of justice? It is not the idea of justice on this side of the House. A school has been classified in category B because it is a place in which retired nuns and sisters live and do some part time teaching work. This fact has been used to weight unduly the teaching force so that people may say that that school is a rich and wealthy one, just because some buildings are alongside it and a convent is attached to it, all of which enable that work to take place.

There is no element of justice in that type of classification. If we are to have a schools commission which is not so established as to be able to look after the interests of such schools but which has powers which enable it to ride roughshod over those who are primarily responsible for such schools, I submit that we will have a situation in which injustice is perpetuated within the Australian community.

I would have thought that the Government could well have accepted our amendments and the terms of the message which has come from the Senate and so have a well constituted and well empowered schools commission established. That was our wish. That was our objective. Just as the Minister for Labour (Mr Clyde Cameron) showed a proper spirit of the workings of a democratic parliament by accepting about 25 amendments that had been moved by our colleagues in the Senate and by accepting the deletion of another 20 clauses from the Conciliation and Arbitration Bill, so too should the Acting Minister for Education (Mr Lionel Bowen). The Minister for Education (Mr Beazley), tragically, has been unable to be present in the course of these debates. I think the Acting Minister would have shown greater sense, greater wisdom and more real concern for the matters under discussion if he had accepted the amendments that were moved and debated in this place and in the other place.

The Government has let it be known that, if the Opposition Parties do not give in on these matters, it will allow the Interim Schools Commission to run on. It can do that; I suppose that that is the Government’s choice. But the opportunity to establish a body which would properly represent all schools and administrative bodies responsible for all schools and which would have proper powers to enable it to discharge those responsibilities and functions, is being lost by this Government. It is a loss that it will come to regret.

Mr Lionel Bowen:
KINGSFORD-SMITH, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– in reply - Speaking briefly in reply to the honourable member for Wannon (Mr Malcolm Fraser) may I make it clear the sort of personnel that the Minister for Education (Mr Beazley) has in mind for the Commission. I am glad of the tribute that has been paid to the Minister for Education for the work that he has done. The Minister has in mind that the personnel of this Commission will be all embracing in the sense that the personnel will be of the best type that one can obtain. On that score-

Mr Malcolm Fraser:

– May I ask you a question, Mr Minister?

Mr Lionel Bowen:
KINGSFORD-SMITH, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– On that scoreyou have had your chance, and most of your speech was out of order - the point that 1 want to make is clear-

Mr Malcolm Fraser:

– I rise on a point of order. The Minister is reflecting upon your ruling, Mr Speaker, because he has said that most of my speech was out of order. I would have thought that a decision on that matter was your prerogative and not his.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! No point of order arises.

Mr Lionel Bowen:
KINGSFORD-SMITH, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

- Mr Speaker called you to order in the course of your speech. When we gave the reasons why these amend ments were rejected when they were before us earlier, it was made clear that the Australian Education Council was not consulted. A number of other people designated by the Opposition as being entitled to nominate those who should be appointed were not really interested in doing that sort of work. Yet we must examine why the Opposition is taking this action. The Opposition has a vindictive motive, to destroy the whole aspect of a needs concept. Because of that motive it will destroy the Commission and it hopes to destroy the States Grants (Schools) Bill because that involves a commission. The Opposition must bear the onus for what it is doing against education in this country.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:

Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I seek your indulgence and your assistance. What devices are there within this House to prevent Ministers telling falsehoods and continuing to repeat those falsehoods

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! There is no point of order.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:

– On the point of order, Mr Speaker-

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Wannon has sought to take a point of order which is not a point of order. There is no point of order involved.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:

Mr Speaker, may I take a point of order?

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! There is no point of order involved in what the honourable member has just asked me. I call the Acting Minister for Education.

Mr Lionel Bowen:
KINGSFORD-SMITH, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-I want to make it clear that the Minister for Education, to whom tribute has been paid right across the nation, will always act in the best interests of education. To have it suggested here that the Minister for Education must work within the confines of an amendment which suggests that other people will nominate those who are to be on the Commission is contrary to the whole concept of a proper commission. Evidence for the Government’s proposal is the evidence that I submitted, that of the Universities Commission, the College of Advanced Education Commission and the report of Professor Karmel himself. Why is it that members of the Opposition want to have this confine and restriction on the Minister? Is it the political motive? It is not so much that. The motive is opposition to the concept of needs.

If the Opposition can put on a commission people who are really not interested in the Government’s policy of needs, can honourable members imagine how unworkable that commission would be?

I say again that the Australian Parents Council should not have any right to think that it represents anybody in the nongovernment sector. It represents the Liberal Party. In the amendments submitted by the Senate the Australian Parents Council is given a specific right to nominate people for the Commission. Why is it so? If honourable members examine the minutes of that Council they will find that it has been consulting with members of the Liberal Party. I ask honourable members to look at its Executive. In the main they are Liberal Party candidates. The Opposition uses this subterfuge of saying that that Council is interested in the concept of the needs policy. Its policy is against the needs concept. It has never endorsed it. It has passed resolutions deploring the fact that there will be a commission and that it was not consulted. Is not it obvious that they are the people behind this attitude of ‘do not let the Government get its commission the way it wants to constitute it; do not let the Government implement its needs policy. Oppose this Bill that is so valuable to education.’

I emphasise the point that this Commission is an integral part of the Government’s policy on education. If we have to work without a commission the whole concept of the needs policy will not fail but it will put it in an inferior position. The Opposition’s attitude to this Bill is one of spite and venom because it will not agree to the Commission being established. If the Opposition does have a policy on this matter and it wins the next election on that policy, it can do something about such a statutory body.

Opposition members are not even prepared to allow the Commission to commence operations and it is not even prepared to allow the Commission to have the ability to say that it is a statutory organisation with all the protection that would be involved. Opposition members want it to be some wishy-washy group which has to run back and answer to others as to how it should act. When we look at the people nominated by the Opposition we find that they are very much against the Government’s policy on education and are on record as having opposed the Government vigorously right throughout the last election campaign. They are the Opposition’s candidates.

Mr MacKellar:

– Who?

Mr Lionel Bowen:
KINGSFORD-SMITH, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– The Australian Parents Council.

Mr MacKellar:

– Who are they? Name them.

Mr Lionel Bowen:
KINGSFORD-SMITH, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– What about Mr Alewood? We all know Mr Alewood. He is a Liberal candidate. I will name Mr Keating, a Liberal candidate, and Mr Hughes who also is a Liberal candidate. (Honourable members interjecting) -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I will start mentioning a few names in a moment. There will be no interjections. Honourable members are aware that interjections are out of order. There will be no more interjections - otherwise I shall take action.

Mr Lionel Bowen:
KINGSFORD-SMITH, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– The members of the Australian Parents Council passed a resolution indicating that the people whom the Minister had in mind for appointment to the Commission did not represent them. Of course they did not represent the Council. But whom does the Council represent? It represents the Liberal philosophy which is against the whole philosophy of this Government. Their philosophy is one of bolstering up privilege and guaranteeing that there will be inequality because of the stupid policy of across the board grants irrespective of need. That is the whole problem we face. Where a real need existed, members of the present Opposition never grappled with it. These people say that it is marvellous to have schools where there will be admission fees of $700; that keeps many other children out. That is a good concept, they say.

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– -Rubbish

Mr Lionel Bowen:
KINGSFORD-SMITH, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– That is not our point of view and it is not rubbish, and the honourable member knows it. The Opposition caters for privilege and is masquerading behind the statement that it is interested in the education of all children, whereas it is not. It is for that reason that we have rejected the amendments. The Opposition has no right to suggest that these people would put up nominees. Many of them did not ask for that. However, one group did, and that is the group I named. The others I leave unnamed because they never asked for the Opposition’s support in that field. I place on record that the Minister, who is an honourable man and who does a splendid job in education, wants to have a splendid commission, but the Opposition is denying him that. We will hold it against the

Opposition in every election we fight that it would not allow a commission to be set up, out of personal venom and spite.

Question put -

That the House insists on disagreeing to amendments insisted on by the Senate.

The House divided. (Mr Speaker- Hon. J. F. Cope)

AYES: 55

NOES: 45

Majority . . . . 10

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative:

page 4337

AUSTRALIAN APPLE AND PEAR CORPORATION BILL 1973

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 28 November (vide page 4008), on motion by Dr Patterson:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Dr PATTERSON:
Minister for Northern Development and Minister for the Northern Territory · Dawson · ALP

Mr Speaker, may I have the indulgence of the House to raise a point of procedure on this legislation? Before the debate is resumed on this Bill, I should like to suggest that it may suit the convenience of the House to have a general debate covering this Bill, the Apple and Pear Stabilization Bill 1973, the Apple and Pear Export Charges Bill 1973 and the Apple and Pear Stabilization Export Duty Collection Bill 1973 as they are related measures. Separate questions may, of course, be put on each of the Bills at the conclusion of the debate. I suggest therefore, Mr Speaker, that you permit the subject matter of the 4 Bills to be discussed in this debate.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Is it the wish of the House to have a general debate covering the 4 measures? There being no objection, I will allow that course to be followed.

Mr STREET:
Corangamite

– The main purpose of this Bill is to establish an Apple and Pear Corporation to replace the old Apple and Pear Board. There are a number of related Bills which have just been referred to by the Minister for Northern Development (Dr Patterson) which will be debated together. The related Bills are the Apple and Pear Stabilization Bill, the Apple and Pear Export Charges Bill and the Apple and Pear Stabilization Export Duty Collection Bill. Despite these titles, I should like to impress on the House that they do not involve changes in the stabilisation scheme or in export charges at this stage. These Bills seek merely to alter existing Acts to conform with the replacement of the Apple and Pear Board by the Corporation. The Opposition does not oppose these Bills, nor the establishment of the Corporation itself.

However, we would point out that the main legislation is yet another example of the wide gap between the Government’s promises and its performance. There are no lack of promises - at least, before the election - but there is a distinct shortage of performance. I refer to the statements of the honourable member for Wilmot (Mr Duthie) and others prior to the last election. I am glad to see the honourable member for Wilmot in the chamber. They promoted the idea of a statutory marketing authority with full powers in this area in conjunction with an improved stabilisation scheme. Without debating the rights or wrongs of a statutory marketing authority of this type, the point is that the Government has not done what it said it would do and primary producers are getting sick and tired of this Government saying one thing and doing another or, even worse, saying something and then refusing to do anything at all.

It is important to realise that the proposed corporation will have very wide powers, including trading powers in certain circumstances. However, my reading of the legislation is that the Corporation will have these powers involving the actual handling and selling of growers’ produce without any ultimate financial responsibility to the growers. We are told in the Bill and in the second reading speech of the Minister for Northern Development that the Corporation may - I stress the word ‘may’ - have its borrowings guaranteed by the Government. But as I read the legislation - I will be interested to hear the Minister’s comments on this - there will be no obligation on the part of the Government to underwrite the borrowings of the Corporation. It seems as though the Government, while giving great and extensive powers to the Corporation, is unwilling to assume a corresponding responsibility to protect the interests of the growers.

My next point relates to the question of the revaluations of the Australian currency during the last 18 months - I stress that ‘revaluations’ is the plural form of the word - and the matter of compensation to the industry following those successive revaluations of the currency.

Mr Grassby:

– I am sorry; which were the 3 revaluations?

Mr STREET:

– From memory the original revaluation was back in 1971 and there have been 2 revaluations since then. Allied to steep rises in freight costs, these revaluations have put the industry in a very difficult position. My information is that approximately $850,000 has been paid to the industry as revaluation compensation. This amount is considerably less than the amount of 30c a case involving 4 million cases which had been mentioned by the Government. I am well aware that the Government put certain restrictions and conditions on the payment of compensation which may have been responsible for a lowering of the total amount payable. But the point is that when a figure of 30c a case involving some 4 million cases was mentioned, it was not unreasonable for the industry to assume that a sum of about $1.2m would be involved in compensation payments. The amount of 30c a case related to one of the earlier revaluations, but my information is that to date only $850,000 has been paid.

Freight rates are, of course, critical to the profitable operations of apple and pear exporters, especially in Tasmania which has such a large proportion of its apple production exported. However, the Government has done nothing about adjusting the stabilisation scheme to take account of the circumstances that I have just outlined. I note with some interest that the Corporation will have power to negotiate freight rates and its success or otherwise in this field will have a corresponding effect on the industry.

I come now to yet another example of the irresponsible attitude shown by members of the Party which is now the Government. Prior to the last election, several Government supporters in Tasmania continually stressed that if they were in government the grower representatives to the statutory marketing authority, which they had outlined would be established under their government, would be elected by the growers themselves. But what happened? We find that, under this legislation, all the grower representatives will be appointed by the Minister for Primary Industry (Senator Wriedt) from names put forward by the Australian Apple and Pear Growers Association. Again, I am not making a judgment on whether or not that is the best way of determining who represents growers on the marketing authority. I am merely using this point to illustrate my argument that primary producers just cannot trust this Government or its supporters when they outline a course of action which they say they will pursue.

This may be an appropriate opportunity to mention the collegiate system of election of grower representatives to marketing boards, as practised in New Zealand. The Opposition has been studying with a great deal of interest the practice of New Zealand growers in this regard, particularly with respect to the New Zealand Meat Board and the New Zealand Wool Board and it may be time now to look at what our colleagues across the Tasman are doing.

Mr Duthie:

– It is a pity you did not do that 5 years ago when you were in government.

Mr STREET:

– I am just saying that we are looking at it now. The collegiate method of election may have some application in the Australian context. If honourable members opposite feel that it has some application in the Australian context, they might have con:sidered using that method of election of grower representatives to the Corporation rather than breaking their word and having the Minister appoint the grower representatives. Before the election, they said that growers would elect their representatives themselves. That is all I am saying.

Because we regard the Government’s approach to the issues I have mentioned as being unsatisfactory, on behalf of the Opposition I move:

That all words after ‘That’ be omitted with a view to inserting the following words in place thereof: whilst not declining to give the Bill a second reading and while supporting the establishment of an Apple and Pear Corporation this House deplores the failure of the Government to provide -

immediate financial assistance by way of proper compensation for loss inflicted on exporters in the 1973 season by revaluations of the Australian currency;

adjustment of the stabilisation scheme to provide for increased costs and freight rates;

a guarantee to growers for cost of export for the current season, and

elected representation of growers to the Corporation as promised by its spokesmen prior to the last election.’

Since this Corporation will virtually be appointed by the Minister, it is reasonable to assume that he would have full confidence in it. However, apparently he is not prepared to back his own judgment. Clause 7 (3), which gives the Minister complete power to direct the Corporation, states:

The Corporation shall comply with any directions given to it by the Minister with respect to the performance of its functions and the exercise of its powers.

The Opposition is unconvinced by the reasons given in the Minister’s second reading speech for including these powers in this legislation. We believe that if the Government sets up such a corporation the corporation should be regarded as competent to undertake its functions. Accordingly, the honourable member for Murray (Mr Lloyd) will be moving on behalf of the Opposition to delete clause 7 (3).

The Apple and Pear Stabilisation Act and the export powers conferred on the Federal Government by the Constitution already provide completely adequate safeguards in this respect. One aspect of the legislation which has the complete support of the Opposition is the emphasis given to research and promotion both in the legislation itself and by special mention in the Minister’s second reading speech. In particular, research into new products made from apples and pears seems to hold great possibilities. In the case of pears there are the additional outlets which could be provided by perry wine - that is, wine made from pears- dried pears and liqueur pear brandy. Those who have had the opportunity to try high quality perry wine I think would have been impressed by this product. I have had the opportunity to sample dried pears from the Shepparton area of Victoria. The pears had been dehydrated by a process developed locally and I feel that if more research were put into the commercial application of this process and more effort put into the promotion of the ensuing products it could well lead to a whole new market for pears. Of course a product of this type does not need special refrigeration in transport or anything of that kind. It is easily transported. It is light and it is an extremely high quality product.

I am informed that there is a great demand in Europe particularly for liqueur brandy made from fruit products. If the Minister for Immigration (Mr Grassby) who is at the moment handling the Bill in this House looks through the departmental files he will find representations from me in respect to those products. It is true that we need some flexibility on the part of the Australian Government in its attitude to excise and in regard to the size of stills from which the products could be made. But it seems extraordinary to me that we are neglecting a field which I am informed by people who have been to Europe is open to any high quality supplier, because the demand is greater than can be supplied by European products. In the case of apples I suppose the greatest opportunity lies in the production of cider and possibly other products as well. But here again, because we have not had the stimulus to test out these markets, the markets have been lost by default.

We have a high quality product in Australia. Surely it should not be beyond our ability to devise ways and means of selling it. The Opposition wishes the Corporation every success in its efforts to carry out these challenging tasks in the field of research and promotion. The Corporation has our support but we believe that the Government has been negligent and dilatory in its approach to the urgent and immediate problems of the industry. Accordingly I have moved the amendment.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Is the amendment seconded?

Mr Lloyd:

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

Mr SHERRY:
Frankin

– The honourable member for Corangamite (Mr Street) was indulging in some mystical speculation during his short speech tonight. I think a number of the points that he made need to be answered. I think he said, if I remember correctly, that we in fact had promised, prior to the election, that there would be total grower representation.

Mr Street:

– No.

Mr SHERRY:

– The honourable member did not say ‘total’?

Mr Street:

– Elected grower representation.

Mr SHERRY:

– I see. Speaking for myself and indeed for most of my colleagues I can never remember such an undertaking ever being given in public or in any other forum. The honourable member mentioned an amount of money which was to be paid in revaluation compensation payments. In fact the figure is about $866,000 to Tasmania alone. This Bill, to establish the Australian Apple and Pear Corporation, is of course of vital importance to apple and pear producers throughout the country but in particular it is of overwhelming importance to my own State of Tasmania and to my own electorate.

The Tasmanian industry, as honourable members would be well aware, accounts for the great bulk of the export trade. Indeed it is this very dependence by the Tasmanian industry on the export trade that has brought it to its present critical situation. There is no doubt in my mind that if we do not find a solution now to the difficulties facing this industry, and in particular the Tasmanian industry, there will not be an industry operating in1974. The apple and pear industry was at one time a vital and a vigorous industry that brought a very great number of benefits to the Tasmanian people and to the economy.

Mr Duthie:

– Twenty million dollars.

Mr SHERRY:

– Indeed, as my colleague the honourable member for Wilmot interjects, it was worth about$20m some years ago. That amount has now been halved. A number of factors have conspired to bring about the present crisis. All members of this House would know that the entry of the United Kingdom into the European Economic Community was one of those factors. The United Kingdom, with Western Europe, has been the traditional market for the apple and pear industry but British entry into the European Economic Community has altered this quite dramatically. It would be foolish, futile and naive of us to pretend that that situation does not now exist.

The honourable member for Corangamite mentioned the difficulty of shipping. He was quite correct, but this difficulty is nothing new. We have had this problem for 20 years or more. I find it quite remarkable that it is only in 1973 when the honourable member is a member of the Opposition that he suddenly discovers the difficulty about freight rates. We have had many debates in this House over the years on ever increasing freight rates. The suggestion is that this year there will be an increase of 16 per cent.

It also seems to me that where we failed in this industry is in the promotional area. To my mind, sufficient promotional expertise has never been developed in the general marketing area.

It has been apparent for years that this industry was in very great peril, but very little was done by the previous Government. I know there is no point in making recriminations. It certainly is not the time, nor indeed would it be very productive, to blame the former Government for its failure to recognise and deal with the very real problems in this industry. Obviously we have to start thinking afresh, and I think that is being done with the introduction of this Bill to establish the Apple and Pear Corporation. It is obvious, of course, that new markets and new techniques - indeed, a whole new approach - must be found if this industry is to survive. What we have to do is to make absolutely certain that this Corporation will work effectively for the good of the industry and the people who work in it. These are people who have made a very great contribution not only to the Tasmanian economy but also to the economy of this nation, and they are looking forward and the industry is looking forward to this Corporation being an effective answer to some of the current difficulties that face it.

What will the Corporation succeed in doing that the Apple and Pear Board failed to do? I believe it will have an expertise in marketing techniques that are absolutely vital in today’s highly competitive world. The Corporation will have control of exports from Australia and the conditions of export and quality of standard controls, which again are of great importance. But perhaps the most significant feature of the Corporation’s powers is its ability to trade. As the Minister for Northern Development (Dr Patterson) pointed out in his second reading speech, it will be empowered to charter ships, something we should have done years ago. This is of the greatest significance, again particularly to the Tasmanian industry. For far too long it has been dependent upon and, if I may be so bold to suggest, held to ransom by the conference monopolies. It is the belief of many growers, certainly in my electorate, that this monopoly should now be broken. It is an inefficient monopoly, but a very expensive one. The shipping arrangements of the past seasons have never been satisfactory, and it has always been an attitude by the shipping conferences that you can either take it on their conditions or leave it.

The nub of the problem surely is in the development of new markets. As I indicated earlier, it would be futile to think that the European market will continue as before. Therefore I was delighted to learn that my colleague the Minister for Primary Industry (Senator Wriedt) has had talks with the Japanese Minister for Agriculture to consider the possibility of exporting apples and pears to Japan. I sincerely hope that these talks to be held here in Canberra next month will be successful, because there is a tremendous potential for the Australian product in Japan and the East generally.

This Corporation will have the power to develop these and other markets, and these markets must be developed and expanded if the industry is to survive. All the functions of the proposed Corporation, diverse and important, will, I believe, for the first time give this Corporation a substance and power that the Apple and Pear Board never had. It is essential that the Corporation act quickly and effectively. Any further delays, any further indecision, can only exacerbate an already critical situation. The great concern for this industry in its present difficulties is the dislocation of people and the hardship and misery that is caused by this dislocation. In my electorate alone it would be no exaggeration to say that people are now leaving this industry in droves. They are leaving this industry in 1973 because nothing of a substantial nature has been done for the past 2 decades. It is the cumulative effect that it has on every town and every village in the electorate that is of concern. It is not only the orchardist who loses his money and leaves a community who is affected. It has a total effect.

One of the things that surprised me is how ironic and absurd it is that when millions of people are starving and crying out for food we uproot fruit trees by the thousands. It is an absurd and stupid situation. There is no doubt that the Tasmanian product can compete with the best in the world, and there is no doubt that the Tasmanian grower has the energy and the expertise to make it a viable industry. I am delighted to learn that the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) and the Tasmanian Premier met in Canberra this week to discuss short term methods of assisting industry over its present critical time. I would hope that as a result of those talks some measure will be taken to assist these people. If this Apple and Pear Corporation can be the means of sustaining and maintaining the industry, I know the industry will play its part to the full. I would hope that all members of the House will give this Bill a speedy passage so that the task of securing the vital Tasmanian industry as well as the Australian industry as a whole can be carried out promptly and effectively and give this industry the future that it so desperately needs. I support the Bill.

Mr LLOYD:
Murray

– In seconding the amendment I wish to say that the Australian Country Party supports the establishment of the Apple and Pear Corporation. It is one of a great number of reorganisational proposals in relation to which the previous Minister for Primary Industry was well advanced when the change of Government took place. I hope that if the previous Government had been returned there would have been a few things in the Bill rather different from what is in this one. Nevertheless this Bill is an important step to help an industry that is in real trouble. The honourable member for Franklin (Mr Sherry) stated that the previous Government had not done anything for the industry in a decade. The most important measure which brought stability to the apple and pear industry in a long time was that introduced by the previous Government, namely, the apple and pear stabilisation scheme. Income stability is of tremendous importance to any exporting industry. I believe, and the amendment states, that the apple and pear stabilisation scheme should be updated now, but it has given some level of stability which otherwise would not have existed. The honourable member for Franklin also conveniently forgot about the success of the previous Minister for Primary Industry in reducing the multitude of labels, shipping arrangements, etc., for exports from Tasmania down to one single label. This action by the previous Minister helped in some way to overcome the Tasmanian ports’ bad record of being the most expensive series of ports in the world.

The honourable member also mentioned the crime of fruit trees being uprooted while we have hungry people in the world. I agree with him on this. I only hope that some success is achieved. One of the first things I did when I became a member of Parliament was to check the official list that the Australian Government has of goods and other items which it is prepared to offer in its foreign aid program. The proposition of offering fruit as foreign aid has been promoted by the Government, but I think the important point is that if we are genuine in our desire to help less fortunate people we should give them what they want rather than thrust on them what we have in surplus, as has been the situation. Unfortunately fruit is not a high priority food with people in need of assistance, and when they have wanted something from us they have asked for grain or some other staple food. The deep seated problems facing the apple and pear industry, particularly the export section of the apple industry, go far beyond what this Apple and Pear Corporation will be able to achieve. This applies more to the apple industry than to the fresh pear industry. I remind honourable members that there is also a canning pear industry which probably has equally deep seated problems as has the apple industry.

I think that some aspects of the Apple and Pear Corporation Bill are very good. The power to control exports is essential. The power to charter and to arrange shipping is also essential. I think it has already been mentioned that approximately 60 per cent of the value of exported fruit represents freight charges. In addition there is to be a 16 per cent increase in those charges this year and I do not think that will be the last increase for the coming season because the industry is faced with the prospect of surcharges being imposed due to the oil shortages affecting shipping. The power to organise sales within Australia is of tremendous importance because unless breakthroughs can be made with new export markets - and I wish the Minister well in his discussions with Japanese officials on the problem of codling moth which is affecting our exports to that country - particularly apple markets there will be tremendous pressure on the domestic market as the export sales to our traditional markets become less and less. There is increasing competition for available export markets from New Zealand and South America the industries of which in some ways are more efficient than ours and unless we have an overall authority to try to save the situation from chaos I think chaos could eventuate before very long.

The power in respect of research and promotion is also welcomed. The honourable member for Corangamite (Mr Street) mentioned some alternative pear products. I will just reiterate what he said about perry wine and dehydrated pears. I congratulate the people at Shepparton who are world leaders in the field of dehydration of pears. But I would repeat that the problem facing the successful innovation of perry or pear wine and various pear alcohols is that there is no excise or sales tax on apple alcohols, wine alcohols or grape alcohols. Yet there is a IS per cent sales tax on other fruit alcohols of which perry wine would be a major product at the present time. It is hard enough to introduce a new product onto a market alongside the established products such as cider and wine without having a IS per cent hurdle to overcome at the same time. I ask the Government once again as I have asked it several times to give favourable consideration to the removal of this sales tax because it does not bring in any income. It is an anomaly. The only way to sort it out is to remove the sales tax on all other fruit alcohol.

There are some points in this legislation that I am not happy about and one is the fact that the members of the Corporation are to be appointed, not elected. As the honourable member for Corangamite mentioned, the growers in the industry were told by the Labor Party spokesmen before the general election that they believed in elected representatives. They were following that belief through faithfully I suppose when they required a referendum on the embargo on the export of merino rams. If they required a direct vote of the industry in that instance in order to ascertain the effect on growers rather than a vote of appointed representatives, why did they not be consistent and stick to the same formula for the Apple and Pear Corporation? They should be consistent. All the grower representatives will be appointed from the Australian Apple and Pear Growers Association. This provision has certainly resurrected this organisation. The legislation places tremendous responsibility on it to be truly representative of all the apple and pear growers in this country and to act in an exemplary and efficient manner on behalf of the industry. After all, it has been given a statutory monopoly as a growers organisation with real power.

I suppose that a reasonable distribution of the 4 growers appointed as representatives initially would be two from Tasmania, one from Western Australia and one from Victoria. The Victorian representative would represent the pear export section of the industry. Honourable members will remember that approximately 70 per cent or two-thirds of our fruit exports are apples and the remaining percentage is pears. Victoria is responsible for about two-thirds of our pear exports. I think it is only just that one out of the four should represent the pear growers and ought to be a Victorian.

There are 2 points in the legislation with which I am most unhappy. One is in clause 6 (0 which sets out the functions of the Corporation. Clause 6 reads:

The functions of the Corporation are - (0 such other functions in connexion with apples and pears as are provided by the regulations.

The Opposition will not attempt to delete paragraph (f) of clause 6 although it does give power to the Corporation to extend by regulation its powers when we have, one would hope, in the Bill restrictions of a legislative nature. The other point is the more important one. We will be moving for the deletion of clause 7 (3). In an attempt to justify the provisions in clause 7 (3) the Minister in his second reading speech said:

There is also expressed in Clause 7 (3) of the Bill a general requirement that the Corporation must comply with any directions given it by the Minister with respect to the performance of its functions and the exercise of its powers.

This power of direction over the Corporation is a power which would only be drawn on in unusual circumstances. It might need to be used, for example, to restrain activity by the Corporation if such activity is having serious and undesirable repercussions in important areas outside the cognizance of the Corporation.

I think the Government should make up its mind. It either has faith in this Corporation to act on behalf of the industry - in which case it will give it the power to carry out its responsibilities - or it should openly state that it has not any faith in the industry or the apple and pear growers representatives or the members of the Corporation who have special qualifications because there will be a head prefect to keep them in line and to overrule their decisions. I refer to the Minister for Primary Industry. Therefore we will be moving for the deletion of that sub-clause.

In respect of the membership of the Corporation, 3 members with special qualifications are to be appointed by the Minister. It has been mentioned that the expertise of those people should be in marketing, transport and so on. One gets the impression that one of these members will be from the Australian Shippers Council. I hope that the Minister will adhere to the proposition that the members will have special qualifications. We do not want to see a unionist as one of the 3 members chosen just because he happens to be a unionist. If he is somebody with special qualifications in marketing or shipping that would be fair enough but he should not be appointed just because he happens to be unionist.

The question of the levy also is of some interest. A levy is to be collected on fruit and fruit products sold locally, as I understand it. How will this levy be collected? What rate will be charged? In the second reading speech the Minister states that no final decision has been made in respect of the levy. The Minister said:

The Government currently has under study, in consultation with the industry, the most practicable method of imposing and collecting such a levy and will be submitting measures to the Parliament for adoption in the near future.

I would hope that when this is submitted to the Parliament that the growers who I believe generally are in support of this legislation will still support it and they will not be hit in what they consider to be an unfair way either in various parts of the industry or in total by the levy.

Other speakers in this debate have mentioned apples. I think that is reasonable because apples represent the most important sector of this industry. But the fresh pear industry is of considerable importance in northern Victoria. The fresh pear industry has developed some very important new markets in South East Ask. It is not facing quite the same marketing difficulties for the future as is the apple industry. I believe that there is not the same sort of competition from other countries either in markets outside Europe or even during the off season in Europe itself on the fresh pear market. One can look ahead with reasonable confidence if income stability can be provided and a profitable return maintained for the growers in this industry. But this Bill falls far short of establishing a complete statutory marketing authority which would acquire the crop and provide financial stability. Many growers in the industry, rightly or wrongly, believed that such an authority would be established after Labor came to power. If that had been done perhaps our amendment tonight would not have had to list these particular points. With the present arrangements there are still serious deficiencies in the industry.

There is the problem of providing immediate financial assistance to growers by way of compensation. Compensation was granted because of the 1972 revaluation of Australia’s currency. This was considered by most to be an unsatisfactory form of compensation because of the way in which it was administered. A grower, whether he was a fresh fruit grower or a canned fruit grower, was limited to receiving a certain upper limit of compensation. Most growers who were solely producers of this type of crop were eligible for far more compensation than provided by this limit. Since the 1972 revaluation there has been a series of revaluations. I hope that’ the Government can provide revaluation compensation to this industry in the immediate future to ensure more liquidity in the industry to help it with the costs of the season ahead.

The second point in our amendment relates to the adjustment of the stabilisation scheme to provide for increased costs and freight rates. I think that is reasonable. In the long term a stabilisation scheme is still the best provider of some form of stability for this industry. But because of increased costs and particularly increased freight rates, the maximum levels of assistance which were provided when the Bill was introduced are no longer adequate and I believe that adjustments should be made to the maximum rates at present provided.

The Labor Government in Tasmania promised that it would provide a guaranteed price to growers of export fruit. Ever since it has been trying to back out of that promise. We were told that the Premier of Tasmania was in Canberra again early this week, presumably on the same errand of asking the Commonwealth to take over responsibility for that which the Tasmanian Labor Government promised the growers of Tasmania. This is why this point is included in the Opposition amendment. The Tasmanian growers, particularly the apple growers, were told and believed that they would be given some guarantee to cover the cost of exports for this season. They really believed that the guarantee would be provided for more than one season, but at least for this season because of the serious conditions facing the industry.

It is up to this Government to sort the matter out, either by itself or in conjunction with the Tasmanian Labor Government. Apparently the priorities of the Tasmanian Labor Government are such that it can spend a considerable amount of money on Lake Pedder and nothing to carry out its promise to provide some cover for the growers. It is up to these governments to sort out the matter. But I suggest that if the Tasmanian Government had its priorities right it would adhere to its promises.

Finally, I turn to the matter of having elected representatives of growers on the Corporation as promised by a Labor spokesman prior to the last election. The honourable member for Corangamite and I have made this point. I am glad that this Apple and Pear Corporation is coming into being. It is one promise, or part of a promise, that this Government is fulfilling, even it is is only picking up the groundwork done by the previous Government. When one considers all the other problems the industry faces and the other promises made by a Labor opposition anxious to get into power, one would hope the Government will now fulfill those promises to a greater extent than it has done so far.

Mr DUTHIE:
Wilmot

– I appreciate the concern of Opposition members who have spoken. I appreciate their constructive suggestions, which are most unusual coming from that side of the House. I appreciate, also, suggestions as to how this legislation can be improved. The establishment of the proposed Apple and Pear Corporation is a major step forward in the organisation of the apple and pear industry in Australia. I am grateful that the honourable members who have spoken have wished the Corporation well, even though they might not agree with other aspects of it or with other clauses of the Bill. However, I think that the Opposition agrees with 80 per cent to 90 per cent of the Bill. It is gratifying that approval for this measure is so overwhelming.

The establishment of the Corporation comes at a time when the apple and pear industry is in crisis - as if it has not been in crisis for many years. But the crises that are occurring are becoming worse and more serious every year. For instance, in Tasmania a few years ago there were 1,350 growers; there are now fewer than 600 - less than half. I said, by way of interjection to my colleague the honourable member for Franklin (Mr Sherry), that 5 years ago this industry was worth approximately $20m annually to Tasmania. It is now worth less than half of that- $ 10m. This illustrates the decline in the apple and pear industry as it affects my State of Tasmania which grows 70 per cent of Australia’s apple production. Therefore, if there is a decline in production in the major apple growing State the industry is really sick. This measure is an endeavour to try to pump some sense into the organisation of the industry. The new corporation will go a long way beyond the Apple and Pear Board which it replaces.

I am chairman of the Government Primary Industry Committee. Before the election when we were still in Opposition we hoped to establish a statutory marketing authority for apples and pears which would take over the entire crop and handle it from the paddock to the plate, wherever it was sold - at home or overseas. Members of that committee envisaged a very strong marketing authority with full powers. But we were only 3 people within a party. Honourable members opposite have brainy ideas at times but how far do they get in their party rooms? It is the party that decides issues. This applies to all parties. The majority decides. Our rural committee fought hard for the establishment of a statutory marketing authority even if it were to operate initially only in Tasmania and later spread to the other States. We were not able to convince enough of our colleagues that this was the ideal way to solve the problem and the Minister for Primary Industry (Senator Wriedt) and the majority in our Party decided on the establishment of this Corporation.

The Minister has put a tremendous amount of work into this legislation to get it to the stage tonight where it is being debated in this

Parliament. When the Minister introduced the proposal our rural committee suggested amendments to the draft legislation. He accepted two or three amendments that we suggested including one which related to grower representation on the Corporation. He thought that 3 grower representatives would be sufficient but we said that we wanted four. Four was accepted as the appropriate representation and tonight it is written into the legislation that on the Corporation there shall be 4 growers out of a total membership of nine, including the independent chairman.

Though some of us might have wanted a stronger measure with far more teeth in it we must be happy with what is provided. It is far more than what we had in the past. The people appointed to this Corporation must make it work as the legislation requires and it is up to members of Parliament to keep on the Minister’s back, or anybody else’s back, to ensure that the requirements are carried out in toto as they are stated in the legislation which will be passed tonight in this chamber and I hope in the Senate very soon afterwards. The election of the grower representatives was referred to by the honourable member for Corangamite (Mr Street). He tried to make out that we said before the election that there would be a grower controlled board.

Mr Street:

– Grower representatives selected by the growers.

Mr DUTHIE:

– Yes, growers’ representatives selected by the growers. I think it is a tweedledum and tweedledee type of argument to make a great point of the fact that by this measure the growers will select their 4 members and those names will be submitted to the Minister. He is not going to select them. They will be selected by ballot by the Apple and Pear Growers’ Association in Tasmania, which represents the majority of growers there, and like organisations in other States. Of course they will elect their own growers. There has been no breakdown in our suggestions at all. The method may be slightly different but the end result is exactly the same.

Mr Street:

– Where does the legislation say that the growers are going to do the electing themselves?

Mr DUTHIE:

– The Bill says that all members of the Corporation shall be appointed by the Minister for Primary Industry. By appointed’ it means that members representing growers will be selected from nominations submitted by the Apple and Pear Growers’ Association.

Mr Street:

– Yes, but they are nominations. There is nothing in the legislation to say that they will be elected.

Mr DUTHIE:

– The point is: How do they nominate their own members except by ballot?

Mr Street:

– That is right.

Mr DUTHIE:

– They will have a ballot, and those names selected in the ballot will be submitted to the Minister. The 3 other members referred to in the Bill - members with special qualifications - will be appointed after consultation with the Apple and Pear Growers’ Association and any other appropriate bodies. The Minister is not picking names out of the air; he will appoint the people nominated by these representative bodies.

Mr Lloyd:

– How many Tasmanian growers are there?

Mr DUTHIE:

– I would like to see at least two Tasmanian representatives out of the four. The suggestion of the honourable member for Murray is a fair one. To have two from Tasmania, one from Victoria and one from Western Australia seems to me a pretty reasonable representation. It means that the pear growers would be represented on the Corporation largely by the Victorian representative. The annual report of the Apple and Pear Board for 1972-73 indicates that 1,730,000 more cases of apples and pears were exported to Britain, Ireland, West Germany, Sweden, Belgium, Holland, Finland, Denmark, France and Norway for the last season than for the season before. Despite the critical situation in the industry and the smaller number of growers, production and exports were up considerably. So we have the apples; we have the markets: what happens in between? There is a problem with shipping.

The suggestion that shipping freights will rise by another 13 per cent or 14 per cent in the coming season has dealt the industry one of its worst blows. The growers are frightened to think that shipping freights will in future be so much higher. There is a suggestion in the Bill that the Corporation will charter ships. That is a wonderful suggestion. I think this could have been tackled long ago. I know of one instance a few years ago in regard to meat exports to North America when the shipping line intended to lift freights by about 10 per cent. The Austraiian Meat Board immediately asked the Israelis whether they could supply charter ships to take the meat from Australia to North America, and they said yes. As soon as that decision was known, the North Pacific Line or whatever it was that was taking the meat decided not to lift its freights. If we had had a little more competition like that in past years the shipping conference, which encompasses 22 shipping lines, would not have been able to be so dogmatic or arrogant with its price rises as it has been. As the honourable member for Franklin said, the conference has been saying to us: You take our price or leave it. If you do not accept our freight rises the fruit will stay on the trees and rot.’ This is how we have been going on year after year. I know that the former Minister for Trade and Industry in the previous Government, Sir John McEwen, was having battles with the group but he could never win them. Neither can we. They are a power unto themselves.

If we could charter some Israeli or North European ships to help us out we might be able to contain freight rates or prevent them from being increased a great deal. I hope that the Corporation will examine thoroughly the aspect of charter shipping. Of course, they have to be special ships. The new containerisation method is not affecting apples and pears at the present time. Conventional ships have to be used, and these conventional ships are getting older and older. Some of them are going out of existence. I am afraid that we will not have the shipping space available for the next season’s crop unless charter ships are brought in to help us out. I believe that shipping operators have promised to take 2i million cases from Tasmania. We normally export about 3 million-odd cases. A lot of our fruit will be left behind if we do not have charter ships to bridge the gap. These are not party problems. They are not political problems. These are economic problems, and all honourable members are concerned about them, no matter to which Party they belong.

The export of our fruit has been conducted by the Board with a great deal of sincerity and dedication. There are 30 countries taking Australian apples alone and about 20 taking pears from this country. We have to increase our markets into Asia because, with Britain having entered the European Economic Community, our exports to Great Britain are declining. The figures show that in 1972 we exported 2,968,000 cases to Great Britain but last year we exported only 2,614,000 cases, which was a drop of 354,000 cases to Britain alone. We exported 110,000 cases to Ireland in 1972 and only 53,000 cases last year. The figure for West Germany has gone up from 278,000 to 1,359,000. Sweden has gone up from 443,000 to 677,000. Belgium has gone up from 5,000 to 88,000 cases. Holland has gone up from 25,000 to 604,000 cases in that one year. Finland has gone up from 58,000 to 91,000 and Denmark has gone up from 145,000 to 171,000 cases. France and Norway imported fruit last year and they did not take any the year before. So these are very hopeful signs. Apart from Britain, Europe is still taking a tremendous quantity of Australian apples and pears.

The Asian market is gradually improving too. As the honourable member for Franklin said, the Minister for Primary Industry has just returned from Japan after an interview with the Agricutural Minister there in an endeavour to solve the codlin moth problem. There is no codlin moth in Tasmania and we have told the Japanese this. Our fruit could go straight to Japan without any trouble and could fulfil all their health and quarantine requirements. I am hoping that the Minister convinced them. I hope that he took a case or two up with him anyway to hand around, to show just what quality fruit we produce. Japan is one great market that we could acquire. I believe that the conference to be held here next month will be successful. I believe that the first breakthrough into the Japanese market will occur in the next few months - perhaps with the next season’s apples. Japan is our salvation. We are exporting to Japan twice as much in value as we are importing from Japan. The figures show that we are selling to Japan about $900m worth of goods and we are buying back about $450m worth of goods. So it is a marvellous market. We have a great credit balance there, and it would be a big help to us if they will take some of our fruit. The actual problems of the industry have been tackled by two or three methods, including the stabilisation scheme which was brought in a couple of years ago and which is a sort of half and half stabilisation scheme. I would like to see far more teeth in it and I would like to see an economic price guaranteed by the Commonwealth.

The Tasmanian Premier came up to see the Prime Minister .(Mr Whitlam) this week regarding this short-term problem. I do not know in which way the Premier has asked for help, but I imagine the purpose was to guarantee next season’s crop. The Tasmanian Government - this is where the honourable member for Murray (Mr Lloyd) was a bit off the beam - only promised to guarantee the crop last season for $2.60 a case. Tasmania is not an economic giant, and even this was a very big promise to make. The Tasmanian Government guaranteed to help growers for only one year. It now falls back on to the Commonwealth to help out in guaranteeing this year’s price. I hope that the Prime Minister will have been convinced by the Premier’s case, because it would have been a very strong and sound case that he put to the Prime Minister. I know there are these immediate problems and that this Corporation represents a long-term solution. We have the stabilisation scheme and we have the tree-pull scheme, 1300 acres of trees having now been pulled out in Tasmania. That involves a tremendous area.

Mr Lloyd:

– What percentage is that?

Mr DUTHIE:

– I do not know exactly what the percentage would be. I do not have the figures on that.

Mr Lloyd:

– When did it start?

Mr DUTHIE:

– It started about two or three years ago and it was one of the former Government’s last solutions. I think it is a shame that we have to destroy fruit trees to try to” save an industry. It seems a very Irish way of doing things, if I may be forgiven for using that expression. Where is the sound common sense in pulling out trees to save an industry? I cannot see it, but there it is, and we have been doing this. The revaluation payments have been made. I understand that the growers with up to 5,000 bushels of exports have been receiving revaluation payments. This is an important point too and it is a short-term solution. But these things have not yet convinced the growers that the industry is on the up and up and I am hoping that the interview with the Prime Minister will be successful.

I trust that this Government will come to the assistance of the industry in the short term so that we can save what is left of it and make what is left a viable industry. We do not want to see any more growers leaving their properties. We do not want to see any more fruit trees hauled out. What can these growers do with an orchard area that has lost its trees? As it is only about 10 acres they cannot plant anything other than small fruits and they are not a very strong substitute either. They cannot put cattle or sheep on the land. A grower who has to have his orchard pulled out is finished.

Mr Corbett:

– They want adequate compensation.

Mr DUTHIE:

– Yes, adequate compensation is required if a grower is going to be forced out. I think the reconstruction scheme is catering for the problem where a man has to go right out of the industry. But the area where the honourable member for Franklin comes from has about 70 per cent of the apple growers in Tasmania. The situation is really serious because the towns themselves are now feeling the pinch through growers having to leave the industry altogether. The main parts of this Bill which I do not have time to reiterate - but we may mention them in Committee - are very valuable. They are an experiment in giving this industry a proper organisational, marketing and promotional status and I feel that those sections of it will be of great assistance. I am most grateful to Mr Speaker for what he did yesterday about cider and apple juice.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Dr Jenkins:
SCULLIN, VICTORIA

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

Mr GILES:
Angas

– First, I want to say that many members on this side of the House will not be able to speak on this stabilisation Bill tonight even though their electorates are affected. I do not blame the Government altogether but the Bill has come in too late in the session and there is too little time for a debate of this nature which warrants about two-thirds of a day. Although the seriousness of the apple situation in Tasmania warrants such a debate, this is not to be so. I must reply to one or two of the points made by the honourable member for Wilmot (Mr Duthie), which I do with the greatest compassion and consideration. I also once had an unfortunate Government decision- on my own side of the House - foisted on me and I sympathise with the honourable member for Wilmot, ineffectual though he may be in getting his way in these matters. I would like to think that in time to come he can do for the apple industry what several people on this side of the House were able to do regarding the wine industry and wine excise.

I would like to comment on the statement by the previous speaker that in spite of his best endeavours he was unable to get this

Government to take over what he wished to see it take over - a statutory marketing authority. Maybe this is so. Big political parties sometimes have to acknowledge the beliefs of a minority section before they will swallow what could well be a good idea. I remind the honourable member in passing that at any rate a State government of my own political colour produced for the citrus industry about 5 years ago a statutory authority in that State called the Citrus Organisation Committee - COC - which within the limitations of State boundaries has been effective to a degree. Therefore, I would advise the honourable member to try his own State government and see whether perhaps the people concerned can walk before they can run in relation to these matters.

There are differences; the citrus industry has 90 per cent of its crop sold in Australia whereas the apple industry has about 60 per cent of its crop sold in Australia. I am indebted to the member of Wilmot for telling me that 70 per cent of that production is of Tasmanian origin. I think one other thing that came out of the honourable member’s speech is the point about growers’ representatives whose names are to be put on the list. I would like the Minister at the table to answer this because frankly the further the honourable member went the more confused I became. From listening to the honourable member, I believe that the people whom the Minister will appoint as growers’ representatives may not be growers whose names appear on the list as being having been elected by the growers’ section of the industry. I am not clear on that. For instance, the honourable member said nominated’ at one stage. I am frankly not clear and would like an answer to this according to the terms set down in this legislation because that was the point at issue. I would like to read from my present favourite document called ‘Labor’s Way’ in which Labor’s policy is set out on many matters including rural industries.

Mr Scholes:

– Are you sure?

Mr GILES:

– I do not need to be. It is signed, sealed and delivered and I paid good money for it in Melbourne.

Mr Scholes:

– It was wasted because it is out of date.

Mr GILES:

– It is worth every cent. Under the heading ‘XV Rural’ it states:

  1. Majority representation of primary producers upon all boards affecting the handling and marketing of their products.

I do not know what the honourable member may or may not have said to his growers prior to the last election but certainly many people, including the Minister for Immigration (Mr Grassby), I believe would have made some rather strange remarks prior to the last election. The Minister may have heard about these remarks before but I do not think that matters. The point that matters, as it did with me concerning wine grape growers some years ago, is whether the Labor Party will produce the goods and whether it will stick by its policy. If it agrees that there should be a majority of grower representatives on marketing boards, we need to know why it is not so in this case. Growers in the Mount Lofty Ranges in my own State where apples of good quality are grown in quite fair numbers see the problem of membership there as being a matter of appointing one more grower representative. Growers in South Australia would like to see 5 growers appointed to this 10-member Corporation. That is their opinion. I am sorry, in a way, to see that this is not proposed. A membership comparison will be made, not between this marketing corporation and other commodity corporations or bodies of a similar nature, but between this Corporation and the previous Apple and Pear Board.

The honourable member for Wilmot would not really appreciate the problem that exists for growers in my State. On the previous Apple and Pear Board there was at least one grower representative from each State which had apple plantings, growings and production of consequence. The growers in the smaller States, such as South Australia, feel that they will not have a representative on the Australian Apple and Pear Corporation. I think, frankly, that their fears are well founded. It is no use, for instance, the Government relying on the measures before the House to produce magical effects. Let us examine the position with respect to other industries. It should not be for members on this side of the House who were in government a year ago, but it should be for members on the other side of the House to make an effort to take action to achieve that result. I have dealt with grower representation on the Corporation.

The second point with which I wish to deal is revaluation compensation. My contacts in Tasmania tell me that at present farmers are well below equitable payments in terms of revaluation compensation. I am very glad to see this matter mentioned first in the Opposi tions amendments, as proposed by my colleague the honourable member for Corangamite (Mr Street), because it is no use to the industry or the country if the Opposition has to take the Government screaming to the growers and to force revaluation compensation out of it, as I suspect will happen in the case of fruit juices. Frankly, this is the silly position in which honourable members opposite have put themselves. They may as well stop here and now and say that there is a very good chance that before this Bill is passed some of these amendments will be accepted and will see the light of day.

Amendments proposed from this side of the House to legislation are screened very carefully. We think these are responsible amendments. The acceptance of the amendments proposed to this legislation can do nothing but good. I am sure that, in his heart, the honourable member for Wilmot and perhaps some of his colleagues agree with me completely. I will try not to look, if there are divisions on these amendments, to see on which side of the chamber the honourable member for Wilmot votes.

The proposed amendments, if passed, will benefit the apple growing industry in a way that is required now. Perhaps honourable members have missed the point that the apple harvest will be upon us very quickly. There is no use prevaricating on these matters. Help is needed, firstly, in the ‘short term’ - a phrase used by the honourable member for Franklin (Mr Sherry) in referring to the meeting in Canberra last week between the Tasmanian Premier and the Federal Government. He pointed out that short term problems were discussed. Well, good luck; I hope that something comes from those discussions for the hard pressed apple growers in Tasmania. But there are matters of long term importance, some of which were mentioned tonight by the honourable member for Wilmot.

In relation to the membership of the Corporation, at present the membership will be nine. The Chairman will be appointed by the Government. There will be one other Government appointee who, I trust, will be a senior and proficient member of the Department of Primary Industry. Three special appointees are proposed for this body. I cannot complain in that respect. I think the proposal is excellent. Only four of the 9 members of the Corporation will be grower representatives, and they may not even be elected by growers. We will wait to hear the reply by the Minister on that possibility.

The current situation involves problems and anomalies. No government is perfect. We can say that with respect to the last 3 years by reflecting on the areas in which changes in circumstances have evolved. The present Government would do well to realise that fact. Circumstances have changed, even in relation to shipping, and certain conditions exist this year which were not present last year, when prices were high, or indeed the year before. Now, problems arise with respect to shipping.

The problem that worries growers and packing sheds, for example, in my State more than anything else is that of inflation. I refer to the rate of increased costs affecting production, shipping, storage - indeed every aspect of any major industry today. In this case we are talking about the entire apple industry. The main problem today is the increase in costs. It is no earthly use, as one or two desperate Ministers have been doing lately, trying to pin inflation on the previous Government. The present Government has had 12 months in which to stop rash expenditure, to put the brakes on a little and to show some understanding of fiscal and monetary policies in order to put some brake on costs. It has been singularly lacking in success. Not all inflation, in fact very little of it, can be said to be imported. This is the major problem. There are other problems with, for instance, the Common Market and the United Kingdom. But, first and foremost, there is the problem that so many of the apples in Australia are grown in the State of Tasmania which at any rate until recently depended very much on that industry.

Let us examine some of the problems which Tasmanians have told me are worrying them today. There is no differentiation - perhaps the Opposition as well as the Government should accept the blame for his - in favour of an apple farmer who under the revaluation compensation scheme can receive a payment of up to $1,500. That is the limit for a farmer and his wife. I believe it is true to say that if 4 people are in partnership growing apples they can each draw $1,500 - a total of $6,000. Frankly, where is the equity in that? The Government which has kept this form of compensation in operation in this industry - I think properly, although that is arguable - should examine this point at this stage. It is not right to give partners on one orchard $1,500 each if we are aiming to help the person who is being squeezed the most.

I am now quoting the Government’s policy rather than that of my Party. So far as I am concerned, every reason certainly exists why this should no longer be allowed to occur. 1 will quote, if I may, a comment that I noticed in a speech made by the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) when he opened the Australian Farmers Federation conference at the Hotel Canberra on 23 October. He was speaking in relation to fruit. Referring to the withdrawal of the exemption of sales tax on fruit juice, he said:

I assue you that whilst abolishing the exemption the Government is ready to provide funds to assist any section of the fruit growing industry that may be adversely affected..

Honourable members on this side of the House want to know where this beneficence is. We want to know where the hard cash is.

Real problems exist today, not in areas that concern the capacity of the average Australian who earns a salary or wage which averages $107 a week, but in relation to people who are trying to exist on less than half the average weekly earnings. We have heard many stories of hardship from .the Government. Very rarely - I exempt the honourable member for Wilmot from this criticism - do we hear anything about these people who really are on the breadline. The Opposition’s amendments aim to cope with this situation, both in the short term and in the long term. As pointed out by the honourable member for Wilmot, politics should not be involved in this matter. I hope that I am not being too naive when I say that perhaps half of the members of the Government Party will support one or two of our amendments if they feel that the amendments are genuine and are aimed at helping this industry.

In conclusion, I note with some interest, as mentioned by the honourable member for Murray (Mr Lloyd), that the Apple and Pear Association of Australia has been resurrected somewhat and placed in a responsible position with regard to its advisory role in connection with the Bill. I think, although I do not know for certain, that the citrus industry of Australia is looking with interest at many of the principles embodied in the background thinking of this Bill. I do not know whether the Citrus Industry Federation might in time find itself in a somewhat similar position. All I can do is to back the words of the honourable member for Murray and express the hope that these kinds of bodies examine carefully all proposals and tap opinions at grower level if they are to be placed in a similar unrivalled position of power to that of the Apple and Pear Corporation. If I have an opportunity during the Committee stage I will deal with certain factual and statistical matters. In the meantime, the growers in my area and my Party see no reason for not supporting the Bill.

Debate (on motion by Mr Grassby) adjourned.

page 4351

CONSTITUTION ALTERATION (MODE OF ALTERING THE CONSTITUTION) BILL 1973

Message received from the Senate intimating that it insists on the amendments made by the Senate to this Bill.

Motion (by Mr Whitlam) agreed to:

That the message be taken into consideration forthwith.

Mr WHITLAM:
Prime Minister · Werriwa · ALP

– I move:

That the House insists on disagreeing to the amendments insisted on by the Senate.

Clearly, this is a case envisaged by section 128 of the Constitution, which deals with the mode of altering the Constitution, whereby this House passes a proposed law for the alteration of the Constitution by an absolute majority and the other House passes it with amendment to which the first-mentioned House will not agree. In these circumstances, the only recourse is for this proposed law to be passed by this House after an interval of 3 months, then the procedure of section 128 to be followed. The arguments in favour of the Bill and the arguments against the amendment on which the Senate insists have been canvassed earlier today, as they were a fortnight ago.

Mr LYNCH (Flinders) (9.53)- As this matter was not foreshadowed to the Opposition Parties for introduction to the House, therefore, it has not been considered. However, I place on record that the Opposition Parties take the same view as they did when the matter was before us at an earlier stage of debate in this House. We are strongly opposed to the views of the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam), which I will not canvass again, because they were referred to in detail by the right honourable member for Lowe (Mr McMahon) at an earlier stage in the debate. I simply record for the record our strong opposition to the re-introduction of this matter in the terms proposed by the Prime Minister.

Question put:

That the House insists on disagreeing to the amendments insisted on by the Senate.

The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker - Dr Jenkins)

AYES: 56

NOES: 44

Majority 12

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative. Motion (by Mr Whitlam) proposed:

That the Bill be laid aside.

Mr LYNCH:
Flinders

– I ask that the Chair explain precisely the nature of the proceeding which is now before the House so that all members of the Parliament will be aware of the procedure which has taken place. I invite the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) to indicate why this action is being taken. In the context of that comment, I repeat what I said earlier in the debate that this Bill has been returned to this House without any warning or foreshadowing. The House would be better informed as to the proceeding before it if there were an explanation from the Chair and if the Prime Minister who led in the debate on behalf of the Government were to indicate to the House the particular reason why this motion has been moved at this time.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Dr Jenkins)In regard to the matter raised by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, it is not necessary for the Chair to give an explanation of this procedure. I would direct the honourable member’s attention to standing order 250.

Mr LYNCH:

– If that is the case, I simply record again the total opposition of the Liberal and Country Parties to the procedure which this Government has adopted in bringing this matter before the House. I would have thought that if this matter has the importance and significance which the Prime Minister alleges he would have been prepared, at least as a basic courtesy to the Opposition parties, to advise us that the matter was coming before the House at this time so that we might have had the opportunity of considering the position which could have been taken in debate. This is typical of the procedures which have been adopted time and time again by the Government. The Bill is being rushed through in a precipitous manner which does no credit either to the nature of this debate or to the procedures adopted by the Government or, in fact, to the personal involvement in this episode by the ‘Prime Minister who apparently prefers to make no comment whatever as to the reasons he has moved the motion now before the Chair.

As I understand the application of standing order 250 and the procedure which the Prime Minister is adopting, the Prime Minister is seeking to pre-empt any opportunity of parliamentary debate on an important constitutional matter on which the Government wishes the Australian people to vote at a Commonwealth referendum. If that is the case - 1 am subject to correction across the table - what the Government does of course is allow no opportunity for the Opposition parties to debate the Bill in depth again and in fact force this matter on the Australian people. The various parties of this House, whether Government or Opposition, should have the opportunity for effective and responsible parliamentary debate.

I believe that this procedure is totally irresponsible. I am certain there are few members in this House on the Government side who understand exactly the tactics of the Prime Minister in returning this Bill to the House of Representatives so soon after it was before the House. Again I place on record our concern at the Prime Minister’s grave discourtesy in not at least foreshadowing this matter to the leader of the debate -on this side. This matter has come without warning. It has been subject to no debate. The Prime Minister himself apparently is prepared to make no comment. We reject the procedure which the Prime Minister is using and we reject the substance of the resolution which he has moved.

Mr WHITLAM:
Prime Minister · Werriwa · ALP

– in reply - I have spoken 3 times already today on this matter. I had made what I thought would be a justifiable assumption that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Lynch) in the House of Representatives would at least know what his counterparts were doing in the Senate. I had assumed that he would have known that his Senate counterparts were insisting on the amendments which they had made earlier and which in turn the House earlier today had rejected. In those circumstances I had assumed that the honourable gentleman would have studied the Standing Orders himself. The honourable gentleman should know quite well the consequences of the conduct of his confederates in the Senate. Section 128 of the Constitution makes* it quite plain what the consequences of that conduct are. The people will decide this. After an interval of 3 months, this Bill will again be introduced into the House of Representatives. It will again pass with an absolute majority. If the Senate then passes it, not less than 2 months or more than 6 months thereafter the people will vote upon it. If however the Senate persists again in a course of conduct on this Bill similar to that it has followed on its first presentation, the Bill can be put to the people as soon as the Government wishes. The people will decide this issue. This is one issue on which the Senate cannot defy the will of the people. This is one issue on which the Constitution makes it plain that the House of Representatives can ask the people for their opinion, whether or not the Senate wishes the people to express that opinion.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Mr Wentworth:

Mr Deputy Speaker-

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– Order! The Prime Minister has spoken in reply and so has closed the debate. Is the honourable member for Mackellar rising to take a point of order?

Mr Wentworth:

– I will speak at a later time.

Question put:

That the Bill be laid aside.

The House divided. (Mr Speaker - Hon. J. F. Cope)

AYES: 56

NOES: 44

Majority . . . . 12

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

page 4353

ADJOURNMENT

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! It being after 15 minutes past 10 o’clock p.m., in accordance with the order of the House I propose the question:

That the House do now adjourn.

Mr DALY:
Leader of the House · Grayndler · ALP

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

Question resolved in the negative.

page 4353

AUSTRALIAN APPLE AND PEAR CORPORATION BILL 1973

Second Reading

Debate resumed (vide page 4351).

Mr GRASSBY:
Minister for Immigration · Riverina · ALP

– It gives me a great deal of pleasure to find that the Australian Apple and Pear Corporation Bill put forward by the Government is unanimously accepted in principle by the entire Parliament. The central point made in the debate is the statement made at the outset by the honourable member for Corangamite (Mr Street) who led for the Opposition. He said that his Party did not oppose the Government’s Bill and did not oppose the establishment of the Corporation. He admitted with honesty and perception that the new Corporation has wide powers to do the things which must be done and which are long overdue to be done. It might be asked: What is all this debate about? It was mainly about revaluation. Two of the revaluations referred to in the course of the debate were, of course, undertaken by the McMahon-Anthony Administration in December 1971 and half way through 1972. There was a promise of help at that time, but we found when the Government changed that there was nothing in the Treasury. Nothing had been provided and there were no Cabinet decisions to help. Nothing was provided at all. In two of the revaluations by the present Government we said that we would help the industries affected. We have helped and we have provided the cash.

The Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) indicated when announcing the September 1973 appreciation of 5 per cent in exchange values of the Australian dollar that the Government would look sympathetically at the position of any industries which were seriously affected by the appreciation and found it particularly difficult to bear the consequences of it. A total of more than $1.3m has been paid out to date in post-revaluation adjustment assistance to the two main apple exporting States, Tasmania and Western Australia. The main point I make again is that two lots of undertakings were given and we honoured ours. The most important thing is to recognise that there is no real opposition to this measure. This measure only does in relation to this industry what must be done and what should have been done a long time ago. That is, we have to cut out the exploitive middlemen, we have to take action on freights and we have to undo some of the end results of the lethargy of 23 years.

Let us examine the amendment? Why an amendment at all? It is not a real amendment. I submit that it is a parliamentary confession. As an alibi, it is really not good enough. It states in paragraph (a): immediate financial assistance by way of proper compensation for loss inflicted on exporters in the 1973 season by revaluations of the Australian currency;

I have demonstrated already how that has been taken care of. We have honoured our commitments there, and we stand ready to do more. That paragraph of the amendment is totally irrelevant and totally unnecessary. Paragraph (b) states: adjustment of the stabilisation scheme to provide for increased costs and freight rates;

I think that the honourable member for Corangamite, in leading for the Opposition, said that the Corporation will take care of just such problems. Let us be quite clear. Everyone connected with the apple and pear industry has made money out of apples and pears - except the growers. The transporters, the agents, the spray firms, the case firms, the shippers and the label makers have all done very well. Everyone except the producer has done very well. The pipeline of costs has never been tackled. It must be tackled without delay. But the difficulties with which we are confronted today are the legacy of many years of inaction.

This Bill sets up a corporation to give the unity, the power and the authority to the industry. This Bill breaks the deadlock of donothing policies that have operated for a whole generation. There will be growers on the Corporation. The growers and their elected bodies are happy with the present arrangements. They want to be there, and they will be there. I draw attention to the fact that this Bill provides that:

Members to represent Australian apple and pear growers shall be selected by the Minister from persons nominated by the Australian Apple and Pear Growers Association.

The Bill in no way attempts to direct the Association on the manner in which it will choose its nominees. This is entirely a domestic matter for the Association. So, the point taken by the Opposition is rejected.

The Opposition - or some parts of it - is as out of step on this measure as it was on the Industries Assistance Commission measure, which was opposed by a section of the Opposition despite the fact that the Australian Farmers Federation did not oppose it. Since the initial debate on the measure the Federation has made useful suggestions which, it has said, make it a totally attractive and acceptable measure to the primary producers of Australia. This has been our response to the problems of the industry. The Corporation opens the way for new marketing initiatives. I accept the point that the position has to change quickly. We are setting up the machinery to enable those essential initiatives to be taken - something which is long overdue. There have been many references to Tasmania. The honourable member for Franklin (Mr Sherry) and the honourable member for Wilmot (Mr Duthie) both said: ‘Pull the trees out today and we will find ourselves in need of them tomorrow’. I accept that as a very wise piece of advice. In my own area it was suggested that the apple surplus this season would be a great embarrassment. A single decision by one processor has now wiped out the surplus and in fact we will be short of apples in this season.

In conclusion, let me say that reference was made to the ‘Platform, Constitution and Rules’ of the Australian Labor Party. The honourable member for Angas (Mr Giles) said that he had invested a sum of money in purchasing that document. I am sorry that I cannot see the honourable member in the chamber at the moment. It was a very fine document that he purchased, but 1 am afraid that it was the 1971 edition. If he would like to see me in my office afterwards, I will, with compliments and good will, provide him with the 1973 Platform, Constitution and Rules’. We are proud of the legislation. We commend it to honourable members and, what is more, we accept the real view of the Opposition, which is that this is a desirable and good measure and that the Opposition supports it. We reject the amendment as an alibi for the previous Government’s list - might I say ‘very long list’ - of deficiencies, and we do not think it is worthy of the support of this House.

Mr GILES:
Angas

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

Mr SPEAKER:

– Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr GILES:

– Yes. If I heard the Minister for Immigration (Mr Grassby) properly as I was coming through the door, he was casting doubts on the veracity of the Australian Labor Party platform from which I quoted.

Mr Grassby:

– The honourable member quoted from the 1971 platform.

Mr GILES:

– No. It was bought within the last 6 months from the Labor Party office in Melbourne. As far as I know, the section to which I referred is up to date.

Question put:

That the words proposed to be omitted (Mr Street’s amendment) stand part of the question.

The House divided. (Mr Speaker - Hon. J. F. Cope)

AYES: 55

NOES: 45

Majority . . . . 10

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Amendment negatived.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.

In committee

The Bill.

Mr LLOYD:
Murray

– I propose an amendment to sub-clause (3) of clause 7. Sub-clause (3) reads:

The Corporation shall comply with any directions given to it by the Minister with respect to the performance of its functions and the exercise of its powers.

I move:

Omit sub-clause (3).

I have moved this amendment because a search of the legislation relating to other statutory authorities has revealed that this sub-clause gives additional power to the Minister for Primary Industry. Admittedly it is the same as that contained in the wheat legislation which this side of the chamber attempted to have amended recently because it showed that ministerial discretion in this regard is something that should not be given lightly. In respect of the Wool Corporation the reserve power vested in the Minister concerns only the reserve price. I think that is reasonable because a considerable sum of Commonwealth money is involved. Under the apple and pear stabilisation legislation the reserve power relates to minimum prices at which fruit will be sold overseas. I would consider that to be reasonable in view of the Commonwealth commitment to the stabilisation fund. Sub-clause (3) reads:

The Corporation shall comply with any directions given to it by the Minister with respect to .the performance of its functions and the exercise of its powers.

This is a very broad undefined power that the Minister can exercise. The apple and pear legislation provides under section 18 of the relevant Act that the Minister has the final say in determining the prices at which fresh apples and pears can be sold overseas. In other words, the Minister already has the power to prevent the apple and pear industry from selling fruit at an uncommercial price which will lead to an excessive drain on Commonwealth finance. Admittedly that is not completely complementary legislation because that scheme could end. But one may ask: If the power is not provided to enable the Minister to ensure that the industry sells fruit at a commercial price, why should it be in the Bill?

When one looks at the wheat situation one wonders whether this power is put in this legislation so that the Minister can have special power to enable him to make to another country a political sale which is not in the best interests of the apple and pear industry. That is the reason why we have moved for the deletion of this power.

I believe that the Government should be honest about this clause and say if it wants the clause to remain in the Bill that it has no faith in the ability of the Apple and Pear Corporation to look after the wellbeing of the industry. If it does have faith in the ability of the industry why does it put this clause in the Bill in view of the fact that a similar provision is not contained in the general gamut of statutory marketing authority legislation? If the Government agrees that this is not necessary and says that it does have faith in the Corporation to carry out its functions I would hope that it would also agree to the removal of this clause from the Bill. As it is proposed to move this amendment in the Senate the Opposition is quite prepared in the meantime before this legislation goes to the Senate to agree to withdrawing the motion for the deletion of sub-clause (3) if the Minister for Immigration (Mr Grassby) who is handling this Bill tonight, perhaps with the assistance of departmental officers, can show good reason why this sub-clause is necessary for the administration of the Corporation. JJ he cannot - and I believe he cannot - then this amendment will be moved in the Senate. Because we believe this is an unnecessary power to be given to a Minister, because it is against the best interests of the industry and because it is detrimental to this new Corporation which is being set up, I have moved for its deletion from the Bill.

Mr GRASSBY:
Minister for Immigration · Riverina · ALP

(10.37) - The Government rejects the amendment that has been put forward. The first thing that has to be said is that there must always be a recognition of the need to preserve Ministerial responsibility in matters which touch on national marketing, national planning or the execution of agreements or, indeed, any of the determinations of this Parliament. A situation could very easily arise whereby there was a sectional decision. If you abdicate all of your powers to some particular section or body you would not be able to have an integrated approach over a number of industries and a number of problems.

Mr Street:

– Are you saying that-

Mr GRASSBY:

– Let me finish. If I can help I will do so. But I want to make it plain that the power provided in clause 7 (3) of the Bill can be viewed as a power which would be used only in unusual circumstances. This was stated by the Minister for Northern Development (Dr Patterson) in his second reading speech when he said:

It might need to be used, for example, to restrain activity by the Corporation if such activity is having serious and undesirable repercussions in important areas outside the cognizance of the Corporation.

It may well be that the Corporation, because of its particular and sectional nature, might make decisions which would unwittingly produce damage in another industry. After all, we are talking about an inter-related industry when we speak about the apple and pear industry. There are many other industries with which people engaged in that industry are also connected. It seems reasonable that there should be a residue of power with the Minister who is responsible to the Parliament and to the nation so that he would have the power to bring about a desirable co-ordination. That is what this sub-clause is all about. What the Opposition seem to be saying is that it does not matter whether the Corporation does something which is inimical to another fruit industry; let us just have nothing to do with this situation; let it all happen. We say that this is not a responsible position. There should be a power available for co-ordination, particularly inter-industry co-ordination and national co-ordination. That is a most reasonable point of view. I put it forward in those terms on behalf of the Minister for Primary Industry (Senator Wriedt) and the Government.

Mr LLOYD:
Murray

– This is rather a curious situation. The Government proposes to deny the freedom of consumer choice by saying that if consumer choice is developed through promotion and marketing of a particular type of product - say for orange juice as distinct from milk - the Minister for Primary Industry (Senator Wriedt) has the power to prevent this natural consumer choice from having effect. It is the same as saying that the Wool Corporation should have power to prevent synthetics from being manufactured in Australia if their manufacture will be to the detriment of the wool industry. If I am not interpreting the position correctly I should like to be given some examples of what is the real position. If the apple industry starts to sell cider at the expense of the citrus industry because of the extra promotion of apples which this corporation will engage in, will that mean that the industry will be prevented from actually selling the cider because it might be hurting the citrus industry or some other industry? It seems a very curious situation.

Mr GRASSBY:
Minister for Immigration · Riverina · ALP

– in reply - I accept that perhaps there is some confusion in the minds of members of the Opposition. Let me try to clear it very quickly. There may be 4 industries involved in a particular operation. One industry of the four may do something which is inimical to the other three. All this clause does is to give the Minister for Primary Industry (Senator Wriedt)- of course the Minister is an instrument of the national Parliament and the Government - the power to bring in desirable co-ordination. I think that is most desirable. We reject the amendment and commend the clause to the Committee.

Question put:

That the sub-clause proposed to be omitted (Mr

Lloyd’s amendment) stand part of the clause.

The Committee divided. (The Chairman- Mr G. G. D. Scholes)

AYES: 56

NOES: 44

Majority 12

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Third Reading

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

page 4357

APPLE AND PEAR STABILIZATION BILL 1973

Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 28 November (vide page 4009), on motion by Dr Patterson:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

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

page 4358

APPLE AND PEAR EXPORT CHARGES BILL 1973

Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 28 November (vide page 4009), on motion by Dr Patterson:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

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

page 4358

APPLE AND PEAR STABILIZATION EXPORT DUTY COLLECTION BILL 1973

Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 28 November (vide page 4009), on motion by Dr Patterson:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

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

page 4358

ADJOURNMENT

Meat Exports

Motion (by Mr Daly) proposed:

That the House do now adjourn.

Mr O’KEEFE:
Paterson

– Tonight I want to speak about the change which has taken place in the export market of Australian meat, particularly in the last few weeks. The importance of the meat industry to Australia cannot be over-emphasised. Despite a huge drop in sheep and lamb production, Australia’s total meat production, including pig meat, reached a record 2.3 million tons for the year ended June 1973, with a gross value at the works estimated to exceed $ 1,500m. Exports have yielded nearly $ 1,000m at the ship’s side.

The total value of this industry at 30 June was $2,000m. Our export market at the moment is in jeopardy. Three revaluations have taken place, export incentives have been taken away and an export tax has recently been imposed by the Government on the export of beef overseas. These have all contributed to the price of our beef on world markets being too high. We are having problems in off-loading our meat, and this is very much the case in the American market. Buoyant conditions have prevailed in the export market to the United States of America, Japan and Canada.

As I have said, conditions have changed. The almost total lack of overseas interest for all kinds of meat is having a significant influence on our processing operations. Our great country meatworks and our seaboard meatworks right throughout Australia are experiencing a slow down in the operation of their export meats and this will have an effect right across Australia because the meat industry is one of the most decentralised industries that we have in this country. It employs thousands of people. It is in jeopardy because the present Government has declared war on the meat industry. I have mentioned the revaluations, the export incentives and the recent tax. I am pleased to see the honourable member for Robertson (Mr Cohen) in the chamber. He knows only too well that the Charles David Pty Ltd works at Gosford in his electorate are experiencing problems at the present time. I believe the management of the works was here today. Possibly it will have to put people off. We are going to have unemployment in this industry. Unfortunately, there are no indications of any relief in sight at this point of time.

Major overseas outlets, particularly the United States of America, are experiencing an over-supply of beef at prices below Australian prices, and are reported to be exporting large quantities of chilled beef to Japan. This export of American chilled beef to the Japanese market is causing a double blow to Australian exports. The position is further aggravated by the export meat tax introduced on 26 November, currency problems related to the devaluation of the yen relative to the United States dollar and the relativity of both currencies to the Australian dollar. Reduced operations in both kill and processing reflect upon by-products. It is in this area that abattoir profitability will be most severely felt.

All these works that operate in Australia rely for their profitability on prices and the quality of meat meal which they manufacture at the works. The reduction in this export trade will have a serious effect on the quantity of meat meal produced and therefore on the profitability of the abattoirs themselves. Tallow production is down and, as I have mentioned, meat meal production has dropped back. This is a serious situation. It has developed only in the past few weeks. The outlook is extremely black.

The ‘Meat Producer and Exporter’, which is a journal published by those in the meat trade - I can claim to be in that trade because I am the chairman of one of the largest country works - had this to say:

Although the export meat tonnage of Australia to the US has risen over the past 5 years by 78,000 tons to 319,000 tons, the proportion of the US share of Australian meat exports has fallen from 60 per cent to 39 per cent over the same period.

The Board’s North American Representative, Mr Graeme Goodsir, made this statement in an address to the annual meeting of the Meat Importers Council of America in Chicago.

The meeting was held in conjunction with the American Meat Institute convention.

Future supplies of Australian meat for the US will be largely a question of buying competition from other countries. Our meat exports, being demandorientated, will get pulled through the pipeline, not pushed,’ he said.

So we have serious problems with our export meat trade. I warn the Government that it should not try to tax this wonderful industry that has been built up over many years by cattle producers, by expertise and by those engaged in the export of meat in this country.

I notice that the Government is setting up a committee to investigate the difference in price between meat at the saleyard and the meat that goes through the butchers’ shops in our towns and metropolitan cities. I do not think the Government should worry very much about that. It might take care of itself when the price of beef is reduced considerably in the near future in this country. Supply and demand will take care of the situation entirely. So I do not think that the Government needs to worry about this.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! It being 11 o’clock, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m.

House adjourned at 11 p.m.

page 4360

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS UPON NOTICE

The following answers to questions upon notice were circulated:

United States Legal Experts (Question No. 249)

Mr Cooke:

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

  1. Does the Attorney-General propose to engage American lawyers to assist in drafting legislation on restrictive trade practices and Aboriginal land rights.
  2. If so, what are the names, qualifications, terms of employment, periods of employment, salaries and/or expenses of each of them.
  3. What secretarial or research staff will be provided for each of them.
Mr Enderby:
ALP

– The Attorney-General has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

  1. No, not in drafting in the technical sense.
  2. (3) Not applicable.

Legal experts from the United States, at the time of my visit to the United States, were engaged by me to assist my department in formulating proposals for new legislation.

A United States lawyer, Mr R. M. Dietrich, General Counsel to the United States Federal Trade Commission, has assisted in the preparation of instructions for restrictive trade practices legislation. His services were made available by the United States Government without charge. The Australian Government met the costs of his fares and living expenses in Australia. Mr Dietrich, who was in Canberra for a period of four weeks, worked in association with officers of my Department in the Department’s premises.

Mr Adrian Parmeter, a United States authority on land rights matters, has given advice to the Department of Aboriginal Affairs and to my Department on aboriginal land rights. He was provided with air fares and a fee of $2,200. Mr Parmeter was engaged on this work for the Australian Government for a period of three weeks and three days.

Department of Secondary Industry: Protection Policy Branch (Question No. 541)

Mr Snedden:
BRUCE, VICTORIA

asked the Minister for Second ary Industry, upon notice:

  1. Does his Department still have a Protection Policy Branch.
  2. Does a similar Branch or Division exist in the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet.
  3. If so, what is the name of this Branch or Division in the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, and what are its functions.
  4. Was the Protection Policy Branch from his Department recently transferred to the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet.
  5. Have officers of the Protection Policy Branch of his Department been transferred or is it planned that they be transferred to the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet.
  6. If so, how many officers are involved in this transfer.
Mr Enderby:
ALP

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

  1. to (6) I invite the right honourable member’s attention to the answer to a similar Question on Notice (No. 666) directed to the Prime Minister.

Motor Vehicles (Question No. 842)

Mr lloyd:

asked the Minister for Secondary Industry, upon notice:

  1. Are motor cars manufactured in Melbourne sold there and in other capital cities at a uniform price.
  2. Are car buyers in Victorian country areas charged up to $40 extra for vehicle delivery.
  3. If the position is as stated, will he arrange with the manufacturers for a uniform price to be charged throughout Australia.
Mr Enderby:
ALP

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

  1. There are two motor vehicle manufacturers located in Melbourne, GMH and Ford. Both companies must comply with the resale price maintenance provisions of the Restrictive Trade Practices Act 1971. Accordingly they may only recommend retail prices, which I understand are the same in all capital cities.
  2. Motor vehicle manufacturers’ prices to dealers are on an f.o.b. capital city basis. Dealers are then responsible for costs of transportation to their locations. I would expect these costs to be higher where country areas are involved.
  3. The honourable member will be aware that at present the Australian Government has no direct price control powers except in the Territories and has therefore no power to arrange for a uniform price to be charged for motor vehicles throughout Australia.

Bendigo: Commonwealth Police Force (Question No. 911)

Mr Bourchier:

asked the Minister repre senting the Attorney-General, upon notice:

  1. Has the Attorney-General’s attention been drawn to reports that members of the Commonwealth Police Force stationed in Bendigo may be forced to transfer to other places as a result of recent Budget cuts in Defence expenditure and the possible effect on the Ordnance Factory in Bendigo.
  2. Is it a fact that the 8 families long established in Bendigo who would be affected by any transfer are gravely concerned at this prospect.
  3. Will the Attorney-General give an assurance that these families will not be retrenched or transferred from Bendigo.
Mr Enderby:
ALP

– The Attorney-General has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

  1. The future role of the Commonwealth Police Force in the guarding of certain Department of Supply establishments, including the Ordnance Factory, Bendigo, has been under consideration for some time. No decision on the withdrawal of Commonwealth Police cover from these establishments has yet been taken. The consideration being given to the matter does not stem from the Budget.
  2. Eight families of the Commonwealth Police members could be affected by the withdrawal of Commonwealth Police cover from the Ordnance Factory, Bendigo. Seven of these families reside in the BendigoLonglea area and one member maintains his home at Little River (near Geelong). It is a condition of employment in the Commonwealth Police Force that, although appointment, promotion or transfer may be to a specified locality, members may be required to transfer to any part of the Commonwealth. All members are informed of this requirement prior to appointment to the Force. However, before any transfers are made, consideration is given to the position of each member including his family.
  3. Should it be decided to withdraw Commonwealth Police cover from the Ordnance Factory, Bendigo, no member would be retrenched. The members concerned would be transferred to other localities depending on vacancies that exist at the time. Such transfer would be at Commonwealth expense and the members would be entitled to a living allowance at the new locality until such time as they are able to obtain suitable accommodation.

National Rehabilitation and Compensation Scheme Inquiry: Report (Question No. 1039)

Mr Lynch:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice:

  1. When does he expect to receive the report of the National Rehabilitation and Compensation Scheme Inquiry.
  2. What direction has he issued to his Department concerning the establishment of an Australian Government Insurance Office to compete on a non-profit basis with private companies in all States in the fields of life assurance, fire, accident, workers’ compensation and other forms of insurance.
  3. Will proposals for such an Office be considered by the Government subsequent to the receipt and consideration of the report referred to in part (1).
Mr Crean:
ALP

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

  1. The report of the National Rehabilitation and Compensation Scheme Committee of Inquiry is expected to be submitted at the end of March 1974.
  2. and (3) As the Acting Treasurer stated on 9 October 1973 in reply to Question No. 834 (Hansard 9 October 1973) the Government is unlikely to consider the establishment of an Australian Government Insurance Office before it receives and considers the report of the National Rehabilitation and Compensation Scheme Committee of Inquiry.

Nationalisation: Government Policy (Question No. 1040)

Mr Lynch:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice:

  1. Has his attention been drawn to the answer to my question No. 752 (Hansard, 9 October 1973) provided by the Acting Treasurer.
  2. Is that answer consistent with the Government’s policy of open government.
  3. Will he outline the nature of any directions which he has given to his Department in respect of (a) the establishment or (b) the extension of public enterprise by nationalisation in the areas of (i) banking, (ii) consumer finance, (iii) insurance, (iv) marketing, (v) housing, (vi) stevedoring and (vii) transport.
  4. If not, will he make a clear and detailed statement to the House outlining the Government’s intentions to nationalise areas of the private sector.
Mr Crean:
ALP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. , (3) and (4) The Acting Treasurer in his reply to Question No. 752 (Hansard 9 October 1973) indicated that it would not be appropriate to announce Government policies in answer to a Question on Notice. At the same time he drew the attention of the honourable member to the Policy Speech and Platform of the Australian Labor Party.

Aboriginal Involvement: Kildurk and Willowra Stations (Question No. 1048)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice:

  1. How many Aborigines are or will be involved in the operation of the Kildurk Station in the Northern Territory.
  2. What were the financial arrangements provided by the Commonwealth in order that the Aborigines could purchase the property at a cost of $829,000, i.e., what proportion was provided by way of grant, what proportion by way of loan, and on what terms.
  3. To whom were these moneys advanced.
  4. How many Aborigines will be involved in the operation of the Willowra Station.
  5. What were the financial arrangements provided by the Commonwealth in order that the Aborigines could purchase the property, i.e., what proportion was provided by way of grant, what proportion by way of loan, and on what terms.
  6. To whom were these moneys advanced.
Mr Bryant:
Minister for the Capital Territory · WILLS, VICTORIA · ALP

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

  1. Since November . 1971, the Aboriginal population resident at Kildurk has varied between 19 and 40 depending on the availability of work on nearby stations. Up to ten language groups have been identified in recent censuses carried out by my Department. My Department has arranged a meeting of Aboriginals having association with Kildurk to take place from 19 to 22 November, in order to complete arrangements for participation in the project.
  2. To take advantage of the property being on the market, the Mialuni Pastoral Company Pty Ltd was incorporated and a grant of $829,000 was provided on the understanding that the funding arrangements would be adjusted on the basis of $233,755 loan and $595,245 grant. This loan and grant composition was determined on the basis of the station’s capacity to service a debt over a notional 25 years repayment term at interest rates of1½ per cent per annum for the first $20,000 and 5 per cent per annum for the balance ($213,755).
  3. The moneys were advanced to the Australian Agricultural Consulting and Management Company Pty Ltd as trustees for the Mialuni Pastoral Company Pty Ltd. The consultant firm acted for the Department in the purchase of the property and has subsequently been engaged to provide management services to the project. When the composition of the MialuniPastoral Company Pty Ltd is finalised, the Company will take control of the funds in association with the consultants.
  4. There is an Aboriginal community of some 160 people of Walbiri language group resident on Willowra Station. The numbers of Aboriginals participating in the venture as share holders and as employees is a matter for the Company. The level of employment will vary according to the seasonal demands of the cattle enterprises and, conceivably, as a result of changes in Company policy in relation to the type of operation to be adopted.
  5. Willowra Station was purchased on a ‘walkinwalkout’ basis for $350,795. Additional funds of $168,705 have been provided to enable the implementation of a recommended development program, making total funds provided $519,500. These funds have been allocated by way of $223,500 grant and $296,000 loan, the loan figure being determined on the basis of project’s estimated capacity to service loan funds over a notional 25 years repayment term, at interest rates of1½ per cent per annum for the first $20,000 and 5 per cent per annum for the balance ($276,000).
  6. $325,000 was advanced to an Alice Springs firm of solicitors acting for the Department of Aboriginal Affairs and the Aboriginal community in the purchase of Willowra. The balance has been provided direct to the Willowra Pastoral Company Pty Ltd. The company’s bank account will be operated by Aboriginal signatories, in conjunction with a cattle adviser appointed by the Australian Agricultural Consulting and Management Company Pty Ltd.

Department of the Treasury: Interdepartmental Committees (Question No. 1065)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice:

Will he provide a list of the interdepartmental committees, which have been established since 2 December 1972, of which officers of his Department are members.

Mr Crean:
ALP

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

No. On 20 September 1973, my colleague, the Prime Minister, informed the right honourable gentleman in reply to a Question Without Notice about interdepartmental committees that, if he wished to know the composition and function of any particular Interdepartmental Committee, and for what period of time it had been active, the Prime Minister would be happy to provide him with that information (Hansard, page 1317).

I also refer the right honourable gentleman to the Prime Minister’s answer to his further Question Without Notice on this subject on 15 November 1973 (Hansard, pages 3373-4).

If the right honourable gentleman wishes to have information about a particular committee on which my Department is represented, I will assist him as far as possible having regard to the Prime Minister’s answers to Question Nos 964 and 1057 (Hansard, 27 September 1973, page 1714 and 24 October 1973, page 2665).

Australian Invention and Innovation: Government Assistance (Question No. 1112)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Second ary Industry, upon notice:

  1. Does he intend to establish an invention development corporation or commission.
  2. If so, what will be its functions.
Mr Enderby:
ALP

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

  1. and (2) The previous Minister for Secondary Industry, Dr Cairns, announced on 30 July 1973 that the Government was considering measures to assist Australian invention and innovation.

I am hopeful that I will soon be in a position to announce the scope and nature of the policy initiatives the Government will be taking.

Aboriginal Affairs: Australian Government Responsibility (Question No. 1190)

Mr Hunt:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice:

  1. Did the Australian Government agree with the Victorian Government to take over complete responsibility for Aboriginal housing as announced by the Victorian Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Dickie) on 4 September 1973.
  2. Can the Minister say whether Mr Dickie said 22 days later that he had receiveda letter from the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs requesting the Victorian Government to maintain administrative responsibility for Aboriginal housing; if so, was such a letter sent.
  3. Does the Australian Government intend to take over complete responsibility for Aboriginal affairs from the relevant State departments on 1 January 1974.
  4. Is the Department of Aboriginal Affairs sufficiently staffed and equipped to assume total administrative responsibility for Aboriginal affairs throughout Australia on 1 January 1974.
Mr Bryant:
ALP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. My predecessor subsequently wrote to the Victorian Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Dickie) requesting that the Victorian Government maintain administrative responsibility for Aboriginal housing.
  3. Discussions with a number of States is continuing and I hope that it will be possible to conclude these in time to ensure that the Australian Government can assume responsibility for Aboriginal affairs in a number of States by1 December.
  4. Arrangements for the Australian Government to assume State responsibilities for the policy planning and co-ordination of Aboriginal programs provide for the staff at present employed by the relevant State authorities to transfer to the Australian Public Service if they wish. To facilitate this, the Public Service Board has approved an appropriate organisation for the State offices of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs and this organisation is expected to be substantially filled with officers transferring from the State Public Services and additional officers now being recruited. My Department expects to be sufficiently staffed and equipped to assume responsibility for Aboriginal affairs as transfers are accepted in various States.

Western Australian Civic Affairs Bureau: Tax Deductions (Question No. 1274)

Mr Bennett:
SWAN, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the Treasurer, upon notice:

  1. Has his attention been drawn to claims by the Civic Affairs Bureau in Western Australia, when appealing for funds for political propaganda purposes, that donations would be tax deductible.
  2. If so, has a loophole been found in the Income Tax Assessment Act to make this possible.
  3. Will he investigate these claims with a view to closing any loophole and protecting the public against fraudulent claims and practices by political front organisations.
Mr Crean:
ALP

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

  1. Inquiries by the Commissioner of Taxation have disclosed that the Civic Affairs Bureau in Western Australia has claimed that subscriptions made to the Bureau are allowable deductions for income tax purposes. The Commissioner has examined the matter and has advised that subscriptions and donations made to the Bureau do not qualify for deduction in terms of the existing law. The claim by the Bureau was not made with departmental approval.
  2. and (3) In the circumstances, the need to amend the law does not arise.

Department of Health: Interdepartmental Committees (Question No. 1315)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

Further to question No. 1090 and in light of the answer provided by him and that provided by the Prime Minister in the House of Representatives on 7 November 1973, has the Prime Minister instructed him to provide a list of inter-depertmental committees of which officers of his Department are members; if so, will he now provide me with such a list.

Dr Everingham:
ALP

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

I refer the right honourable gentleman to the answer I gave on 25 October (Hansard, page 2779) and to the Prime Minister’s answer to his Question Without Notice on15 November 1973 (Hansard, pages 3373-4).

Department of Health: Interdepartmental Committees (Question No. 1370)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

Following his answer to question No. 1090 and in the light of the Prime Minister’s guarantee in the House on 7 November 1973 that the information will be made available, will he provide a list of the interdepartmental committees established since 2 December 1972 of which officers of his Department are members.

Dr Everingham:
ALP

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

I refer the right honourable gentleman to the answer I gave on 25 October (Hansard, page 2779) and to the Prime Minister’s answer to his Question Without Notice on 15 November 1973 (Hansard, pages 3373-4).

Council of Nature Conservation Ministers (Question No. 1500)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for the Environment and Conservation, upon notice:

  1. Has there been a meeting between himself and State Nature and Conservation Ministers to discuss the formation of a Council of Nature Conservation Ministers.
  2. If so, what was the outcome of the meeting.
  3. If not, when is it expected that such a meeting will be held.
Dr Cass:
Minister for the Environment and Conservation · MARIBYRNONG, VICTORIA · ALP

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

A meeting between the Australian and State Government Ministers held in Melbourne on 9 March 1973 recommended the formation of such a Council. The Prime Minister and Premiers have exchanged correspondence on the recommendation and it is hoped that the first meeting of the Council will be held early in the New Year.

Bureau of Environmental Studies (Question No. 1501)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for the En vironment and Conservation, upon notice:

  1. What establishment has been approved by the Public Service Board for the Bureau of Environmental Studies.
  2. What is the current staffing level of the Bureau including personnel who have been or are being employed on an on-brief or contract basis.
Dr Cass:
ALP

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

  1. and (2) No staffing establishment has yet been approved for the Bureau. Preliminary discussions have been held between officers of the Public Service Board and my Department on the staffing establishment for the Bureau.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 5 December 1973, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1973/19731205_reps_28_hor87/>.