House of Representatives
11 December 1973

28th Parliament · 1st Session

  1. House of Representatives
  2. 28th Parliament
  3. 1973

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

page 4471

ATTENDANCE

Mr MCMAHON:
LOWE, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Mr Speaker, I draw your attention to the number of honourable members sitting on the front bench on the Government side. I wonder whether the bells ought to be rung again.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! Petitions will be read.

page 4471

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 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 Adermann, Mr Bonnett, Mr Cooke, Mr Corbett, Mr Drury* Mr Katter, Mr Killen and Mr Eric Robinson.

Petitions received.

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 many citizens more, particularly single people and working wives.

That the proposed scheme is in fact a plan for nationalisation of health services which will lead to impersonalised and mediocre standards of medical care, the creation of a huge new bureaucracy, and will limit the citizen’s free- dom of choice.

That the present health scheme can be amended to overcome existing deficiencies, and that the proposed scheme is totally unnecessary.

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 Donald Cameron, Mr Drummond, Mr Giles, Mr McLeay, Mr McVeigh, Mr Wentworth and Mr Wilson.

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 Cohen and Mr Edwards.

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 intellegent, 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 licenses 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 Duthie and Mr Fairbairn.

Petitions received.

Australian 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 and Mr McVeigh.

Petitions received.

Apartheid

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 an advertisement by the South African Trade Commission encouraging imports from South Africa, which appeared in ‘The Australian’ newspaper during September 1973, is contradictory to Australia’s policy against apartheid.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the members in Parliament assembled will move to stop activities that contradict an anti-apartheid stance.

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

Petition 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 shows:

  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 directly related to the cost of educating an Australian child in a government school.
  2. Your petitioners believe that in addition to this basic per capita grant additional assistance should be provided in cases of educational disadvantage.
  3. The reduction of the present per capita grants will impose great hardships on many parents who have chosen, at personal sacrifice, to send their sons and daughters to independent schools. Further, the curtailment of the said grants will create divisions in the community.
  4. Parents should be encouraged to contribute to education. The proposed legislation penalises those who do contribute, and endorses the apathy, of those who do not contribute.

Your petitioners therefore ask that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled should acknowledge the right of every Australian child to equal per capita grants of government money spent on education, and so instruct the proposed National Schools Commission.

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

Petition received.

Second International Airport for Sydney

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

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

That jet aircraft operations have a detrimental effect by way of air and noise pollution on the environment and therefore on the lives of citizens living in the general area. That in close proximity to the proposed Galston airport site are the Berowra Reserves, the Hallstrom Nature Reserve and the Muogamarra Sanctuary, and areas of Sydney’s Green Belt, which would be so affected and should be preserved for future generations.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that this House take appropriate steps to ensure that the Government does not proceed with the proposal to site the second international airport for Sydney in the Galston area or surrounding north-western suburbs of Sydney.

Arid your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Edwards.

Petition 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 major tourist 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 cast 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 Turner.

Petition received.

page 4473

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN AID TO NORTH VIETNAM

Mr SNEDDEN:
BRUCE, VICTORIA

– My question is addressed to the Prime Minister in his capacity as the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Is it true that over recent weeks and months North Vietnamese forces in South Vietnam have been steadily built up and that North Vietnamese forces from Cambodia and North Vietnam have moved into South Vietnam? Is it also true that the North Vietnamese were last week clear aggressors against South Vietnam in taking the town of Kien Duc? Are such actions not completely contrary to the Paris peace agreements of January this year? If so, will the Prime Minister give an assurance that Dr Cairns, during his present visit to Hanoi, will give no commitment by Australia to provide further aid to North Vietnam or any form of trade concessions until North Vietnam is prepared to honour the Paris peace agreements and cease aggression in South Vietnam? Will he also ensure that Dr Cairns uses his foreign affairs expertise and his apparent considerable influence in Hanoi to urge the North Vietnamese Government to honour the Paris agreements? Finally does the Prime Minister agree with the comments attributed to Dr Cairns which relate to Australia’s past with North Vietnam?

Mr WHITLAM:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– There are questions on this matter for me on today’s notice paper in each House.

page 4473

QUESTION

BUNKER FUEL

Mr BIRRELL:
PORT ADELAIDE, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I ask the Minister for Minerals and Energy: What is the present availability of bunkering fuel for shipping to and from Australia?

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

– The present position is, briefly, that we have a total of about 110 million tons of exports from Australia each year. Of that, 90 million tons is represented by iron ore and coal exported to Japan. Almost the whole of the exports to Japan have been carried in ships which were bunkered in Japan. At the present time we are being beseiged by various Japanese firms with requests that we should make available fuel for the return voyage. In point of fact, at no time, in the absence of a substantial Australian merchant marine, have we provided more than about 10 per cent of the total requirements for bunkering fuel for ships trading to and from Australia. I have suggested to the Japanese Government that it might very well rationalise its present purchases of iron ore and coal. For example, in respect of voyages to Brazil, Japan can transport only one-third of the iron ore that it could transport by purchasing that iron ore in Australia, and in respect of South Africa, the figure is about one-half. If Japan chooses to rationalise its purchases and if we are in a position to supply the extra, Japan can carry on quite comfortably without any fuel oil being supplied by Australia.

As regards the rest of our exports, the position is, briefly, that we are wholly dependent upon imported crude oil from which we extract the residual fuel oil that is available for bunkers, and the allocation of that oil is the subject of consideration by a committtee of my colleagues, including the Minister for Transport, the Minister for Primary Industry, the Minister for Secondary Industry and the Minister for Overseas Trade. We will be examining this matter very closely and we will make further reports.

page 4473

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN AID TO NORTH VIETNAM

I refer to that part of the question in which the Leader of the Opposition asked:

Will the Prime Minister give an assurance that Dr Cairns, during his present visit to Hanoi, will give no commitment by Australia to provide further aid to North Vietnam or any other form of trade concessions until North Vietnam is prepared to honour the Paris peace agreements and cease aggression in South Vietnam.

In the later part of his question the Leader of the Opposition asked the Prime Minister:

Will he also ensure that Dr Cairns uses his foreign affairs expertise and his apparent considerable influence in Hanoi to urge the North Vietnamese Government to honour the Paris agreements?

Neither of those parts of the question is contained in question No. 1572 on the notice papers. On a point of order I submit to you, Mr Speaker, that the Prime Minister is obliged to answer those two parts of the question asked by the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The Prime Minister is not obliged to answer any question at all. It is a matter for. his own discretion.

Mr Snedden:

– Mr Speaker-

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I am telling honourable members the rules of the House. As the Leader of the Opposition would quite well know, it is a matter for the Prime Minister to answer a question if he desires to do so.

Mr Peacock:

– Mr Speaker-

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I am citing what are the general practices of the House.

Mr Peacock:

– I take a point of order. On what you have said, Mr Speaker, we are therefore entitled to assume that the Prime Minister has chosen not to answer those questions for reasons other than the reasons given by the Chair.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! That is not a point of order at all. (Opposition members interjecting) -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! No point of order arises. The Chair cannot force any Minister to answer a question. If a Minister desires not to answer a question, it is not within the jurisdiction of the Chair to force him to do so. The Chair cannot do so.

Mr Wentworth:

– I take a point of order-

Mr Whitlam:

– On the point of order–

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I call the Prime Minister on a point of order.

Mr Whitlam:

– Mr Speaker-

Mr Wentworth:

– I have the precedence of the call.

Mr Whitlam:

– Oh, well.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! There is no such thing as a precedence of the call in regard to a point of order.

Mr Wentworth:

– Mr Speaker-

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable gentleman will resume his seat while I am speaking.

Opposition members - He was on his feet first.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I call the honourable member for Mackellar on a point of order.

Mr Wentworth:

– Thank you, Mr Speaker. As I understood the proceedings a few moments ago, you did not give the Prime Minister a chance to answer the question because you ruled it out of order. Is my memory correct? Perhaps the Prime Minister would like the chance to answer the question now.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! No point of order is involved. A point of order may be taken on procedures or the Standing Orders of the House but not in respect of a point of opinion.

Mr Whitlam:

– Mr Speaker, it has been none of my wish to take up question time on points of order. But since in the course of points of order reflections have been made on my willingness to answer questions, I point out that there is a question on notice on this very matter referred to in the question asked by the Leader of the Opposition. It is certainly not so prolix or tendentious as the question without notice asked by the Leader of the Opposition. The reason for that is that questions which are put on notice must conform with the Standing Orders. So that the- listening public may know what the questions on notice are and so that they may determine for themselves that these do in fact cover the matters raised by the Leader of the Opposition, I must read parts (3) and (4) of question 1572 put on notice today. They are:

  1. Is it expected by the Government that the visit of the Minister for Overseas Trade to Hanoi will be recognised as evidence by interested (a) communist countries and (b) non-communist countries that the Australian Government supports the North Vietnamese aggression.
  2. Is it possible that Australian aid to and/or trade with North Vietnam actually assists that country to make war on her neighbours.

One does not answer questions without notice when there are questions on notice on the same matters.

Mr Snedden:

– Mr Speaker-

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! Is this a question?

Mr Snedden:

– No. It is a point of order, Mr Speaker. I asked the Prime Minister a question. The Prime Minister may, if he wishes-

Mr Cohen:

– Do not let Saturday go to your head.

Mr Snedden:

– Do not let it go to your electorate; you will lose. You just be very, very quiet from now on. The point about it is this: If the Prime Minister chooses not to answer the question, I agree with your ruling that you cannot force him to do so. The point that I make is that if the Prime Minister does not answer and gives a false reason for not answering, that ought to to be disclosed. If the Prime Minister says that-

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The right honourable gentleman will not debate a point of order. A point of order is taken on the rulings of the Chair and on the general practice of the House. I have already given a decision on that matter. I now call further questions without notice.

Mr Whitlam:

– On the point of order: The Leader of the Opposition persists in taking up question time by raising points of order and he has stated that I gave a false reason. I gave a correct reason. I did not take the point - nobody on this side took the point - which could have been taken right from the outset, before the right honourable gentleman read his question without notice, that it was out of order. If the right honourable gentleman cannot control his followers and prevent them from pre-empting his questions by putting questions on notice, he cannot squeal and snivel about my conduct. I obey the Standing Orders and so should he.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I now call for further questions without notice. I think it is the turn of the Opposition side.

Mr Hurford:

– This side.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! There has been one question only asked from the Opposition side so far. I read my stars this morning. They said that I was in for a bad week. The prediction looks like coming true.

page 4475

QUESTION

REDISTRIBUTION OF ELECTORATES IN WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Mr VINER:
STIRLING, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I preface my question, which I address to the Minister for Services and Property, by observing that there is still a redistribution of electorates in progress in Western Australia. Will the Minister advise the House of the state of progress of that redistribution? Is it likely that the Commissioners’ report will be tabled in Parliament before we rise?

Mr DALY:
Minister for Services and Property · GRAYNDLER, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– As the honourable member has stated, a redistribution of electorates is in progress in Western Australia. Submissions, protests or suggestions have been made to the Commissioners following the publication of the original plans. I understand that at the present time they are still under consideration by the Commissioners. I am not in a position to state when the report will be finished or brought to the House.

page 4475

QUESTION

PRICING OF URANIUM OXIDE

Mr FULTON:
LEICHHARDT, QUEENSLAND

– Can the Minister for Minerals and Energy inform the House as to the current world developments in the pricing of uranium oxide?

Mr CONNOR:
ALP

– Current world developments on the pricing of uranium oxide fully vindicate the stand that has been taken by the Government on the advice of the Australian Atomic Energy Commission. In point of fact it ridicules and shows just how pathetic and paltry were the prices that were obtained in respect of contracts that were approved by the previous Government immediately before the election. The proof of it is this: The Tennessee Valley Authority of the United States of America recently invited tenders from 53 firms for the supply of 81 million lb of uranium oxide. The Authority received replies from three only. The remainder chose to hold on to their uranium. Of the 3 tenders that were received, the prices varied from US$12 to US$16. There were also substantial escalation clauses attached to those tenders. Those prices are at least 60 per cent above the prices that were the subject of the contracts to which I referred in respect of the former Government.

The point is this: We have been besieged by certain interests in Australia who want to flog off Australia’s uranium as quickly as they can without thought for the future. We are prepared to honour those contracts despite their unsatisfactory nature. By so doing there will be quite a substantial cash flow made available to the shareholders of the respective companies which should at least keep them quiet until the true market is reached. It is considered that with escalation uranium can go as high as $25 or $26 in the United States. This is a good time to wait; it is a good time in Australia’s interests to just have a look at the market. I want to be on the side of the 50 firms that chose not to tender and not on the side of the 3 firms that did. The present Administration will handle the sale of Australia’s minerals in a proper and business-like way and arm twisting will not count with this Government.

page 4476

QUESTION

MILK: SCHOOL CHILDREN

Mr LUCOCK:
LYNE, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Does the Minister for Health recall the strong representations that I have made to him both in a personal capacity and on behalf of many individuals and organisations about the provision of milk to school children? Has the Minister any information he can give me on this subject?

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

– The matter of the modification of the milk for school children scheme was considered by a meeting of State Ministers with me in September. This meeting was attended by the Ministers for Health, Education and Primary Industry. They were invited to submit proposals for specific areas of need which would warrant the continuation of assistance under this scheme. I have had replies from 3 States and these were considered by Cabinet yesterday. The decision of Cabinet was that there was no specific need demonstrated. I have taken steps today to send by special delivery notices to all Ministers concerned that until some more specific and definite area of need can be demonstrated no funds will be available in the next school year.

page 4476

QUESTION

DISASTER RELIEF FOR QUEENSLAND

Mr KEOGH:
BOWMAN, QUEENSLAND

– My question is directed to the Prime Minister. It refers to the disastrous tornado which swept through Brisbane suburbs on the afternoon of Sunday, 4 November. Has the Prime Minister yet received any request from the Premier of Queensland for disaster relief? Can he say when that request was received? If, as I understand, it has been received only recently, will the Prime Minister assure honourable members that the Government will give urgent consideration to this request particularly because of the obvious disadvantage the delay has caused to the victims?

Mr WHITLAM:
ALP

– I was asked a question about this matter earlier. I said then that the Premier of Queensland had not taken the usual action which Premiers have to take to initiate Commonwealth co-operation in alleviating the consequences of natural disasters. The Premier of Queensland later wrote - on 29 November. The matter is being considered urgently in the Treasury at this time. When natural disasters of a major kind occur the Australian Government, upon request, normally joins with the State in which the disaster has taken place in financing schemes for the relief of personal hardship and distress, usually on a $1 for $1 basis. Such relief does not normally cover the cost of restoration of private assets damaged by natural disasters, it being regarded as the individual’s responsibility to provide against such losses by way of insurance. The provision of relief and restoration measures, other than the relief of personal hardship and distress, is primarily the responsibility of State governments. Recognising, however, that the States have somewhat limited financial resources on which they can draw in an emergency, the Australian Government is prepared to assist in financing measures other than relief of personal hardship and distress where the States are involved in substantial expenditure of an abnormal nature. Consultations are going on between the Queensland Government and the Australian Government as to the nature of expenditures in this case and the share which the Australian Government should accept in meeting them.

page 4476

QUESTION

INFLATION

Mr ANTHONY:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Prime Minister. In view of the decisive rebuff at the weekend to his request for constitutional power over prices and incomes, is he now prepared to make more intensive and more extensive use of powers already available to him to contain inflation? Will he use the industrial peace conference as a vehicle for discussing such proposals, including areas involving State co-operation, in the same way as the conference was intended to be used to discuss the exercise of the prices and incomes powers? Finally, does he regard the granting of a $27m holiday pay bonus to public servants as a useful step in containing inflation?

Mr WHITLAM:
ALP

– The Australian Government will continue to combat inflation by implementing policies which are already available to it under legislation of the Parliament, much of it introduced this year. The Government will be able to carry out other functions available to it when the Senate has passed the land commissions legislation and the trade practices legislation and when the two Houses have passed the financial corporations legislation which the Treasurer will be introducing today. The right honourable gentleman also referred to the annual leave loading for Australian Government employees. The right honourable gentleman will know quite well that Australian Government employees can go to the Public Service Arbitrator in this and other matters. There have been applications pending before the Arbitrator for a 17* per cent annual leave loading for, I think, all Australian Government employees. As things stand, there is no way in which the Australian Government can prevent the Arbitrator determining such matters. I do not believe that the right honourable gentleman should say that the Arbitrator should not be able to detemine applications of that character. The law enables such applications to be made. They have been outstanding for several months and the right honourable gentleman should know - whether he objects to it or not, he at least should know - that the principle of an annual leave loading is now widely accepted in industy.

It would be monstrous to deny Australian Government employees an annual leave loading when people doing the same job in private employment have already been granted an annual leave loading through the arbitration process. The Australian Government should not be a tardier or a lousier employer than other employers in Australia. Where people in private employment have certain award conditions, it is reasonable enough that people in the same activities in public employment should seek the same award conditions, and in those circumstances the Public Service Arbitrator should be allowed to do his job. As from 1 January next, under legislation which we propose to introduce in the autumn session next year, it will be possible for Australian Government employees to receive an annual leave loading equivalent to average male weekly earnings in the September quarter prior to their taking their annual leave. In very many cases, this will mean that public servants will receive a much smaller annual leave loading than they would receive under arbitration. Under the arbitration system - the Public Service Arbitrator in this case - a great number of public servants will secure a larger annual leave loading than they will secure under the legislation which the Government proposes to introduce in the autumn session and which will take effect from 1 January. It will be completely open to the Party led by the right honourable gentleman, and the other Opposition parties, to vote against that legislation, if they see fit. But until such legislation comes in, there will be a great number of highly paid public servants who will receive higher annual leave loadings than they would have under this legislation, if the Parliament passes it.

page 4477

QUESTION

PRICES AND INCOMES POWERS

Mr NICHOLLS:
BONYTHON, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Has the Prime Minister received an offer from the Acting Premier of South Australia referring to the Australian Parliament powers over prices and incomes for a period of 12 months? Further, have any other Premiers made similar offers?

Mr WHITLAM:
ALP

– Some months ago, in the first week of September, the Premiers of the 3 smaller States - the Labor Premiers - did in fact offer to refer to the Australian Parliament the power over prices, either indefinitely or for, say, one year. The offer has been repeated. But the position is, of course, that they do not have a majority in their Legislative Councils and the Liberal Premiers of New South Wales and Victoria, who do have a majority in their Legislative Councils, have not introduced such legislation. There would be an obvious gap in price justification in the smaller States if the goods produced in the larger States were not subject to that process.

page 4477

QUESTION

INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMITTEES

Mr SNEDDEN:

– The Prime Minister will recall that at first he refused to make available to me a list of interdepartmental committees which his Government had established and on which his separate departments were represented, explaining that the time and the expense involved in preparing such a list would be prohibitive. As two of the honourable gentlemen’s colleagues - the Special

Minister of State and the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs - have now informed me in answer to a question on notice that each of their Departments maintains a list of interdepartmental committees in which their Departments participate, will the Prime Minister now allow his two colleagues to make these lists available to me?

Mr WHITLAM:
ALP

– The right honourable gentleman mentions 2 departments which were established this year. The Department of Aboriginal Affairs and the Department of the Special Minister of State were established by this Government. Obviously the time and expense involved in compiling anything about interdepartmental committees established by the Government in the case of those 2 Departments would be minimal, but the fact is that there can be an extraordinary amount of time and money involved in compiling this information. For instance, the Opposition Whip asked a question some months ago concerning commissions and committees of inquiry which the Government had established. That was a perfectly proper question and I do not demur about it in any way at all. It was a useful way in which to collect all the information together; nevertheless, it took 100 hours to compile it. I have no reason to believe that the public servants who compiled it for my answer to the honourable gentleman were inefficient or dilatory about it, but it took 100 hours. If the whole of this information were sought it would take many hundreds of hours.

I find it quite ironic that the right honourable gentleman, who with his colleagues always refused to give this information and used the ground of the time and money involved, should now be seeking this expenditure of time and money. The fact is that long since - many months ago - I gave the right honourable gentleman a list of the interdepartmental committees established by this Government upon which my Department is represented, and any further details that the right honourable gentleman has sought about any particular committee have been fully given as I promised and they have been given as quickly as the information could be collected. I believe the right honourable gentleman has already received answers to every specific question he has asked in this field, but I do not approve the expenditure of time and money involved in generalised grab-all information going back, for instance, before this Government.

page 4478

QUESTION

HEALTH CENTRES

Mr COATES:
DENISON, TASMANIA

– I wish to ask a question of the Minister for Health in connection with his responsibility for health centres such as the one in the Canberra suburb of Melba. Is it a fact that those who are implacably opposed to the concept of health centres staffed by medical practitioners paid on a salaried basis include the Opposition parties? Can the Minister say whether those who are willing and satisfied clients of salaried medical services include members of the Opposition in this House?

Dr EVERINGHAM:
ALP

– There has been considerable inconsistency in the attitude of the Opposition parties to the use of salaried medical officers. In Queensland of course, as the House will be aware, salaried medical officers in hospitals who provide out-patient services as well as in-patient services have been approved in principle by both of the Parties that are in Opposition in this House. Until they approved the principle of making these doctors available to all comers without means tests and free of charge at the point of service they were unable to attain the treasury bench in Queensland. Ever since they have asserted this principle and have promised at every election that they would not reverse it, they have maintained power, albeit on a minority vote, in the Queensland Parliament. When the principle of using salaried doctors for community health centres was raised with the States following the setting up of the Interim Committee on Hospitals and Health Services, the initial reaction of the Minister for Health in Queensland was of course that the Queensland Government had a different ideology and philosophy in these matters from the Federal Parliament and would not be interested in the use of salaried doctors in these centres. I understand that in the event, having looked at the availability of doctors for some of the areas with a health care scarcity, for which the scheme gives preference, the Queensland Government is reconsidering this attitude.

As far as the advisers of governments go, in Victoria for example the advisers from the Hospitals and Charities Commission have agreed quite amicably with the Sax Commission that it is necessary to have salaried doctors in some areas where the community requests this, where it is difficult for private doctors to maintain a practice and where the local doctors themselves have asked for the appointments to be made on a salaried basis. This occurred in 3 centres in Victoria. I feel sure that this type of practical experience will teach members of the Opposition that there is a place for salaried service in community centres. In fact, when the requirements arose this year for members of this Parliament to produce medical evidence of their fitness for the superannuation scheme, the first representations I had requesting me to make appointments at the centre at Melba, which has salaried doctors, came from members of the Opposition, and they expressed themselves as well content with the service that they received from those doctors.

page 4479

QUESTION

POLITICAL AFFILIATION OF BARRISTERS

Mr LYNCH:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA

– Is the Prime Minister aware that the Deputy Crown Solicitor in at least one State has sought from the clerks of barristers the names of those counsel who are members of or sympathetic to the Australian Labor Party? Why should the Deputy Crown Solicitor be concerned with the barristers’ politics? Is he acting on advice from the AttorneyGeneral? Does the Government prefer Labor Party supporters in the briefing of counsel and for future judicial appointments? If not, why has the Deputy Crown Solicitor sought this information?

Mr WHITLAM:
ALP

– The only judicial appointment I can recollect was a member of the Liberal Party in the Legislative Council of New South Wales who has become the second judge in bankruptcy. I know nothing about the matter which is raised in the honourable gentleman’s question. Let him write to me giving details and I will write back to him. The general principle, of course, is that we want the Australian Government’s attitude to be expressed in court by the most competent people, irrespective of their politics. I myself have never had any reason to doubt that barristers appearing in court do a proper job for their clients, irrespective of their own politics or their clients’ politics.

page 4479

QUESTION

DEVALUATION COMPENSATION FOR IRON ORE PRODUCERS

Mr OLLEY:
HUME, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Can the Minister for Minerals and Energy inform the House as to the position of iron ore producers obtaining compensation from the Japanese steel industry following the devaluation of the United States dollar earlier this year?

Mr CONNOR:
ALP

– The position is briefly that, in respect of the adjustments that were negotiated for iron ore exports to Japan, those relating to exports since July of this year have been paid. By reason of problems arising from administrative law within Japan it has not been possible to pay the early amounts. An amount of some $ 17.5m is involved and the liability is spread over most of the major exporters. I am indebted at the same time to the co-operation of the Ambassador for Japan in arranging for a satisfactory solution of this problem. I understand that the payments probably will be finalised early next month.

page 4479

QUESTION

MILK: SCHOOL CHILDREN

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

– My question is supplementary to that asked earlier by the honourable member for Lyne and is also directed to the Minister for Health. Will the Minister inform the House what criteria were adopted by the Government in reaching the decision he announced this morning that the Government would not provide even one drop of milk to needy school children from 1 January next, despite the provision made in the Budget for this purpose? Can the Minister do better than unfairly blame State governments? Does this mean that he now believes that no health disabilities exist among remotely located school children and particularly Aboriginals in Australia?

Dr EVERINGHAM:
ALP

– The criteria were mentioned in my previous answer. We require specific evidence of need. It is not true that we deny anything to needy children, but it is true that needy children have not been identified. In the expert information that has come before me there have been at least 2 studies which indicate that the consumption of milk by children of school age has not increased under the school milk scheme; in fact, there has been overall a slight reduction which may not be statistically significant. The average consumption of milk has not increased. Secondly, there are at least 2 studies which indicate that the intake of milk is greater on average among low income families than among high income families.

Mr Anthony:

– What is wrong with that?

Dr EVERINGHAM:

– I do not say there is anything wrong with that. The interjection suggested that my stand is that the people on lower incomes should drink less milk. On the contrary, I think that the parents show great wisdom in getting milk as a readily available component of diet that is given to their children rather than spending on something else which may be of very much less value nutritionally. When the school milk scheme was introduced there was evidence that among the Australian community there were significant percentages of children with deficiencies in protein and calcium intake. The evidence today is that this is not so except in those families who are literally starving, who are so poverty stricken that they cannot get even adequate calories.

In view of the sorts of deprivation that are evident in the more deprived families in the community, we believe that the $12m spent on the scheme last year, which would increase every year, is far better spent on the sorts of benefits that have been brought forward under our social security policy to help low income families and to enable them to choose their priorities for nutrition. The evidence is that where this decision is taken out of the hands of the parents, and where the child is given no option except to take free school milk, in many cases the child refuses it. This is particularly the case among one group that some interjectors have mentioned - Aboriginals. Large percentages of Aboriginal children are constitutionally affected by cows’ milk; it literally makes them sick, and this is not an appropriate remedy in all cases. We are looking at the problem of Aboriginal nutrition, as we are looking at problems of nutrition of all deprived people in Australia. We believe that there are more appropriate solutions. However, if specific areas of need are brought to our notice by the States they will be attended to, as has been indicated in the Budget proposals on the school milk scheme.

page 4480

QUESTION

NOMAD AIRCRAFT

Mr KERIN:
MACARTHUR, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the Minister for Supply a question concerning the Nomad aircraft project. Will the Minister inform the House on the likelihood of sales and future construction of Nomad aircraft in Australia? What overseas interest is currently being expressed in the aircraft? What are the possibilities of sales or licensed construction in overseas countries?

Mr ENDERBY:
Minister for Secondary Industry · ALP

– A great deal of enthusiastic interest has been shown in this project. The Government has committed itself to the manufacture of 70 Nomad aircraft, 20 of which are, of course, already committed. There have been one or two difficulties following the unfortunate accident that occurred with one of the 2 prototypes that were built originally. Certain re-design work associated with the undercarriage has taken place and this will improve the performance of the aircraft by way of a general lightening of its overall load. The general answer to the question is that the first prototype will be flying again in, I hope, February 1974 and it is hoped that the first completed Nomad will come off the line in about May. It has already been accepted by Mr Brabham. It is hoped that in 1975 these aircraft will be coming off the line at the rate of about four a month. The sales organisation requires that distributors be selected throughout the world. Two have been selected for this part of the world. They are Nationwide Air Services Pty Ltd, I think, and Hawker de Havilland of Australia Pty Ltd. Others have to be selected. Some of the inquiries in respect of this aircraft relate to the licensing of manufacture overseas and other inquiries direct attention to the problem of offset work being done overseas. Both of these aspects are being investigated and studied but. of course, they must be seen in the context that we wish to exercise the manufacturing capacity in Australia so far as is possible.

page 4480

QUESTION

PROPOSED GALSTON AIRPORT

Mr EDWARDS:
BEROWRA, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I address a question to the Minister for Transport. I preface my question by noting that the petition lodged by me today protesting at the proposed siting of a second Sydney airport at Galston contained some 6,000 signatures which were not by any means all from that area. I ask: In respect of the report of the CommonwealthState committee on the siting of the airport, which the Minister with strong protestations of his own and his Government’s commitment to open government undertook on 29 August last to table, will he table that report before the House rises?

Mr CHARLES JONES:
Minister for Transport · NEWCASTLE, VICTORIA · ALP

– Yes.

page 4480

NUCLEAR TESTS CASE

Mr WHITLAM:
Prime Minister · Werriwa · ALP

– For the information of honourable members, I present papers concerning the nuclear tests case between Australia and France before the International Court of Justice. Volume 1 concerns the application instituting proceedings; Volume 2 concerns the request for interim measures of protection; and Volume 3 concerns the application by Fiji to intervene, preliminary stage.

page 4481

HUMAN RIGHTS

Mr WHITLAM:
Prime Minister · Werriwa · ALP

– For the information of honourable members I present a statement on the Government’s actions and attitudes on human rights which I made yesterday on the occasion of the twenty-fifth anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

page 4481

AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL AIRLINES COMMISSION

Mr CHARLES JONES:
NewcastleMinister for Transport · ALP

– Pursuant to section 40 of the Australian National Airlines Act 1945-1972 I present the twenty-eighth annual report of the Australian National Airlines Commission for the year ended 30 June 1973, together with financial statements and the report of the Auditor-General on those statements.

page 4481

AIRLINES AGREEMENT

Mr CHARLES JONES:
Minis ter for Transport · Newcastle · ALP

– Pursuant to clause 11 of the 1972 Airlines Agreement, Ansett Transport Industries Ltd has submitted to me financial information in respect of that part of the company and its subsidiaries relating to the operation of air services during the year ended 30 June 1973. This financial information has been compiled from the audited accounts of the company and has been certified as to correctness by 2 directors.

page 4481

GOOD NEIGHBOUR COUNCIL

Mr GRASSBY:
Minister for Im migration · Riverina · ALP

– For the information of honourable members, I present the report on Good Neighbour Council participation in the observance of Australia Day 1973.

page 4481

CUSTOMS BILL 1973

Assent reported.

page 4481

BILLS RETURNED FROM THE SENATE

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

Payroll Tax Assessment Bill 1973.

States Grants (Advanced Education Bill) (No. 2) 1973.

States Grants (Advanced Education) Bill (No. 3) 1973.

States Grants (Advanced Education) Bill (No. 4) 1973.

States Grants (Universities) Bill (No. 3) 1973.

Commission on Advanced Education Bill 1973.

Income Tax Assessment Bill (No. 4) 1973.

Income Tax Assessment Bill (No. 5) 1973.

Income Tax Bill 1973.

Income Tax Assessment (Non-resident Dividends and Interest) 1973.

States Grants (Aboriginal Advancement) Bill (No. 2) 1973.

Airlines Agreements Bill 1973.

Air Navigation (Charges) Bill 1973.

page 4481

QUESTION

COMMITTEE OF PRIVILEGES

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

That during consideration of the matter referred to the Committee of Privileges on 6 December, Mr Garland be discharged from attendance on the Committee and Mr Viner be appointed to serve in his place.

Mr DALY:
Minister for Services and Property and Leader of the House · Grayndler · ALP

– by leave - I move:

That the Committee of Privileges when considering the matter referred to it on 6 December, have power to send for persons, papers and records.

The Committee, when undertaking its present inquiry, may wish to have the power granted by the motion, and in accordance with practice the motion is proposed for the concurrence of the House.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 4481

LEAVE OF ABSENCE

Motion (by Mr Daly) agreed to:

That leave of absence for one month be given to the honourable member for Prospect on the grounds of public business overseas.

page 4481

INFLATION

Discussion of Matter of Public Importance

Mr SPEAKER:

– Ihave received a letter from the right honourable the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Snedden) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:

The need for the Government to now acknowledge that it must adopt positive policies to halt inflation and should announce its proposals to obtain support from the States and the public.

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 SNEDDEN:
Leader of the Opposition · Bruce

– The terms of my letter were:

The need for the Government to now acknowledge that it must adopt positive policies to halt inflation and should announce its proposals to obtain support from the States and the public.

There can be no doubt whatever that the greatest economic problem that we have in Australia today is inflation. The referendum result on Saturday disclosed very good common sense on the part of the Australian people. They identified the nature of the problem and also the remedy of the problem. The remedy of the problem is in the terms contained in my letter to you, Mr Speaker. In this inflationary situation the Government asked for greater powers. We proposed positive policies, and there can be no doubt that the Australian people decided that we should get on with the job by adopting positive policies. There is no point in the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) or his Government saying: ‘We cannot do anything about inflation because you would not give us the powers’. That is the attitude of a small spoilt boy who, being given out in a cricket match, takes his bat home. Nobody will be prepared to put up with that situation. The Government now has the task of getting on with the job.

There are plenty of powers which the Government can exercise. It has the clear responsibility for economic leadership in Australia. The sooner it gets on with that job, the better it will be for the Australian people. We have already had months and months of procrastination with the Government taking no real steps against inflation but constantly looking to the future and saying: ‘If you will only give us the power’. Well, the Government has not been given the power. Months have been wasted. Let us not waste any more months. Let us get on with the job because, if something is not done about inflation very soon, the damage that Australia will suffer will be so great that it will take a very long time before we can recover from it.

It is interesting to remember a comment made by the Prime Minister on Thursday last. When I talked about a short term freeze as a circuit breaker, he said that politicians who did that might get electrocuted. I know who was electrocuted last Saturday and it was not that attitude that argued for positive policies. Before the referendum, in Hobart the Prime Minister when questioned as to what he would do if the referendum seeking these powers failed, said .that the Government would need to use the existing powers more effectively. Those words were spoken a couple of weeks ago. They were accurate words. That is what we now ask: We ask that the existing powers be used more effectively.

We want the policy set out so that the Australian people - the States and the consumers - can know what it is. This Government now must use those powers as they have been used by previous governments. In the decade of the fifties and the decade of the sixties, Australia had an annual average inflation rate of 3 per cent, and it had full employment because unemployment was, on the average, just under 1.5 per cent in those 2 decades. We had full employment and we had tolerable inflation. Of course, everybody would want to get rid of inflation totally. This is not realistic. What we have to achieve is tolerable inflation. If we do not achieve tolerable inflation, we will have immense trouble.

The sorts of troubles that inflation brings are these: It completely erodes the savings of people, whether those savings have been lifetime savings, the savings of half a working life or the savings of people who are just on the threshold of their working life. In the latter case I speak -of the time when people are looking for a house and saving money to that end. They find that as fast as they save their money, inflation overtakes its value and reduces its purchasing power; at the same time, they must also face the problem of the value of land increasing and the cost of building rising also. According to some figures published in the Press today the cost of constructing a house valued at $15,000 has risen by $1,500 this year.

Young people cannot bear the effects of inflation. Inflation will have immense economic and, more importantly perhaps, immense social consequences for the family unit and for the peace and happiness of the young family. What inflation does is to relocate capriciously power in the work force. If a person is a member of a powerful union which by its actions can pull out trains, pull out trams, pull out a means of supplying power, pull out bread baking or, specifically, the Transport Workers’ Union pulling out those who supply fuel, or if one is a member of any of the other powerful trade union organisations in our community, that person can protect himself against inflation. He can do so by creating more inflation, by demanding bigger wage increases and spreading the cost of those increases across the community. That is what power is in an inflationary situation. But if one is an ordinary person - say, a clerk, a member of the Public Service, a carpet layer or a curtain hanger; just one of the ordinary people engaged in tertiary industry in Australia - one does not have that power because one is not in the special privileged class of belonging to a powerful trade union.

Mr Whittorn:

– Pensioners.

Mr SNEDDEN:

– I am reminded of pensioners, people on fixed incomes and superannuitants. They are the people who are ravaged by inflation. We must do something about inflation. Inflation is not just a matter of excess demand although that certainly is one of the major causes of it at the moment. There is inflationary expectation with people taking action, which they otherwise would not take, in order to protect themselves in the future. We must look at this matter in terms of rising costs, rising wages and rising prices. The Government says that the inflation has been imported. What an extraordinary concept to put. Can one imagine that all of those busy people in the other countries of the world which, despite their incomes and wages policies have so much inflation, are labelling some of this inflation To Australia with love’ and sending it out here? It is a nonsensical proposition for the Government to say that we are getting inflation from overseas.

Mr Cooke:

– Nobody swallowed that on Saturday.

Mr SNEDDEN:

– No one swallowed that argument, as I am reminded by my friend, the honourable member for Petrie.

Mr Jacobi:

– Of course, he would know!

Mr SNEDDEN:

– He would know a lot better than the honourable member who interjects. He thought that there would be a ‘Yes’ vote. The honourable member for Petrie never thought that. If it was a correct proposition that inflation was imported then the way to handle it would have been to correct the exchange rate. What the Government has done has been to revalue the Australian dollar by 30 per cent in less than a year. If the Government is so good at handling imported inflation - if that is what we have - by revaluing the currency, how is it that we still have inflation running at 14 per cent?

The Government reduced the tariff by 25 per cent, but we still have inflation. What other measures has the Government taken to tackle inflation? It has raised the interest rate by 2i per cent, but it has done nothing else and we still have inflation. When are we to have some action from the Government that does tackle inflation? The rate of inflation has accelerated. It was 4.5 per cent in 1972 before the era of a socialist, centralist Labor Government in Canberra. In the March quarter in annual terms inflation was over 8 per cent. In the June quarter it rose to 13 per cent and in the September quarter it rose to 14 per cent. If we measure the rate of inflation from September of last year to September of this year we find that the rate has gone up by 10.6 per cent. There is no point in the Treasurer’s saying that one cannot multiply by four the rate for one quarter. If we take the figures from September to September - that is over a period of 12 months - we find that the rate of inflation is in double figures and is rising.

One wonders whether the Government wants to get the inflation rate down. The latest wage figures show that average weekly earnings increased by 14 per cent in the last year, and they are now increasing at an annual rate of over 20 per cent. In the Budget the Treasurer realised that income tax collections this year would be SI, 100m more than last year. This was based on an increase of 13 per cent in average weekly earnings. The increase is likely to be much more than that and the consequence is that the Australian people will pay over $400m extra in direct income tax.

Mr Wilson:

– They have a vested interest in it.

Mr SNEDDEN:

– As my colleague the honourable member for Sturt says, the Government has a vested interest. If this massive spending does take place, the more money that the Government collects the shorter will be the surplus. The Treasurer argues that if he increases income tax collections enough by inflation he will have a balanced Budget and he will try to pretend that we do not have inflation at all. The main cause of the increase is undoubtedly the excessive expenditure in the public sector. The Treasurer said in the Budget that this expenditure would be 18.9 per cent greater this year than it was last year. I asked the Treasurer a question about this matter the other day and he said he did not have the monthly figures. I wish that the

Treasurer would ask the Treasury to produce the monthly figures to him because ‘they are produced to everyone else who wants them. I cannot believe that the Treasury is withholding the figures from the Treasurer. Public spending is likely to be 25 per cent higher this year than it was last year. The Australian Labor Party has always said that it believes in cheap interest rates. The fact is that today interest rates are dearer in Australia than they have been since the Battle of Waterloo, and perhaps interest rates will be the Government’s Waterloo. The long term bond rate, which was inherited by the Government at 6 per cent, is now up to 8.5 per cent. The short term bond rate is 8.07 per cent. People cannot borrow from permanent building societies for housing purposes at under 9i per cent, and this rate is likely to be over 10 per cent at any time.

The Government’s policy of squeezing the private sector has caused inflation to rise. If one squeezes the private sector one is taking away the wealth producing capacity of the community. The public sector spends - and do not make any mistake about this - what it collects from the private sector. If the private sector is wealthy and producing it can be taxed and that tax money can be distributed. But if we squeeze the private sector we have not only a shortage of jobs but also a shortage of wealth. This is precisely the course of action in which this Government is engaged. I would like to list the positive policies that the Government should adopt. First of all it should decrease Government spending. The Government has to set priorities- at the moment it has none - in co-operation with the States. When the Government has set its priorities it can then talk to the States, explain those priorities and get the States to co-operate with it in maintaining them in a proper and correct manner. The people are not prepared to pay the costs of continued excessive spending. The present rate of income tax is becoming so repressive that it is taking away all incentive from the Australian people. As a result the government public sector spending will fall. There should be a conference between the Commonwealth, the States, employers, unions and consumers to get consensus and cooperation in a national program. One cannot pass a law which says that there shall be no more inflation; one must go about this problem and formulate positive policies in respect of which the whole of the Australian people will co-operate.

Most of the Premiers of Australia, certainly Sir Robert Askin, Mr Hamer and Mr Bjelke-Petersen, say that they want a conference to discuss co-operation. They have always said that they would be willing to come to any conference. Mr Whitlam had a conference with the Premiers last May but he has not had one since. At the last three meetings of Premiers he would not let them talk about inflation. With the co-operation of all parties the Government could impose a short term freeze not because it would cure inflation but because it would inject a circuit breaker into the inflationary expectation. There must be reduced government spending to allow a reduction in interest rates, which could be reduced now if there were a reduction in government spending. As the effect of that reduced spending was felt interest rates could be reduced further still to the level which is reasonable both to the persons lending money and to the persons borrowing money.

Lower taxes will need to be considered in a restructuring of the income tax scale. Last year in my. Budget I restructured the scale so that there was a 10 per cent tax reduction. I thought that the effect of this move would last 3 or 4 years. The fact is that inflation has steam-rollered my plan and the amount saved last year has already been wasted because of the inflationary spiral that this Government has created. Clearly the higher the income tax the higher the claims of people will be for higher wages and this extra claim for wages is an inflationary pressure on its own. In the long term we need strong trade practices legislation and increased productivity. There must be an examination of the tariff. Such an examination was initiated by the previous Government when it was in office. I believe that we made a correct decision when we decided to take this action. We want short term measures taken now and stated. We want long term measures clearly stated by the Government. But it will do neither. We must have the Government say that there is to be less industrial unrest because that is a major source of dislocation and of shortages of goods. The people have called for positive policies. The Government has a duty to implement them now, and if it does implement them now it will have the support of the Opposition parties, industry, commerce, the consumers and the public. This national issue should be resolved.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Mr CREAN:
Treasurer · Melbourne Ports · ALP

– The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Snedden) as usual was very long on his explanation as to what inflation was and what were its ramifications, but he was astonishingly short on solutions. The honourable gentleman referred to the need for positive policies. I might say that when I was in Opposition I used to criticise the Government for its lack of purposeful public policies. The Leader of the Opposition is now in the luxury seat where he is able to say things without being responsible for doing them. This Government has taken action to stem inflation. I repeat that inflation did not begin at midnight on 2 December. I do not think that 2 December 1972, as the Opposition does, was the only day on which the public did not do the right thing. If one judges always by mathematical results, I think that what Saturday’s results show, and show pretty clearly, is that it is difficult to carry referenda in Australia if either of the major political Parties is against the proposals. What ought to be observed is that, if one take the great metropolitan areas of Sydney and Melbourne which between them contain fairly close to half the population of Australia, there was a majority Yes vote for something to be done about prices.

Mr Corbett:

– How do you work that out?

Mr CREAN:

– Because I believe that over 50 per cent of people in the metropolitan areas voted Yes. This is the only proposition I am trying to assert. Merely to say that because 51 per cent of the people vote one way and 49 per cent vote the other, that is a decisive answer seems to me to beg the situation. I believe that a majority of people in Australia still want something to be done about prices. The public has refused to give the power to Canberra. I think that sometimes there is too much of a tendency to say that things are done in Canberra and to ignore the fact that many of the effects are felt in 2 places principally - that is, Sydney and Melbourne. Victoria and New South Wales between them comprise twothirds of the population of Australia. Prior to the referendum it was asked: ‘Why go to a referendum? Co-operate with the States.’ The States are answerable for a lot of the difficulties regarding prices that have occurred in this country.

Mr Bourchier:

– It is your fault.

Mr CREAN:

– It is always somebody else’s fault. The other day I received a request from the Premier of the honourable member’s State about unemployment in his electorate. It was suggested that, for a sum of $70,000 in a State Budget of over $l,500m, nothing could be done about it unless the State went to Canberra. This is a typical situation.

Mr Bourchier:

– It is because of the meat situation.

Mr CREAN:

– The people in Bendigo are laid off work because of the situation in the meat industry. After lall, food prices, and particularly the price of meat, have been the main factor responsible for the aggravation of inflation in Australia in the last 2 quarters, as shown in the consumer price index. I think there is plenty of room for examination of what accounts for the difference between the price off the hoof and the price in the mouth.

Mr Cooke:

– The workers in the meat works.

Mr CREAN:

– The honourable member says that the workers in the meat industry are responsible. The fanners are receiving some higher prices than before. The retail butcher says that he is receiving no greater margin than before. What about the people in between? Is that not something that the States could have done if they had wanted to? What about the price of land? The Leader of the Opposition referred to the price of a house having gone up. I suppose he meant the price of a house plus land. Why should something not be done about the price of land? As has been said over and over again, one cannot take land across from Albury to Wodonga or vice versa. It is entirely within the jurisdiction of the States to do something about it, but they have done nothing whatever about it.

Recently I read the annual report of the consumer protection body in Victoria. I suppose that is the last one will hear about that body for another 12 months. The report referred to some company in the metropolitan area that services television sets and radios. Its name has stunk for years. All such firms do is form new sorts of companies and trade in much the same fashion as before. Honourable members opposite cannot tell me that the States could not do something under company law or business registration in matters such as that. Surely, the people who feel most and complain most about prices in Australia are the housewives, and they have every reason to do so. What about the unscrupulous sale of “specials’ every weekend when nobody knows what the price was the week before in relation to the quantity in the so-called ‘special’ packet? Years ago in Victoria we had a document dealing with deceptive packaging and so on, but what has been done to abate the effects?

It is easy to crow after last Saturday. I suppose it is a bit unpleasant to have to eat crow after last Saturday. But at least honourable members should acknowledge that in this country there is a firm opinion that governments - not this Government only - in collaboration can do something about this problem. I suggest it is time we began to do it. As I said, the right honourable gentleman was terribly long on his explanations but dramatically short on his solutions. He is not alone in that. It is easy enough to be an expositer of the effects of inflation. I would be the first to concede the difficulties of doing anything dramatic about it. I suppose the Opposition could have introduced this same matter of public importance this morning with slightly different terms had the referendum been carried. At least I tried to indicate during the course of the compaign that if the referendum were carried one would not expect on 10 December, 2 days after, that all prices would miraculously begin to fall. Certainly now that the referendum has not been carried we have to come back to the fundamentals of the situation. Inflation is not a simple problem. It is a complexity of forces. But to suggest that inflation in Australia is due to excessive Federal spending is to my mind almost a travesty of the situation.

Mr Staley:

– Has it nothing to do with it?

Mr CREAN:

– It has something to do with it, precisely, but not everything to do with it. Those who suggest that there ought to be a reduction in Government spending at least ought to indicate where they think it ought to be reduced. The right honourable gentleman asked me a question recently about whether I knew whether, on present indications, the outcome of the Budget was likely to be different from what was forecast. I said that I could not indicate that, nor could he have done so at the same time last year. Today I will be circulating the usual monthly round-up of statistics for the interest of honourable members. The figures show that in the 5 months Australian Government spending was approximitely 14 per cent higher in current prices than in the corresponding period last year. In the Budget we budgeted for a 20 per cent increase in Government expenditure over the previous year, and I indicated that almost half of the increase was the effect of inflation on the Government.

Honourable members opposite would have had the same effects themselves. Do they really believe that if they had been the Government - they have criticised every step that has been taken by this Government to do something about inflation - the rate would have been less?

Mr Corbett:

– It was for almost 23 years.

Mr CREAN:

– It is easy to say that it would have been, because honourable members opposite aTe not here to do it. This, of course, is always the luxury of an Opposition without responsibility. I believe that there has been irresponsible Opposition in this country. The Leader of the Opposition referred to the need to strengthen legislation on restrictive trade practices. What is stopping the implementation of that legislation in Australia except members of the Opposition Parties in another place in combination with people who have no representation whatever in the House of Represent.tatives? The right honourable gentleman said: Do something about tariffs’. We have done something about tariffs.

Mr Cooke:

– Why not strengthen the present Act?

Mr CREAN:

– The newcomer at the back will not acknowledge that had there not been the revaluation of the currency and a variation in tariffs, imports would have been even higher in price than they are now.

Mr Corbett:

– God help us!

Mr CREAN:

– Exactly. I think occasionally the honourable member should seek there, rather than in some of the nostrums that are propounded in this place. Honourable members opposite should acknowledge now what is going to happen in the next few months in relation to international trade due to the effects of the oil problem, which was referred to this morning by my colleague the Minister for Minerals and Energy (Mr Connor). People will be able to produce more wool, wheat and sugar, but will they have ships to take it away and will the freight costs be the same? These are the sorts of serious problems facing Australia. Whose fault will it be if the freight rates increase? Would honourable members opposite blame the Government for that? Would things not have been the same if they had been in government, given the same sort of circumstances?

The Leader of the Opposition mentioned the Premiers being willing to co-operate with the Commonwealth. I can remember that when I first came into this House back in 1951, when the House was discussing price control, it was said: ‘The Federal Government cannot do it; it does not have the constitutional power’. If the Commonwealth did not have the constitutional power and presumably the States did, the States also have done precious little about the problem. I believe, as the Prime Minister has said, that national problems demand national solutions. Having been denied the authority to take action in one way, we will have to take what the economists sometimes describe as the ‘theory of the second best’. I am sure my colleague at the table, the honourable member for Berowra (Mr Edwards), will understand. We will now have to use the methods of the second best and endeavour to achieve co-operation between the States and the Commonwealth in this matter. This is no easy task. My colleague the Minister for Urban and Regional Development (Mr Uren) wants to do great things in relation to decentralisation and land prices. This requires the co-operation of the States. But it is a very slow business indeed to achieve this co-operation. Honourable gentlemen on the other side should have some influence upon the Liberal Premiers of New South Wales and Victoria, and, I repeat, two-thirds of the population of Australia are contained in those States and nearly half Australia’s population is contained in the great metropolises of Sydney and Melbourne. I assure those honourable gentlemen opposite that if they can persuade them to do something systematically, we would be more than willing to go more than half way to bring about that common solution to what I agree with the Leader of the Opposition is at the moment the greatest single problem facing Australia, namely, the effects of inflation, which causes distortion and inequity. There are a great many drop-outs in the system and it is the responsibility of the Government, to do justice at least and to try to bring equity to those who are the drop-outs, such as the pensioners, the people on fixed incomes and so on.

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

– The matter of public importance raised by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Snedden) is perhaps one of the most significant subjects to come before this chamber in this session. This is because last Saturday the people of Australia gave their decision on the proposals of the Government for the management of the economy and for the procedures to deal with inflation. It is quite remarkable to find the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) failing to respond on behalf of the Government in this matter. The Leader of the Opposition quite properly has raised this issue at the earliest possible moment following Saturday’s decision and yet the Prime Minister has completely ignored the issue and the House and has handed over to the Treasurer (Mr Crean) the responsibility of providing an answer. What a lamentable answer we have been given. It was no answer at all. In fact, in a very grudging way, the Treasurer said: ‘Well, we will now have to do second best’. No proposals or alternatives have been put forward. The Australian Government went to the people with a referendum which it cost $750,000 to conduct.

Mr Cooke:

– It cost $3m.

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

– My friend corrects me; it cost S3m to conduct. The Government has come into this chamber on the first sitting day of the House following that decision with no alternative proposals whatever. In fact, there has been no policy statement or recognition by the Government of the decision of the Australian people.

I believe therefore that it was timely for the Leader of the Opposition to raise this matter as being a most significant matter of public importance at this juncture. As a nation we are facing an economic calamity. As a nation we are being controlled by a government that is not prepared to face up to its responsibilities. In fact, the Government has now completely jettisoned its responsibilities. What a parsimonious statement it was for the Treasurer to say that, really, the majority of Australians did want price control. He arrived at this conclusion by some hypothetical comparison between metropolitan voting and votes cast by the rest of the community. What hypocrisy it is still to be saying on Tuesday morning that the people of Australia want price control. Of course, this is not strange at all if one makes a very brief study of the form both inside and outside this Parliament since 2 December last. We find the Treasurer repeating over and over again that inflation did not start on 2 December. Yet he denies the facts as they are now so clearly to be seen. The inflationary spiral has risen from 9 per cent to 14 per cent since 2 December. There has been massive government spending, a takeover by the Government of the States’ responsibilities and near socialisation being pushed along at a rapid rate and yet the Treasurer says: ‘Inflation did not begin on 2 December’. What complete rot.

Anybody who cares to look at the economic problems of Australia today can see very clearly that the monetary and fiscal approach of the Government has been a disaster in a little more than 9 months. In fact, if we concede that the first 3 months following the change of government represented a period of transition and then consider the 9 months which have elapsed since that time we will see that not one action has been taken by this Government to deal with the greatest problem facing the nation - that of a rapid inflationary spiral. Yet the Treasurer comes along here and says: ‘Oh, but it is caused by the events outside the country’. Of course we know there has been a world inflationary spiral, but that was all the more reason for a firm rein to be applied by the Treasury, the Government and those in the corridors of power who have completely negated that responsibility and failed miserably to take any of the positive actions which it was within their power to take.

We find that in this situation, politics have gone before policy. Politics have dominated the entire thinking of the Government. No consideration has been given to the facts at hand and no judgment has been exercised. There has been merely an ad hoc approach to the economy dictated by union pressures, by a philosophy of socialism and by a power drunk government which cannot see where it is going. What this is doing to the Australian nation, not just for this year or for the next year but probably for a period of 5 years, is indeed devastating. Not only do we already find the cost spiral damaging the basis of our commercial status as a nation, our productive capacity and our capacity to be participants on the world market but also, in its wake, we find that it is creating dire shortages of essential materials. These shortages are occurring not only in the building industry but are now creeping into every part of the consumer sector of commerce and industry. What is the Government doing about it? Not a thing. It has not mentioned it this morning. It is not even prepared to face up to its responsibilities. We have had a Budget which was expansionary. Amongst other things it added some S340m in social welfare. We do not quibble about that. But what about the other actions, such as the excessive expenditure in the public sector at a time when there was over-demand for resources, available goods and manpower? Yet we find this excessive expenditure day by day being accentuated.

Mr Whan:

– Where would you cut it back?

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

– I would remind the honourable member for Eden-Monaro that the Budget also cut back expenditure on primary industries by $150m. We learnt today that free milk for school children, costing $10m, is cut out completely but on the very same day a holiday handout of $27m is offered to a section - a privileged section - of the community. What sort of judgment is this? What sort of responsibility do we see coming from either the front bench or the back bench on the Government side? I think the very utterances by the honourable member for Eden-Monaro clearly demonstrate this lack of responsibility. The Treasurer in his comments blamed the States. What an expression that is to come from a responsible Treasurer - to say that the States have failed in their responsibilities at this time. He knows perfectly well that the States have been made the mere serfs of this Government. They have been told that there will not be any more Premiers Conferences unless the Prime Minister really wants one. They have been told that henceforth Canberra will decide how finance is to be allocated. Canberra will make the judgments and not the States in just about every area in which this Government is able to perpetrate its socialist, centralist policy - a policy which undoubtedly impinges very heavily upon the capacity of the States to exercise even the limited power that they have unless there is some overall plan agreed to by the Commonwealth and the States in a proper and constructive way. That proper and constructive way is through an effective Premiers Conference.

Let us recall that just prior to the Constitutional Convention the Prime Minister had a tea party at Kirribilli House and he told the Premiers on about 5 minutes notice that he wanted to talk to them. The Premier of Queensland was wise enough to say that he would not go in those circumstances and he stayed away. He showed good sense. But what he and other Premiers have said loud and clear is that if proper arrangements are made and a conference is convened here in Canberra they will co-operate. They made this offer before the referendum and as I understand it they have made it again since the referendum. It is open to the Prime Minister and the Government to take the necessary action to get a cohesive approach that will indeed deal with some of the essential problems with which we are faced today. But the attitude of the Treasurer frightens me and I am sure it will frighten every Australian who has heard what the Treasurer has said on behalf of the Government in this House this morning.

We find the Government again running away from the responsibility of dealing with those things which are within its power to deal with. Are we to have a continuation of its wild, spending spree? Are we to have a continuation of a policy that cuts right at the basis of an effective economy? And if so does this mean that we can see an even greater inflationary spiral occurring next year? I fear that this is what has been put to us by the Treasurer.

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

Mr WILLIS:
Gellibrand

– In the year or so that I have been a member of this Parliament I have never ceased to be amazed by the sheer affrontery of the Opposition in continuing to berate land lecture this Government on its economic policies and presuming to lecture it on how to deal with inflation. The fact is that when the Opposition was in Government it had only 2 ways of ever combating inflation. One of those was periodically to put 100,000 people out of work. It did that in various periods over the 23 years that it was in office. Secondly, it constantly blamed wage earners for inflation and did all it could to keep wage increases down. In fact the previous Government did not take the kind of action which this Government has taken and which it should have taken in the last couple of years if it was really to indulge in a comprehensive anti-inflationary policy. When it left office the economy was virtually out of control.

It is true that inflation in the December quarter was about four and a half per cent on an annual basis. The only way in which the previous Government could achieve that rate was to have a monthly average rate of unemployment for 1972 of 103,000 people. All this was brought about by the Budget policy mainly of 1971. At the end of il971 and throughout 1972 the previous Government consistently refused to take the one action which the Treasury was telling it to take, which its economic advisers were telling it to take and which the Australian Country Party was stopping it from taking; and that action was to revalue the currency. The Opposition knows that but it just will not admit the obvious facts of the situation. Because it did not revalue the currency the fact is that the money supply increased at an enormous rate in 1972. During 1972 capital inflow came at an unprecedented rate and the money supply increased accordingly. I have set out all the figures in the speech that I gave in this House on 29 November.

The increase in the money supply in the last half of 1972 was 17 per cent - in 6 months - and this compared with an increase in the money supply on an average for the past few years of about 9 per cent. Of course the reason that was happening was, as Dr Porter had shown, the failure of the Government at that time to revalue the currency. I do not have time to go into all the mechanics of the way in which that operated but it has been well and truly set out by Dr Porter in articles which he has produced recently.

Mr Corbett:

– The results count. We got them.

Mr WILLIS:

– The results, my friend, are that the money supply increased enormously as a result of the previous Government’s failure to revalue the currency, and that Government set off an inflationary time bomb which was timed to go off this year. It did not have the guts to do it last year nor did it have the nous to do it and the fact that it did not do it has reflected back on the Government this year in an inflationary boom which we have done our best to offset. Within 3 weeks of taking office this Government revalued the currency and that was an important thing to have done and it should have been done in December of 1971. On this aspect I would like to quote from comments made by Dr Porter in a paper delivered at the Winter School of the Economic Society in Sydney on 9 November 1973. He said:

As an example of the imported inflation experience consider Australia in 1971-72. The Australian dollar was becoming very strong by 1971 as evidenced by the sharp rise in our level of reserves. Part of this rise can be attributed to speculation on the Australian dollar. In a study to be published shortly I have estimated that about $1,7 50m of speculative inflow occurred in the calendar years 1971 and 1972. 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, since domestic liquidity would not have been augmented by massive amounts of speculative funds. There would not have been the need to raise interest rates in 1973 had earlier revaluation prevented the build-up of inflationary pressure.

I would ask the honourable member for Berowra (Mr Edwards) to take particular note of that and for his benefit I will read the last sentence again:

There would not have been the need to raise interest rates in 1973 had earlier revaluation prevented the build-up of inflationary pressure.

There we have the opinion of Dr Porter based on all his findings, that if the previous Government had had the guts to revalue in 1971 it could have prevented much of the inflation that has occurred this year. This is not to say that the inflation is entirely due to the increases in the money supply. It would have occurred to some extent anyway through the world commodity boom. Of course we know of the tremendous impact that inflation has had on this country, for instance through increased meat prices, but on top of that imported inflation through the direct increase in prices from the commodity boom we have had the effect of the previous Government’s failure to revalue. Dr Porter has also shown that if this Government had not taken the action which it took by revaluing - virtually 3 times - there would have been a colossal increase in the money supply in the first 6 months of this year. He has shown that in fact it would have gone up by 48 per cent in the first 6 months of this year if the previous Government’s policies had continued to operate in that period.

Mr Cooke:

– Humbug.

Mr WILLIS:

– The honourable member can say that it is humbug, but I think his economic knowledge could be written on the back of a postage stamp and I do not think he would compare with Dr Porter. Dr Porter’s detailed studies and economists from the International Monetary Fund and the Reserve Bank of Australia have shown that in 6 months it would have increased at an annual rate of 48 per cent. There is no doubt that the previous Government should be totally condemned for the reckless economic policies it pursued in the last 6 months of last year - in fact, the whole of last year - setting off an inflationary time bomb and now having the absolute effrontery continually to berate this Government for an inflation for which it is itself basically to blame.

The other aspect I would like to mention quickly is the sheer hopelessness of the economic arguments of members of the Opposition. They have absolutely no alternative anti-inflationary policy. The Leader of the

Opposition (Mr Snedden) has said today: ‘Cut income tax’. That is a nice way to reduce the inflation! Of course, the whole time that the Opposition was in Government, for 23 years, it continually increased income tax as a proportion of income. Income tax as a proportion of income increased year by year. There may have been one or two years when it did not happen but basically the trend was there. Income tax increased colossally, and now the Opposition is berating the Government for the same thing happening in 1 year of the present Government’s term of office. It is absurd. To say that to cut income tax would be an antiinflationary device is ridiculous. The same thing goes for increases in interest rates. The Leader of the Opposition wants to reduce interest rates as a means of combating inflation. So does the Deputy Leader of the Australian Country Party (Mr Sinclair). What absurd economics; what ridiculous economics. These people should start writing new text books. If this is antiinflationary policy, it means that all the economists in the world are wrong at the moment. They are quite absurd on economic policies.

Members of the Opposition also want to cut government expenditure, but they do not say where. They do not want to cut expenditure on education. They support the expenditure of every penny in that field. In fact, they want to spend more pennies. They want to spend at least another S5m or $6m on education. In the area of defence they want to spend at least another $200m, because they want to spend at least 3.5 per cent of the gross domestic product on defence. Where do they want to cut government expenditure? They simply will not tell us.

Mr Cooke:

– On the pipeline.

Mr WILLIS:

– The honourable gentleman mentions the pipeline. That is a very interesting example. It costs $100m. The alternative way it was to be financed was by the Australian Gas Light Co. through importing capital from overseas. That would have been much more inflationary than to finance it in the way that this Government is doing it; that is, matching the expenditure with tax revenue. The fact is that to finance a project such as this by increasing the money supply is much more inflationary than by the Government’s spending the money and matching it with increases in tax revenue.

Members of the Opposition have also opposed the Coombs report. An amount of $116m in revenue will come from that in this financial year, but members of the Opposition have opposed most of the measures involved in the Coombs Report. They have virtually no anti-inflationary policy at all. All they can do is say: ‘Cut government expenditure’. They cannot say where. They have all the policies about cutting government revenues and cutting interest rates which will be inflationary, not anti-inflationary. They cannot show us any area where we can sensibly cut government expenditure. The Deputy Leader of the Australian Country Party is talking about cutting the Government’s works program. He does not say where. In fact expenditure on the Government’s works program went up only 10 per cent this year against an average expenditure increase of 17 per cent, so expenditure on works is not an expansionary area at all. Members of the Opposition just do not have any idea. All they can talk about is public servants. The honourable member for Cowper (Mr Ian Robinson) mentioned the Hi per cent loading.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Martin)Order! The honourable member’s time has expired. The discussion is concluded.

page 4491

BANKING BILL (No. 2) 1973

Bill - by leave - presented by Mr Crean, and read a first time.

Second Reading

Mr CREAN:
Treasurer · Melbourne Ports · ALP

– I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of this measure is to place beyond legal doubt the arrangements for taxation screening of applications to the exchange control authorities in relation to transactions involving tax havens. Screening arrangements of this kind were first approved by the previous Government when it last year relaxed the conditions for portfolio investment overseas by Australian residents. Although the fact was not publicised at the time, the relaxation was on terms that approval to a proposed investment would be withheld if it involved tax avoidance or evasion. More recently, and as announced in a statement I made on 25 October 1973, the screening arrangements have been at my direction applied to the whole range of transactions with persons in the New Hebrides. The consequence is that requisite exchange control approval may be withheld if the Reserve Bank does not sight evidence that, in effect, the Commissioner of Taxation is satisfied that the transaction does not in any way involve or assist or would be associated with avoidance or evasion of Australian tax, whether by the applicant or anybody else.

The view has now been expressed in some quarters that there is not adequate legal backing for these arrangements. It is not conceded that there is an absence of legal authority, but the Government feels that in a matter as imporant as this there ought not to be any avoidable uncertainty as to the legal efficacy of the screening procedures. While that is our direct objective in this measure, its submission to the House also serves as another expression of our determination to stamp out tax avoidance practices whenever we are able to do so. Accordingly, this Bill proposes to insert in section 39 of the Banking Act provisions that will be effective from the date on which I announced the taxation screening procedures. The Bill declares that the power of the Reserve Bank over exchange control applications is to be taken as including authority to decline approval if the transaction involves avoidance or evasion of Australian tax. The Bank will not refuse approval of these grounds once la person has obtained the clearance of the Taxation Office.

Honourable members will know from comments that I have made in this House on more than one occasion how I feel about tax havens and the resort that people and companies make to them. I think it is reprehensible that this kind of activity, which strikes at the foundations of organised society, should go on. In the knowledge that all sides of the House share a desire to counter tax haven activity I confidently ask for a speedy passage for this Bill. I mention that work is proceeding on amendments to the taxation law also designed to curb resort to tax haven arrangements. I commend the Bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr Edwards) adjourned.

page 4491

EXPORT INCENTIVE GRANTS - BILL 1973

Bill returned from the Senate with amendments.

Motion (by Mr Crean) agreed to:

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

In Committee

Consideration of Senate’s Amendments -

After clause 2, insert the following new clause : “ 2a. Section 3 of the Principal Act is repealed.”.

In clause 3, after paragraph (b), insert the following paragraph: “ (ba) by inserting in sub-section (1), after the definition of ‘marketing authority’, the following definition: - “meat” means fresh, chilled or frozen flesh or edible offal of bovine animals, sheep, goats or pigs, other than flesh or offal that has been canned, cooked or cured;’

After clause 3, insert the following new clauses: “ 3a. After section 4 of the Principal Act the following section is inserted in Part I: - 4a. (1) Where meat was or is exported from Australia on or after 1 October 1973, the amounts of consideration receivable by any person in respect of the disposal of that meat shall be disregarded for the purposes of this Act.

The amount that would, but for this subsection, be the value of export sales of any person for the base period in relation to the last grant year, or, where applicable, that amount as varied in accordance with section 11, 21 or 22, shall be reduced by an amount equal to three-quarters of the amount or amounts, if any, included in that value by reason of the disposal of any meat.’. “ 3b. Section 1 1 of the Principal Act is amended -

by omitting from sub-sections (2) and (3) the word ‘Where’ and substituting the words Subject to sub-sections (3a) and (3b), where’;

by inserting after sub-section (3) the following sub-sections: - (3a) Where, during the period that commenced on 1 July 1973 and ended on 30 September 1973, a person acquired a business from another person, whether by purchase or otherwise, then, in relation to so much of the amount of the value of export sales for a year of the base period in relation to either of those persons in relation to the last grant year as is attributable to the disposal of meat in the course of that business, sub-section (2) and paragraph (b) of sub-section (3) have effect as if the last grant year comprised only that period. (3b) Where, on or after 1 October 1973, a person acquired or acquires a business from another person, whether by purchase or otherwise, sub-sections (2) and (3) do not apply in relation to so much of the amount of the value of export sales for the base period in relation to either of those persons in relation to the last grant year as is attributable to the disposal of meat.’; and

by omitting from paragraph (a) of sub-section (4) the words ‘ under section 21 ‘ and substituting the words ‘ under section 4a or 21 ‘.”.

‘After clause 6, insert the following new clauses: “ 6a. ‘Section 21 of the Principal Act is amended -

by omitting from sub-section (1) the words and section 11’ and substituting the words and sections 4a and 11’; and

by omitting from sub-section (7) the words of section 11’ and substituting the words ‘of sections 4a and 11 ‘. “ 6b. Section 22 of the Principal Act is amended by omitting from sub-section (1) the words ‘from section 11’ and substituting the words ‘from sections 4a and 11 V.

(5) Clause 11, leave out the clause, insert the following clause: "11.(1) The amendments made by paragraph 3 (ba) and sections 3a, 3b, 6a and 6b apply in relation to grants, and the issue of export certificates, in respect of the grant year that commenced on 1 July 1973. " (2) The amendments made by the remaining provisions of this Act, other than section 2a, apply in relation to grants, and the issue of export certificates, in respect of the grant year that commenced on 1 July 1971 and each succeeding grant year.".
Mr CREAN:
Treasurer · Melbourne Ports · ALP

– I move:

That the amendments be agreed to.

The purpose of the amendments is to give effect to the Government’s decision to exclude exports of fresh, chilled or frozen meat after 30 September 1973 from the scope of the export incentive grants scheme. Under the amendments, consideration receivable in respect of exports of meat after 30 September will not be included in the value of a person’s export sales in determining his entitlement to an export incentive grant. An appropriate adjustment will be made to the value of export sales in the base period against which 1973-74 exports are measured for grant entitlement purposes. I commend the amendments to the House.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Resolution reported; report adopted.

page 4492

NORTHERN TERRITORY SUPREME COURT BILL 1973

Bill received from the Senate, and read a first time.

Second Reading

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

– I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of this Bill is to provide for the appointment of more than one resident judge of the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory. The present position is that the Court consists of one judge, whom I shall call the resident judge, appointed under sub-section (1) of section 7 of the Act, and a number of additional judges, appointed under sub-section (2) of section 7, whose qualification is that they are to be judges of another court created by this Parliament. There are at present 7 additional judges all of whom are Judges of the Commonwealth Industrial Court.

It has become apparent to the Government that the volume of business in the Supreme Court, which sits both in Darwin and in Alice Springs, requires the services of a second resident judge as a matter of urgency. The present system, dependent as it is upon the availability of the additional judges to sit in the Territory from time to time, has proved unsatisfactory and inadequate to cope with the volume of work. The Bill therefore amends section 7 (1) to permit the appointment of more than one resident judge. The Bill as transmitted from the Senate limits the number of judges to three and it will thus be possible to make future appointments from time to time as required.

Clause 6 of the Bill amends section 9 of the principal Act relating to Judges’ salary and allowances so as to delete the reference to a specific sum. This amendment is consequential upon section 13 of the Remuneration and Allowances Act 1973 which fixes Judges’ salaries and allowances notwithstanding anything in any other Act. The remaining amendments made by the Bill are consequential upon the matters I have already mentioned or consist of drafting improvements. I commend the Bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr Edwards) adjourned.

page 4493

LAW REFORM COMMISSION BILL 1973

Bill received from the Serrate, and read a first time.

Second Reading

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

– I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this Bill is to establish a Law Reform Commission, to enable the task of law reform in Australia to ‘be tackled on a national scale. The Government is concerned to see that the system of law under which people live is responsible to the social needs of our time. The rules which govern the relationship of persons with each other and with the Government should reflect current values and philosophies. This concern is reflected in the importance the Government attaches to law reform.

The Bill is also an expression of the Government’s view that, except where local circumstances justify different treatment, people wherever they live in Australia should be subject to the same law. For this reason, many questions of law reform must be dealt with on a national basis. The reform of the laws regarding commercial transactions, defamation and evidence, the codes of procedures before the courts and the criminal law are examples. There is no logical or necessary reason why these laws should vary from one place to another in Australia, as they do, or why a person should be subject to different rules of law simply because he crosses a State or Territory boundary. The situation is offensive in its absurdity.

The existence of differences in the law between the States and Territories means that the rules of private international law, which were intended to regulate legal relationships affected by differences in law between different countries, apply in Australia as though the States and Territories were foreign countries. This is not widely appreciated. Conflict of laws or private international law, as it is sometimes called, consists of those rules of law which are applied to cases involving private individuals where the facts involve more than one State or territorial unit. In most cases this State or territorial unit is a member of the international family of nations. Each State or country has its own rules of private international law enshrined in its own case or legislation or code. In Australia’s case New South Wales, for example, may resolve a particular legal issue in a manner significantly different from that in which a comparable question would be resolved in England, California, France or the State of Victoria. As I have said, for most purposes each Australian State has an interstate as well as an international level. These rules of private international law cannot be removed altogether while separate State jurisdictions remain but their impact can be lessened by promoting uniformity in the law throughout Australia. Uniformity will mean that it does not matter which State law is to govern a contract for the sale of goods. It will mean that a person’s entitlement to workers compensation will not depend on which State he is employed in at the relevant time. It will mean that the right of a person who has been defamed to recover damages will not vary according to the place in which the defamatory matter is published, so that what is published in Sydney in a newspaper with a national circulation may be actionable, but the same story published in the same newspaper in Melbourne may not be actionable.

One could multiply examples of the manner in which differences in the law produce different results according to which State or Territory law is applicable. What I have said should be ample to demonstrate an urgent need to tackle the task of law reform on a national basis. As long ago as 1957 no less an authority than the then Chief Justice of Australia, Sir Owen Dixon, suggested that this Australian Parliament should establish a national law reform body. At the Tenth Legal Convention of the Law Council of Australia held in Melborne that year the Chief Justice said:

Is it not possible to place law reform on an Australia wide basis? Might not there be a Federal Committee for Law Reform? In spite of the absence of constitutional power to enact the reforms as law, it is open to the Federal legislature to authorise the formation of a body for inquiry into law reform. Such a body might prepare and promulgate draft reforms which would merely await adoption.

In all or nearly all matters of private law there is no geographical reason why the law should be different in any part of Australia. Local conditions have nothing to do with it. Is it not unworthy of Australia as a nation to have varying laws affecting the relations between man and man? Is it beyond us to make some attempt to obtain a uniform system of private law in Australia?

The Standing Committee of Attorneys-General has not been conspicuous for its success in promoting law reform on a uniform basis. While it is a very useful instrument for exchanging views between law Ministers, it is clearly not equipped to deal with law reform on a comprehensive and uniform basis. This cannot be achieved unless an expert body, working fulltime on the task and removed from the pressures of day to day politics, is established for this purpose.

Each State as well as the Australian Capital Territory has its own law reform body. The existence of these separate bodies must inevitably cause a duplication and overlapping of effort. The Law Reform Commission would not replace the State bodies, although it will be able to take over the work now done by the Australian Capital Territory Law Reform Commission. The establishment of a national law reform body would provide an agency for the exchange of information between State law reform agencies and with law reform agencies in other countries. I would hope that when the Law Reform Commission is established it would not be bound to English precedent but will have regard to substantial accomplishments in many areas of law reform in other countries and, in particular, in the United States of America.

So far I have referred to the need for laws to be uniform as between the several jurisdictions existing within Australia. There are, however, major areas of law within the competence of the Australian Parliament in respect of which an Australian Law Reform Commission will play an essential role in the development and reform of the law instead of, as in the past, reliance being placed on ad hoc committees without adequate resources for research and the examination of submissions from interest groups. It should not be overlooked that in respect of the Territories of Australia the Australian Parliament has undoubted plenary legislative power, and the Territories are coming to represent an increasingly significant proportion of the Australian population. Within the next 10 years it is expected that the population of the Australian Capital Territory will outstrip that of Tasmania. The population of Darwin is the fastest growing of any Australian city. The Australian Parliament, therefore, has a very direct and substantial interest in reform in the area of private law, quite apart from the question of uniformity of law between the Territories and the States.

The Bill therefore provides that the functions of the Law Reform Commission will include the reform of laws that are within the competence of this Parliament to amend - whether they be laws which operate throughout Australia or Territory laws - and also the consideration of proposals for uniformity between the laws of Territories and the States. Where the recommendations of the Commission cannot be given effect throughout Australia by this Parliament, they can be given effect in the Territories by this Parliament or by the legislatures of those States which see fit to adopt them. I should say that I regard this as a not completely satisfactory solution to this great Australian problem. It is, however, the best that can be produced at this stage given the constitutional limitations and divisions that exist in Australia.

Having explained the broad purpose of the Bill and the role of the proposed Law Reform Commission, there are only one or two features of the Bill to which I need to draw attention at this stage. The functions of the Commission are set out in clause 6. They are to review or consider proposals for the making, consolidation or repeal of laws to which this Act applies, and tq consider proposals for uniformity between laws of the Territories and the States. The expression ‘laws to which this Act applies’ is defined in clause 3. It includes all laws, whether statute law or the rules of common law or of equity, that this Parliament has power to amend or repeal. Thus it includes, for example, laws made by this Parliament and ordinances and other laws in force in a Territory.

In reviewing laws to which this Act applies, the Commission will have in view systematic development and reform of the law, including, in particular the modernisation of the law, the elimination of defects in the law, the simplification of the law, and the adoption of new or more effective methods for the administration of the law and the dispensation of justice. Clause 7 requires the Commission to pay particular regard to the need for preservation of individual rights and liberties as far as practicable when proposals for reform are being developed.

The Commission will exercise these functions in pursuance of references made to it by the Attorney-General and the Bill, in clause 6, recognises that it is open to the Commission to suggest matters that should be referred to it for investigation. Under clause 10 the Commission may make, or be asked by the Attorney-General to make, an interim report, and clause 35 requires the Attorney-General to lay a report by the Commission before each House of Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House from the time of receipt of the report. Clause 9 of the Bill would ensure that the Commission is accountable to the Parliament which creates it.

The composition of the Commission is governed by clause 12, which provides that the Commission is to consist of a chairman and at least 4 other members, each of whom must be either a judge of a federal court or a supreme court of a State or Territory, a practitioner of such a court of at least 5 years standing, an experienced academic lawyer or a person otherwise specially qualified or experienced. The members are appointed by the Governor-General and may be full-time or part-time members. The Chairman must be a full-time member.

Sitting suspended from 1.5 to 2.15 p.m.

Mr ENDERBY:

– The Bill provides in clause 12, sub-clause (8), for a member of the Commission being a legal practitioner of a particular Territory, to be designated by his instrument of appointment as a member in respect of that Territory, and for him to take part in the proceedings of the Commission in respect of such references only as the Chairman determines to be of special significance in relation to that Territory. This will enable lawyers with special experience in the law of a particular Territory to bring the benefit of their experience to the consideration of reforms of the law of that Territory.

Related to this provision is a provision in clause 27 that the Chairman may constitute a division of the Commission consisting of not less than 3 members with all the powers of the Commission for the purpose of a particular reference. When the reference relates to the law of a particular Territory, the member designated a member in respect of that Territory would normally be one of the members constituting the division. Thus it would be possible for 2 divisions of the Commission to be working on 2 different references concurrently - one, perhaps, relating to a limited question of Territory law and the other of wider significance. Or a reference on a topic of importance to the whole of Australia, determined by the Chairman to be of special significance to each Territory, might be dealt with by the Commission as a whole.

Provision is made in clause 23 for the engagement as a consultant to the Commission of any person having qualifications and experience relevant to a particular matter referred to the Commission. The Commission is to be an independent statutory corporation with power, subject to appropriate controls by the Treasurer and the Attorney-General, to submit its own estimates, operate its own bank account and engage its own staff. The provisions relating to the corporate status of the Commission are in clause 11, the appointment of staff in clause 22 and the finances of the Commission in Part V. I commend the Bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr Peacock) adjourned.

page 4495

QUESTION

URGENT LEGISLATION

Suspension of Standing Orders

Mr DALY:
Minister for Services and Property and Leader of the House · Grayndler · ALP

– Mr Speaker, I ask leave of the House to move that in relation to the proceedings on the following Bills, so much of Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the Leader of the House making one declaration of urgency and moving one motion for the allotment of time in respect of all the Bills: The Health Insurance Bill 1973, the Health Insurance Commission Bill 1973, the Hospitals and Health Services Commission Bill 1973, the Petroleum and Minerals Authority Bill 1973 and the Sewerage Agreements Bill 1973.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Is leave granted?

Mr Chipp:

– May I have the indulgence of the House to speak to this proposal, Mr Speaker?

Mr SPEAKER:

-It is most unusual to debate this motion. It is a question of whether the House agrees that leave should be granted. No debate is allowed on it. If the honourable member wants to seek the indulgence of the Chair he can indicate firstly, what he wants to do.

Mr Chipp:

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

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Mr CHIPP:
Hotham

– This motion has been expected. As the Leader of the House (Mr Daly) well knows, the Opposition could make it extraordinarily difficult for the Government. If we refused to grant the Leader of the House leave to move this motion he would have to suspend Standing Orders. Then 4, 5 or 6 divisions would be required in order to get his guillotine motion through on Bills which affect everybody in the nation now living or about to be born. A period of 10 hours will be allowed to debate the health insurance legislation, and I will speak about that later. But 20 or 25 honourable members on this side of the House have done an enormous amount of work on health. They have prepared speeches and they are anxious to make a contribution to this extraordinarily important debate.

If I, being in charge of the passage of this Bill through this chamber on behalf of the Opposition, were to force the Leader of the House to move for the suspension of Standing Orders, to gag that motion and then to go through 6 or 7 divisions, each taking 8 minutes, a period of an hour could be wasted. The Government has the numbers in this chamber. It is determined to guillotine the Health Insurance Bill, as well as several other Bills, through this chamber in a certain time. After consultation with several of my colleagues, I believe that the interests of this Parliament and of honourable members on this side of the House who object strenuously to this monstrous procedure of guillotining one of the most important Bills that has come into this House would be better served if we do not call for divisions in this instance. This will give honourable members on this side of the House an opportunity to make a contribution to this debate. Therefore, in those circumstances, and in those circumstances only, on behalf of the Opposition I raise the strongest possible protest at this outrage and very reluctantly grant leave to the Leader of the House to move his motion.

Mr DALY (Grayndler - Minister for Services and Property and Leader of the House) - I thank the honourable member for Hotham (Mr Chipp) for granting leave, but I cannot say that I agree with the other comments he made. However, I will not discuss them at this stage. I move:

That in relation to the proceedings on the following Bills so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the Leader of the House making one declaration of urgency and moving one motion for the allotment of time in respect of all the Bills: The Health Insurance Bill 1973, the Health Insurance Commission Bill 1973, the Hospitals and Health Services Commission Bill 1973, the Petroleum and Minerals Authority Bill 1973 and the Sewerage Agreements Bill 1973.

I move this motion because, as the honourable member for Hotham has said, these are very urgent and important measures. It is true also that many honourable members on this side of the House wish to speak on these measures. But I point out to him that it is not unusual for the Opposition to have 25 prospective speakers on a measure, because normally when a list of prospective Opposition speakers is requested the name of every honourable member on the other side of the House is listed as a prospective speaker. For instance, a few weeks ago the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Wentworth) was listed as a prospective speaker in every debate, but he was in hospital with the mumps. This shows that the Opposition can easily rig up a list of speakers.

The honourable member for Hotham levelled some very severe charges against the Government a few moments ago. We were prepared to allow a very extensive debate on these measures, but this morning the Opposition saw fit to reduce the time available for debating them by proposing for discussion a matter of public importance which evidently it considered was more important than these Bills. A period of 50 minutes was taken out of the time which was to be allowed for debating these Bills.

I appreciate the need to debate these Bills. I have no desire to extend this debate. But I point out that it is not unusual to propose such a motion in respect of Bills that are considered urgent. For instance, in another place recently this procedure was followed, with the result that Bills providing for the expenditure of $5,068m were passed through the Senate in a very short space of time. The procedure was supported not only by the Australian Labor Party members in that chamber but also by members of the newly formed National Party in that chamber. This procedure was adopted on that occasion in another place where, we are told, the wisdom of the members is great. As I say, those Bills appropriated more than $5,000m. At 4.40 p.m. Senator Murphy moved on behalf of the Government in the Senate that certain Bills be declared urgent, and at 4.43 p.m. they were all dispensed with. The Government was supported in that move by the members of the National Party, which has representatives in this chamber.

This is a formal process in order to dispense with the business of the House. I do not wish to hold up the proceedings. It will be seen, when I announce the proposed times for the consideration of the Bills, that the times are reasonable and fair. I am honest enough to say that no period of time could be provided under Standing Orders to allow every honourable member who desires to speak on these Bills to do so. There are just as many disappointed people sitting behind me on The Government benches as there are sitting opposite. This procedure is being adopted in order that we might be able to get through the business of the House and to allow honourable members the maximum period of time to debate these measures. When this debate concludes tonight, as the honourable member for Hotham said more than 10 hours will have been allowed for the debate, and that is a considerable period of time. When the debate concludes no doubt those honourable members who have the most knowledge on the subjects will have spoken in it, as no doubt will those members of committees which have inquired into the subject matter of the Bills. I regret that honourable members will not have had more time to debate the subjects, but when all is said and done, everybody knows that the Opposition has said that it will not have anything to do with the health proposal and that it will throw it out lock, stock and barrel, that was said even before the Opposition had heard the arguments from this side of the House. That being the case, Labor has been very liberal in allowing a period of 10 hours to debate this question.

Mr CHIPP:
Hotham

- Mr Speaker, as I foreshadowed, the Opposition strenuously and vigorously oppose this move to curtail debate on probably the most important issue introduced by the Government in this parliamentary session. The legislation was brought in last Thursday week. The plan was to bring it on for debate on Wednesday last, when the proceedings of this House were not being broadcast, so that the Parliament could rise last Thursday night. It was only in response to the protests of the Opposition and to public demand and the odium which would have attached-

Dr Jenkins:

– Go on!

Mr CHIPP:

– Does the honourable member for Scullin, who is a doctor, suggest that this is not an issue in which the Australian people are interested?

Dr Jenkins:

– The Australian people are not interested in the sort of nonsense that is being spoken.

Mr CHIPP:

– The honourable member for Scullin ought to be ashamed of himself. He has shamed his profession by saying that the Australian people are not interested in a debate on a matter that affects every person in Australia with respect to their health and health care. The Opposition is trying to be cooperative in this situation. I register for the record and while the proceedings are being broadcast that we vigorously oppose this monstrous curtailment of debate in this Parliament. As I mentioned before, if we were to go through the forms of the House and divide the House where Standing Orders would give us opportunities to divide, it could be that another hour would be taken up while we sit here, the bells are rung, and the tellers count the votes in this House.

The Opposition is prepared to let those few honourable members whom the Government will now permit to speak on this issue to take part in the second reading debate until that debate is curtained at 5.30 p.m. My calculation is that if each speaker this afternoon takes the full time available to him approximately 4 more speakers on this side of the House will be able to participate in this debate.

As the Opposition is co-operating in this matter, I appeal through you, Mr Speaker, to the Leader of the House (Mr Daly) and to Government speakers who will participate in the debate to curtail their remarks. Instead of using the full 20 minutes available to each of them, I ask them to make some gesture to the Opposition in this important matter by curtailing their remarks on this Bill to perhaps 10 minutes so that more members on this side of the House can speak in this debate.

The Leader of the House misrepresented the Liberal Party at least when he said that before its members had seen the Bill they had publicly announced that the Liberal Party would throw the legislation out, lock, stock and barrel. That is not true. What we said was that, if the Bill followed the course and thrust of the White Paper we would oppose it. We kept our options open, as a responsible Party should, until we saw the Bill. When we did see the Bill, we saw that it was not only as bad as the White Paper; in fact, it was a lot worse. That is the reason why we proposed to throw it out, lock, stock and barrel, as the Leader of the House suggests.

We are asked on this side of the House, like good little boys, to be satisfied with 10 hours of debating time. The Leader of the House says that 10 hours debate is a lot of debate for this issue. Almost every person on this side of the House wishes to speak on this legislation. For the record, and in fairness to them, I wish to record in Hansard those whose names are on the speaker’s list, given to me by the Opposition Whip, to participate in this debate. Reading from the bottom of the list, I point out that those who will not be able to participate in this debate are: The honourable members for Mackellar (Mr Wentworth), Angas (Mr Giles), Bennelong (Sir John Cramer), Canning (Mr Hallett), Bradfield (Mr Turner), Maranoa (Mr Corbett), Corangamite (Mr Street), Warringah (Mr MacKellar), Mallee (Mr Fisher), Wentworth (Mr Bury), Bendigo (Mr Bourchier), Paterson (Mr O’Keefe), Boothby (Mr McLeay), Griffith (Mr Donald Cameron), MacMillan (Mr Hewson), Ryan (Mr Drury), Mcpherson (Mr Eric Robinson), the Deputy Leader of the Australian Country Party and honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair), and the honourable member for Sturt (Mr Wilson). With luck, we will have 4 speakers this afternoon from the Opposition side. There are others on our side who foresaw the move by the Leader of the House and who did not even put their names down.

The honourable member for Griffith has done an enormous amount of work on this legislation as it affects Queensland. He will be debarred from debating it. He has made calculations to show that the people of Queensland - the taxpayers of Queensland - will be paying $35m in additional taxes for services that they are already receiving free. That is the kind of point that the honourable member for Griffith wishes to make. The honourable member for Bendigo-

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I remind the honourable member for Hotham that the motion before the Chair seeks the suspension of the Standing Orders.

Mr CHIPP:

– I appreciate that.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I do not mind extending a little bit of latitude in the debate but I think that the honourable member is out of order in that he is now discussing the subject matter.

Mr CHIPP:

– The honourable member for Bendigo has a contribution to make on the effects of this so-called Hayden scheme on the provincial and country hospitals in his electorate. AH members on this side of the House have similar contributions to make.

In conclusion, the Leader of the House suggests that it is our fault that he is moving to gag this debate. If he wants a real blue in this House, he will make those kinds of provocative remarks. He accused us of having the temerity to bring on something for debate which, to paraphrase his own remarks, was a matter of relative unimportance. Let me remind him of what was this matter of relative unimportance, to his mind. Trie Leader of the Opposition (Mr Snedden) proposed for discussion as a matter of public importance:

The need for the Government to now acknowledge that it must adopt positive policies to halt inflation . . .

If the Leader of the House and the Government believe that inflation in Australia is a matter of relative unimportance, that is the very reason why they are now earning the odium of the people of Australia. On this side of the House, we believe that subject to be a matter of ultimate importance as the Australian people showed on Saturday last in their distrust of this Government.

For these reasons, the Opposition does object strenuously to this measure proposing the gag and the guillotine. We are to be given half an hour to debate this Pill in Committee. It runs into 152 pages with schedules. I suspect that the reason why the Minister for Social Security (Mr Hayden) wants the Bill to go into Committee - I have not been paid the courtesy of having his amendments yet - is the typographical errors and the misprints in the Bill and the fact that he wants to move certain amendments to the Bill at the Committee stage. These facts indicate again the haste with which this important legislation was introduced and the reason why it should be fully debated on this side of the House. For the record, I repeat that we vigorously oppose this gag and guillotine motion, but we will not divide on it for the reasons that I have stated so that we may allow as many members of the House as possible to debate the legislation as they should be able to debate it.

Dr JENKINS:
Scullin

– I rise to support briefly the motion for the suspension of the Standing Orders to allow for the time limits to be moved. I have been misrepresented by the honourable member for Hotham (Mr Chipp). He said that I was stating that there was no public interest in the matters that are contained in these Bills. That is quite untrue. I challenged his statement in speaking against the motion to suspend Standings Orders that there was a public demand to hear this debate, which has deteriorated into tedious repetition and which on Thursday night last when it was being fully debated had the interest of 2 Liberal members who were present in the House. If that is the sort of interest displayed by the Opposition, the Standing Orders ought to be suspended to allow motions of this type to be moved.

The trouble is that the honourable member for Hotham is no longer a knight in shining armour dragging the Liberal Party screaming into the 20th century but is Chipp the magic dragon who huffs and puffs and gets nowhere. There has been tedious repetition in the debate on this legislation. The Press over a period of months allowed honourable members to discuss the Government’s health scheme. But now the Press is so disinterested that the comments on it are put in the back pages of newspapers. The matter no longer warrants the interest of the media. Sir, I think that it is making a travesty of the Parliament for one after another of the members of the Opposition to rise to talk on this Bill and to repeat the same old canards about socialisation of medicine, and so on. I support the motion for the suspension of the Standing Orders.

Mr WENTWORTH:
Mackellar

– I resent the remark made by the Leader of the House (Mr Daly) a few moments ago that honourable members on this side of the House are taking up the debating time available for this legislation by debating other measures land motions. If this be so, so what? Members of this. Parliament are here to debate important matters. If we do not have enough time to do this we should be sitting for longer hours. I do not want to leave matters undebated. The real scandal is that matters of major importance to this country are going through this House without being debated. The Petroleum and Minerals Authority Bill 1973 will be virtually undebated in this House. The Health Insurance Bill will be quite inadequately debated. Under the guillotine foreshadowed by the Minister we will not have a chance to put our views.

This Parliament is a debating chamber. Ministers and members have views which should be heard and known. I do not take the view, which some supporters of the Government take, that what we say here is simply a matter of farce and routine. This Parliament has a duty at the Committee stage of a Bill to look at the details of the Bill. At the present time the only thing that stands beween Australia and despotism is the Senate which can look at the Bills and does have some kind of function of revision. But it is in this place, the principal House, where these things should be discussed and where the details of the Bills should be thrashed out, we are not allowed to discharge this function. I resent very much the statements of the Leader of the House. He suggested that if we speak on thi* matter or another matter we will be taking up the time of the House and as a result important Bills cannot be debated. Nothing could be less true. This House should sit longer if there remain Bills to be debated. The first duty of every honourable member here is to see that the legislation that comes before this House receives adequate scrutiny. One would have thought that honourable members on the Government side would have seen this. I was shocked at what the honourable member for Scullin (Dr Jenkins) said when he got up and spoke a few moments ago.

This House has a duty in regard to the Committee stage of legislation. I know, for example, that some hundreds of things could come under proper and detailed scrutiny at the Committee stage of the Health Insurance Bill. But there will be no time for that. We will not be allowed time for that. The Government is going to override all the rights of people in this House. I am not talking about unimportant Bills or about a subject which is unimportant. Maybe there is something to be said for truncating debate on some measures. But these matters, and other matters which have been dealt with this session, have been of major importance. The Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) has boasted that he intends to overturn the whole social fabric of Australia. He is bringing in Bill after Bill aimed at achieving this objective. These are major matters; they are not just routine matters. This legislation is to go through this House without adequate discussion because the Government refuses to allow time for a discussion. I believe that the Government is covering up things. I believe that in, the health Bills and the first draft of the Petroleum ‘and Minerals Authority Bill there are a number of detailed points which I believe are very treacherous points put in by the Government and that the Government is trying to cover them up in this House.

I will conclude my remarks now because I do not wish to detain the House any longer. I say in conclusion: Thank God for the Senate’, because it is only the Senate that stands between this country and the most arbitrary and dreadful form of despotism which the Australian Government is trying to impose on us. I know that one of the planks of the Labor Party’s platform is the abolition of the Senate. I know that for all the Government’s smooth talk that this is what it is trying to do and is working towards. The Senate does stand as some kind of guardian. But it should not be necessary because the real function should be in this House? Why are we throwing the whole of this burden on to the Senate? We are doing so because the Government will not allow adequate discussion in this House at the Committee stage of Bills. I do not refer just to the Bills that are the subject of this guillotine; I refer to the numerous major Bills that have gone through this House under the most dreadful and outrageous guillotines during this session.

Mr DALY:
Leader of the House · Grayndler · ALP

– I just want to take a few brief minutes- of the valuable time of the House to reply to the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Wentworth). Listening to him speak, one would never dream on 4 May 1971 he voted for the guillotine to put through 19 Bills in 17 hours. Without stretching it a bit, I do not think that he allowed adequate time for discussion in Committee. The honourable member growls about the curtailment of debate. He said that he has been restricted in debate on important measures. On 23 November of this year I asked the Parliamentary Library for the honourable member’s speaking record in this Parliament. The Library supplied me with an answer. It said that up to 23 November 1973 the honourable member had delivered 84 speeches of which 80 took a total of 14 hours 14 minutes. No estimate of time could be given for the other 4 speeches made on 25 May, 23 August, 5 November and 8 November. The Library also informed me that the points of order that he raised could not be counted. In addition it has lost count of the number of quorums that he has called. Further, the number of divisions that he has called is not known, but there were dozens. The honourable member has made 5 speeches during grievance debates, taking a total of 59 minutes. During adjournment debates he has made 19 speeches, taking a total of 2 hours 32 minutes. Personal explanations and claims of misrepresentation have been excluded from this category. During private members debates he has made one speech taking 30 minutes. A claim of misrepresentation was not included in this time.

The Library also inform me that the honourable member presented 10 petitions and that be has been refused leave by the Government to speak on a few occasions. It also pointed out that the honourable member made 18 claims of misrepresentation. Fancy the honourable member saying he was gagged. I do not know whether that will help him in his selection, but if they want a reference from me I will tell him that he is fertile but futile.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Declaration of Urgency

Mr DALY:
Leader of the House · Grayndler · ALP

– I declare the following Bills as urgent Bills: Health Insurance Bill 1973, Health Insurance Commission Bill 1973, Hospitals and Health Services Commission Bill 1973, Petroleum and Minerals Authority Bill 1973, Sewerage Agreements Bill 1973.

Question:

That the Bills be considered urgent Bills.

Resolved in the affirmative.

Allotment of Time

Mr DALY:
Leader of the House · Grayndler · ALP

– I move:

I submit those proposals to the House. On the first measure we believe that adequate time will be given. All over, we have provided for 10 hours of debate. Despite what has been said by a number of speakers from the other side of the House, the arrangements only confirm my view that on every occasion on which we ask for a list of speakers anyone who is able and willing to talk is put on that list. I might say that there were few on the list that he read compared with the number of honourable members on this side of the House who desired to participate in the debate. But in the interests of good government honourable members on this side decided that they would withdraw their claim in order that the legislation might go through and benefit the people of this country.

The legislation has to be put into effect by 1 June next year. Therefore, the House cannot unduly delay these measures. As I said this morning, the issue that was brought up may well have been important, but it should have been brought up at a time other than in the middle of an important debate on the Bills that we are discussing today. I have moved the motion in order to save the time of the House. In order to give adequate time to those honourable members opposite who may care to participate in the debate, I shall not speak further.

Mr CHIPP:
Hotham

– I am not the Opposition’s spokesman on the Petroleum and Minerals Authority Bill and the Sewerage Agreements Bill. Those Bills are to be guillotined on other days. I am astonished to see on the list that the Hospitals and Health Services Commission Bill is to be guillotined by 10.30 tonight. This Bill was introduced a little over a week ago. It has massive implications for the health services in this country. The other day at a Press conference, with a view to being co-operative I stated that the Opposition would not be opposing that Bill at this stage but would reserve the right to amend it in the Senate after we, as an Opposition, had a chance of conferring with State Ministers for Health on it. Also I reserved our right to amend it via the Senate at any other time.

I have just received a copy of a telegram which was sent to the Minister for Health (Dr Everingham) by the Minister for Health in New South Wales asking the Minister to defer consideration of this Bill. I will not canvass the Bill at the moment; I just want to illustrate my point. The Bill gives the Federal Government power to establish health community centres virtually anywhere in Australia without reference to a State. I am not necessarily opposing the concept of health community centres. What I am stating, though, is that as far as I know the Federal Minister for Health has not discussed this concept with any State Minister for Health in Australia. Yet the Bill was brought in here 8 or 9 days ago and it will be guillotined tonight. I would have thought that in the sheer interests of equity the Government would at least have allowed the Opposition time to confer further with the State Ministers for Health to get their views on it.

Already I have received 3 telegrams from 3 State Ministers for Health expressing deep concern about this Bill. I will be speaking more about that later in the day, but I want to foreshadow now the Opposition’s objection to the whole of this motion moved by the Leader of the House (Mr Daly) and also to point out particularly the insidious nature of including the Hospitals and Health Services Commission Bill in this blanket guillotine. Therefore, any undertakings I gave for a speedy passage and any support of it have now been cancelled by this reckless use of the guillotine on a Bill in respect of which there was no need for it.

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– I will make my comments brief because the longer honourable members speak at this stage the less time there will be for the debate on the Health Insurance Bill. I recall very clearly the utterances of the Minister for Services and Property (Mr Daly) and his hollow threats of a few weeks back when he promised us turkey in the chamber on Christmas Day. Yet we have the situation where the program of legislation for the next 2 days is such that honourable members have come from Darwin, Alice Springs, Cairns, Perth, Brisbane, Adelaide - the far flung areas of the continent - and will be here for only 2 days so that the Minister can get back to sweet Sydney on Thursday to go and do his Christmas shopping. So much for his threats. So much for ali the threats of the Government over the last few months.

As a Queenslander I would like formally to lodge my protest at the manner in which the discussion on the Health Insurance Bill has been curtailed. I was led to believe that if I played my part and withdrew from speaking on the Bill there would be plenty of time left in the Committee stage. But I see that the Committee stage will now run from 5 p.m. to 5.15 p.m.

Mr Wentworth:

– It is incredible.

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– That is right. The scheme will impose a tax of 1.35 per cent on all Queenslanders, which means in effect that Queenslanders will have to pay - on the figures I obtained from the Taxation Office - an extra S3 5m a year. This generous Government is going to give Queensland another $35m, but it is robbing the people in order to give the money to the State Government. It is doing absolutely nothing for the people of Queensland in its health scheme, and as far as I am concerned-

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member should debate the guillotine. He should not debate the subject matter. I ask him to get on with it.

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– I come back to the subject of the guillotine. I sincerely hope that the Government is as willing to take this Parliament to the polls as it seems to be willing to gag and pack rape every piece of important legislation that comes into this chamber. All honourable members opposite are involved. Every time they vote for a guillotine of a matter such as this they are pack raping that issue. That is what they have done here today again, and I hope that the people of Queensland will remember it.

Mr DALY:
Minister for Services and Property · Grayndler · ALP

– in reply - I want to close the debate and I will be brief. The honourable member for Hotham (Mr Chipp) as a former Minister was one of those who put through 19 Bills in 17 hours. Evidently it depends on where one sits as to what are one’s principles. I say to the honourable member for Griffith (Mr Donald Cameron) that I would not make too many appointments for next week either, because he might easily be here with me having the turkey.

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– That is OK.

Mr DALY:

– Do not get excited. Do not forget that the Opposition voted early in the session against half an hour’s extension of the time of sitting. This Parliament has sat longer than any Parliament since 1918, and honourable members opposite would not have agreed to that. We had to force them to do so by making them deliberate on legislation and stay in this place. I advise honourable members opposite not to get excited about Thursday. That might be the day that does not come.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 4502

HEALTH INSURANCE BILL 1973

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 6 December (vide page 4456), on motion by Mr Hayden:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Upon which Mr Chipp had moved by way of amendment:

That all words after “That” be omitted with a view to inserting the following words in place thereof: “this House is of the opinion that the existing health scheme is one of the best and most efficient in the world and that therefore this Bill and associated Bills should be withdrawn, because the Government’s alternative proposals to the existing health scheme will (a) lower the quality of medical care for Australian families, (b) increase total costs for the Government and thus for taxpayers, (c) increase total costs for the majority of taxpayers, because they could only maintain the present quality of their health care by additional heavy commitments for private insurance, (d) reduce freedom of choice, (e) jeopardize the future of religious, private and country hospitals and (f) by design and intent be the first stage of nationalisation of health and medical care in Australia”.

Mr FOX:
Henty

– Members of the Liberal Party and the Australian Country Party are completely opposed to these Bills for the reasons set out in our amendment. We believe that this legislation is unnecessary and that it will result in a great many Australians paying more than they are presently paying for a service which is inferior to the one they are presently receiving. We recognise that the present scheme has some defects and that it can be improved. We also believe that the deficiencies of the present scheme could have been corrected for far less money than the Australian Labor Party’s legislation will involve. The ALP proposals are ill-conceived. They are born of misrepresentation of the facts and of the incorrect assumption that the benefit funds are wasteful. It can easily be shown that they are not.

The whole of Labor’s scheme has been based on a report prepared by a committee which comprised 2 economists and 5 public servants. No members of the medical profession were represented on the committee. There were no representatives of registered organisations which have had years of experience in this field. There were no representatives of the consumers - the general public. Surely, to have had the advice of such people would have been an advantage. In his second reading speech the Minister for Social Security (Mr Hayden) set out why the Government had seen fit to bring in these Bills and why it considered the legislation to be necessary. But the Minister’s speech was full of inaccuracies. It was full of misleading and entirely incorrect statements. As the legislation is based on false and misleading statements, it is clearly built on an unsound foundation. Let me illustrate what I mean. On page 4147 of Hansard, the Minister for Social Security gives the cost of the present scheme in providing direct subsidies to hospital and medical benefit funds, the cost of the pensioner medical and hospital services and the services provided for repatriation beneficiaries. He referred to the substantial indirect subsidy provided by way of taxation concessions and went on to say:

A great deal of this money will be spent in propping up the ramshackle, inequitable and wasteful private health insurance scheme - a scheme which can only retain any facade of respectability through the injection of more and more taxpayers’ money.

The Minister pointed out that the average proportion of medical ‘benefit refunds met by the Australian Government has risen from 45 per cent in 1969-70 to 56 per cent in 1972-73 and he went on to say:

One of the reasons for all this is simply that the 90 health funds, with their separate and often extravagant managements, are wasteful. They unnecessarily accumulate large amounts of reserves. At the last count these reserves totalled S124m.

The Minister for Social Security referred to these reserves as being unnecessarily large and he stated that approximately 15 per cent of the contributions to medical funds is lost in administrative expenses. I do not have the slightest doubt that the Minister deliberately confused the medical and hospital funds of benefit organisations and also the cost of administration of these funds.

Firstly, the reserves of SI 24m to which he referred are almost entirely, if not entirely - I believe this to be the case - made up from hospital funds. The medical funds of all the major benefit organisations are in deficit. My authority for saying this is a publication issued by the Australian Department of Social Security entitled ‘Operations of the Registered Medical and Hospital Benefits Organisations’. This publication was issued by the Minister’s own Department. If the Minister doubts the figures of his own Department and requires further proof, he can obtain this by referring to the balance sheets of the larger funds. A perusal of the balance sheets of the largest organisations in my own State of Victoria will confirm that the medical funds are in deficit. The medical funds of the Hospital Benefits Association is more than S6m in deficit and those of the Manchester Unity and the Australian Natives Association, which are the next 2 largest funds, are each approximately $500,000 in deficit. As I said, these are the 3 largest organisations in Victoria. I point out that not $1 of the hospital fund reserves of these organisations can be transferred to the medical funds. The law, quite rightly, prevents them from doing this.

Why do the benefit organisations need such large .amounts in reserve? It is because ordinarily it is common sense to hold such amounts for contingent liabilities. Actuarial advice to the funds confirms that they do not hold excessive reserves, particularly at a time when hospital charges in Victoria for public wards are of the order of $20, $30 and $40 a day. I refer to Victoria because I have a knowledge of that State. If Australia were unfortunate enough to suffer an epidemic, the run on these funds would be tremendous. Every benefit fund of this nature which has been built up by contributors’ funds is required by government actuaries to provide for the contingencies I have mentioned. Life assurance societies and general insurance companies employ actuaries to advise them on the adequacy of the reserves held by them at any one time in order to ensure that their liabilities can be met. Even the superannuation fund to which members of this Parliament contribute 11.5 per cent of their salaries cannot increase the value of its benefits or reduce the amount of contributions merely because the fund continues to grow. The actuary requires that the funds shall be sufficiently strong to meet any emergency demand caused by the voluntary or involuntary retirement of members of this Parliament. It might have to meet such a demand if the present Australian Labor Party Government has to face the people with its national health proposals as the main issue

When the Minister for Social Security claims that hospital fund reserves of SI 24m are unnecesarrily large, obviously he is speaking as a politician and not as an economist or a businessman with actuarial common sense. His statement is like so much of Labor’s philosophy. Members of the ALP consider total figures but make no attempt to relate these figures to anything else. If a company makes $50m profit, Labor considers it to be too much. It is not concerned with what this amount represents in terms of a percentage return on shareholders’ funds. It considers the $124m reserves held by the funds to be too great but it does not attempt to relate this figure to a contingent liability. However, somewhat paradoxically, the Minister has conceded elsewhere that substantial reserves are necessary to cover the older and normally uninsurable people.

As I have said, these reserves have been built up from contributions and in saying that 15 per cent of the contributions is lost in administration expenses I believe that the Minister sought to imply that the cost of management of contributions made to both medical and hospital funds is more than 15 per cent. He went on to say that, with a government operated scheme, these rates would be cut in half. What are the facts? Again I should like to quote from a publication issued by the Minister’s own Department to which I have already referred. It is entitled ‘Operations of the Registered Medical and Hospital Benefits Organisation, and is for 1971-72, the latest report that is available from the Department. Page 24 of this publication shows that the management expenses of medical funds whose total contributions for 1971- 72 were $110m were 15.1 per cent of contributions. But the publication also shows that the management expenses of hospital funds to which members contributed SI 86m over the same period were only 8.2 per cent of contributions. The Minister did not mention this in the figures he quoted. I emphasise that the figures I have quoted are not figments of my imagination; they are figures produced by the Minister’s own Department. If we work them out, we find that the average managment costs of both funds for the year 1971-72 were approximately 10.7 per cent of all contributions. With the larger amount of contributions which now operate, it is reasonable to assume that comparative costs would be lower in subsequent years. To say that a government fund could be operated at half these expenses is absurd. I should like the Minister to say whether his estimates include the cost to the Taxation office of collecting the 1.35 per cent levy on income. I feel sure that he has not taken this into account and that the cost of collecting this levy would be enormous. If this cost has been included in the Minister’s estimate, will he be good enough to say so when he sums up and replies at the end of this debate?

The Minister said that the average proportion of medical refunds met directly by the Australian Government has risen from 45 per cent in 1969-70 to 56 per cent in 1972-73. This is true. But why is it true? It is because of the scheme introduced by the Gorton Government, which ensured that where the most common fee was charged for any medical service, the patient would not have to bear more than $5 of the total cost of that service. It is also fair to assume that the 56 per cent cited by the Minister has fallen since, because in September of this year he forced the funds to bear the full increase of 10 per cent in all fees covered by Part 1 of the medical benefits schedule and this schedule includes the fees of the general practitioners, consulting physicians and specialists.

It is also true to say that under the Gorton Government’s scheme, where the most common fees were charged for operations which included an X-ray and also the anaesthetist’s fee, the total cost to the patient was no more than $5 but under Labor’s proposals these will be regarded as three separate services and the patient will be required to meet 85 per cent of the cost of each service or $5 for each service whichever happens to be the lower amount. Labor’s health proposals are full of faults. It is obvious that there will be a greatly increased demand for public hospital beds. Pensioners will be competing with people who were previously debarred from receiving treatment in public hospitals because of a means test and many people will feel that in paying 1.35 per cent of their net taxable incomes they are paying enough and will not bother to re-insure for private bed treatment.

If some of the private beds in private hospitals are converted to public beds, as they will have to be to meet the increased demand, fewer private beds will be available, thus reducing the patient’s freedom of choice of doctor because there is no choice of doctor in public wards. Today some people are finding it difficult to obtain the services of a doctor when they need one and I believe this is likely to become progressively worse because many students today who would have been interested in becoming doctors have already been frightened by the threat of nationalised medicine. I believe that some medical practitioners have already left the profession for this reason. In the United Kingdom, where a nationalised medical scheme is operating, approximately 500,000 people are at any time on the waiting list for beds. Let me cite my authority for saying that. In September of last year an international conference of voluntary health service funds was held in London and the statement I have made was included in the report of the proceedings of the conference. It has also been widely reported in other publications.

Experience has shown in other countries that where a medical service appears to be free there is a greater increased demand for it than where the patient is called on to meet part of the cost. I say ‘appears to be free’ deliberately because it is a fact that it is not free in those countries and it will not be free in Australia under Labor’s scheme. People will be paying plenty indirectly through their normal income tax assessments in addition to the 1.35 per cent which they will pay on their net taxable incomes. This leads me to the Minister’s charge, which has been repeated by many members opposite, that people in the higher income brackets get their health insurance on the cheap at the expense of people on lower incomes. This is rubbish, as an analysis will show. The cost of providing so-called free medicine has to be supported very substantially from Consolidated Revenue because the 1.35 per cent will met only a fraction of the total cost. I ask honourable members to reflect on which individuals contribute the greatest amounts to Consolidated Revenue. It is obviously the people in the higher income brackets.

At present people have freedom of choice of funds and if they are dissatisfied with one fund they have the right to transfer to another without loss of privilege. If they arc dissatisfied with a government monopoly scheme they are stuck with it. There is no alternative. It is beyond question that there are inadequacies in the present scheme but these could be corrected for far less than the cost of implementing Labor’s proposals, and heaven alone knows what that will be. It is a matter of record that the cost of the British scheme when it was introduced soon after the Second World War was budgeted at £200m. This figure was exceeded in the very first year of the scheme’s operation and the budget for that same scheme this year is not £200m but £2,500m and very little of that money is going into capital works. This represents an increase of 1250 per cent which cannot be explained away by inflation. As an English economist said: ‘When bread is free there is no limit to the demand for bread’.

I believe that pensioners could have been included in the present scheme by the Government’s paying to the funds the total cost of their contributions and this would have ensured that pensioners would receive exactly the same treatment as do the present contributors to the funds. The Minister’s second reading speech was full of inaccuracies and the Government’s legislation has been based on these misconceptions or untruths. The scheme is badly based and it is a bad scheme which will operate to the disadvantage of a great many people and organisations. It will operate to the disadvantage of private hospitals which will be called upon to make a percentage of their beds available for public wards thus upsetting their economy, and undoubtedly their private patients will have to pay more in the future than they are paying at present. The scheme will also operate to the disadvantage of many single taxpayers who at present pay only half the rates that are paid by a married man with a family. Under this scheme single taxpayers will pay the same rate as a married man with a family pays.

The scheme will operate to the disadvantage of families where the husband and wife are both working, as they will each pay 1.35 per cent of their net taxable incomes. It will operate to the disadvantage of residents of Queensland who at present receive hospital treatment free of charge. It will operate to the disadvantage of persons in the middle and higher income brackets and to the disadvantage of persons in the defence forces who at present do not have to insure for hospital or medical benefits. It will operate to the disadvantage of persons who require private ward treatment because they will have to take out extra insurance to provide for it, and it will operate to the disadvantage of people who are unable to obtain standard ward accommodation in public hospitals because of the increased demand for public wards which will be created by this scheme. It will operate to the disadvantage of all taxpayers because the 1.35 per cent compulsory contribution that they make will not be an allowable taxation deduction as are their present contributions to health funds. For all of these reasons the Opposition finds these Bills completely unacceptable.

Mr HAYDEN:
Minister for Social Security · Oxley · ALP

– I speak to the amendment. The debate on this Bill has demonstrated with painful clarity that the Opposition has no real policy of its own on health insurance and health care and that it is reduced to the demeaning status of spokesmen for those people and groups who believe that health care is not a right which everybody should enjoy but a privilege to be purchased. We on this side of the House accept that fact more in sorrow than in anger. We are sorry that Opposition members have so little real interest in health insurance and health care that they have been unable to do more in this debate than to reiterate unproven - and unproveable - assertions that health care will suffer if the means of financing it is rationalised and to demonstrate that they are more concerned about the material self-interest and the private ambitions of a small clique of people than they are about the welfare of Australians generally.

We are sorry that the Opposition has shown that it does not really care that 1 million Australians have no coverage against health care costs and that an even greater number have inadequate coverage. We are sorry that the only kind of solution the Opposition can suggest towards providing these people with some coverage of their health care costs is one which would involve repeated examination of the private financial and domestic affairs of 1 million Australians and, depending on the results of those investigations, the classification of those who fail the income test into a special category of charity recipients.

We are sorry that in 1973 the Opposition parties are revealed to hold social values which would require that a million Australians barter their dignity for their health and we are particularly sorry to note that the Liberal Party spokesman on social security has put those 1 million Australians together in one category and labelled them as ‘pensioners, the indolent, migrants, no-hopers and alcoholics’. We are sorry about all of those things and the attitudes they reveal because they have prevented the Opposition from offering any constructive criticism of our proposals for a health insurance program which will provide equal access to high standard health care to everybody in the community, which will share the cost of health care on the equitable basis of contributions being based on ability to pay and which will provide efficiency and value for money in the delivery of health care.

But while we are sorry rather than angry at the Opposition’s failure to contribute worthwhile criticism we are angry, and I believe justifiably angry, about the Opposition’s totally negative approach to the legislation we have introduced. Its standpoint can best be expressed as ‘we have no policy of our own but we are not going to allow you to legislate for yours’. It is absolutely clear that it has no policy on health insurance and health care but it may not be fair to say it has no policy at all. It does have one - and it is a blanket policy for health, education and everything to do with social and economic progress. That policy is, simply, petulance. It has not yet accepted the decision of the electorate made 12 months ago that new ideas, new attitudes and new policies are wanted in the 1970s and it is apparently not yet ready to get back into the game as a responsible Opposition and try to demonstrate that it can score points for constructive thinking. And so it has settled into the politics of petulance. Its behaviour in the debate on this Bill, and in the debate on our education program, shows that it has no social conscience and, apart from acting out its petulance, it is concerned only with the privileges of the people to whom it has traded its political reputation in return for a facade of discredited concepts which it chooses to call a policy.

A universal health insurance program is inevitably complex since it must be structured to allow for all contingencies and to cover many different forms of medical and hospital services. Health care is also a subject about which it is all too easy to arouse emotions and fears. Regrettably certain reactionary groups within the medical profession and from a few private hospitals have chosen to embark on a deliberate campaign to arouse fear and confusion amongst the public. Even more regrettably the Opposition has joined this chorus of deceit. An example of this kind of misrepresentation has been the claims which have been made in this debate that standards of medical and hospital care would fall under a universal health insurance program. In particular what the honourable member for Hotham (Mr Chipp) said on this subject only showed his ignorance of the facts which govern quality of care. He talked about an alleged shortage of public beds in Melbourne, about some imaginary deviousness in the proposals whereby hospital patients would be accommodated in private hospitals and asserted that the quality of care provided by doctors is somehow related to their being paid on a fee for service basis.

In fact, the present scheme incorporates none of the features which are generally agreed to improve the quality of hospital care - accreditation of facilities, proper delineation of staff, adequate around the” clock medical staffing, monitoring of performance through properly constituted tissue and medical audits and the collection of morbidity statistics by which quality can be measured. Indeed, the present hospital benefits arrangements may be regarded as a device by which implementation of these quality-promoting features may be prevented. There are powerful incentives in the present scheme for the proliferation of proprietary hospitals, whose standards are unknown and in which doctors of unknown competence practise medicine at standards which are unknown to their professional colleagues, with results which are often known only in the public hospitals to which the consequent mistakes and accidents are admitted. We do not know whether or not there is excessive or unjustified utilisation of hospital beds because the honourable member’s new found friends in the Australian Medical Association have actively and successfully opposed the collection and use of statistics on a scale which would allow us to be more definite.

In his allegations on numbers of beds and the arrangements for accommodating hospital patients in private hospitals, the honourable member for Hotham is acting as the mouth piece for the most bigoted and reactionary private hospital interests - the same interests as were behind the publication of a dishonestly presented propaganda document and whose contribution to the hospital needs of the community is to threaten to close their hospitals down on the introduction of the Government’s program. The dishonest man who helped in the preparation of this dishonest document is now dishonestly advising certain spokesmen of the Opposition. The honourable member invites me to comment on the alleged shortage of 900 public hospital beds. My advisers inform me that they neither asked private hospitals in Melbourne for 900 beds nor did they offer this figure to Melbourne private hospitals. Moreover, if there were such a need I have no doubt that the beds would be found in facilities which have already been offered to the Victorian Government, in repatriation facilities at present unused and in private hospitals which would willingly respond to the fair and generous offer which the Government has made and for which financial provision is made in the White Paper estimates.

Not all the managements of private hospitals are as anti-social as the representatives with whom the honourable member has so enthusiastically involved himself. If he took the trouble to consult the appropriate Ministers in his own and other States he would discover that beds and facilities have already been offered for public use and that appropriate provision of Australian Government funds would allow State governments to take advantage of these offers.

The honourable member has asserted that payment of hospital staffs on a salaried and sessional basis somehow debases the quality of care which would be available from doctors working on a fee for service and honorary basis. This view has been strongly attacked by the chairman of the board of the largest religious hospital in Queensland - a man with long experience in the management of a private religious hospital in the context of a free public scheme, a man whose opinion is formed by experience and not by sectional fantasies. The honourable member should look closer to home at the Royal Children’s Hospital in his own city and inquire whether the standards of that institution - the centre of specialised paediatric care for the sick children of 2 States - are in doubt because the whole medical staff is employed on salaried and sessional arrangements. Of course they are not. The honourable member is flying in the face of the opinion of top hospital and health care authorities in Australia and abroad in support of a proposition which was only recently forced through as AMA policy by the most reactionary and unenlightened elements in the New South Wales branch of the profession, against strong and continuing opposition from representatives of most other States.

The honourable member for Hotham alleged that, in particular, the Bill would have an undesirable impact on the religious, charitable and community private hospitals. I wish to devote some time to this matter as the situation as stated by the honourable member seriously misrepresents the facts. The 2 main groups of hospitals affected by the special arrangements provided under clause 34 of this Bill are what are known as community hospitals, and hospitals administered by religious bodies. What clause 34 does in respect of community hospitals is to recognise that these hospitals exist to cater for the particular local communities, usually in a country area. They are not profit making concerns and I recognise and appreciate the most valuable functions they perform for the benefit of their local communities. Although such hospitals may receive financial assistance from the State governments which recognise their high standards and special role in the community, they do retain local autonomy over admission and management policies.

I wish to emphasise that clause 34 of the Bill was framed to recognise the particular character of these hospitals. It provides that these hospitals will be able to receive additional Australian Government financial assistance to enable them to continue their community functions while at the same time preserving the local flavour of their administration, in which local people participate and accept a high degree of management responsibility through local hospital boards. I am sure that these hospitals would not wish to be regarded as being operated for profit motives and this Bill reflects that wish.

In recent months I have had meetings with representatives of private religious hospitals following the release of the Health Insurance Planning Committee’s report. At these meetings the representatives of the religious hospitals stressed that their hospitals were orginally established on the ‘Good Samaritan’ prin ciple with the aim of providing, for both the physical and spiritual well-being of the indigent. They stated that they felt the additional cost of private health insurance under the proposed universal program might deter all but the relatively wealthy from entering these hospitals, so that they would be reduced to catering for what could be termed an elite group in the community. This, it was stated, would jeopardise the vocational principles of the religious and other nursing orders staffing these hospitals. This argument was accepted in its entirety by the Government and paragraphs 4.32 to 4.36 of the White Paper and clause 34 of this Bill spell out in unequivocal terms our acceptance of, and support for, the special vocational character of religious hospitals.

Clause 34 (9) provides that such hospitals will retain absolute autonomy over their admission policies and management, so that such questions as who is admitted, how many are admitted, and what treatment is given will remain, as they should, the sole responsibility of the individual hospital. Many of these hospitals currently forgo all or part of the normal hospital fees where these would be a burden on a particular patient.

This imposition on the charitable instincts and practices of the religious and benevolent organisations conducting such hospitals will no longer be necessary in a situation where the financial aspects of a patient’s treatment will be relegated, through Australian Government financial assistance, to a position of minor importance. Religious hospital authorities must now decide whether they wish their hospitals to follow the ‘good Samaritan’ principle, which they publicly espouse, or to tend towards the course of becoming privileged institutions for the financial elite of society.

The honourable member for Hotham also had something to say about costs. Within 2 sentences he claimed to have defended me against misrepresentations and at the same time made fantastic allegations, based on an erroneous report commissioned by the representatives of the private health funds, that I had underestimated the cost of the program we are putting forward by $300m in the first year. As my colleague the honourable member for Perth (Mr Berinson) intends to point out, the report of the health fund consultants is wrong, and the honourable member has added his own errors to the errors in the report. It is indeed a sad comment on the diligence of the Liberal Party spokesman on social security that he even gets his own errors wrong.

My colleague will also point out the hypocrisy of a Party which carps at the grant to the Government’s insurance program from Consolidated Revenue and which at the same time proposes to cover the services of pensioners and other low-income families in the most expensive possible way by the reckless infusion of another SI 80m or so into existing private insurance funds.

The honourable member for Hotham questions the Bureau of Census and Statistics figure that about 87 per cent of the population is covered under the existing scheme, and non-contributory schemes such as the pensioner medical service. But the source is impeccable, and it has been reinforced by the most recent survey, the National Survey on Income 1973, which confirms this earlier finding. The honourable member raises the hoary argument about freedom of choice, and also asks why the Government does not cover the remaining members of the population by subsidising their membership of private insurance funds.

On freedom of choice, what sensible person would value the choice of being able to join the Medical Benefits Fund of Australia or the Hospitals Contribution Fund of Australia, paying the same rates of contribution and receiving the same benefits? The only possible difference could be the standard of service, and our proposals would allow the honourable member to submit his claims through his own fund, if he valued the face-to-face contact which it offered him.

But, more seriously, what consumer in our community has ever complained about lack of choice in the pharmaceutical benefits scheme, for which everyone is covered, in which the costs are met from public funds, and all the chemists direct bill a ‘monolithic’ Government agency? Does the honourable member believe anyone would be better off, the quality of life improved and costs lowered if the $226m paid in 1972-73 under the pharmaceutical benefits scheme were funnelled through 90 private funds?

Indeed, on the experience of the private health insurance funds a large amount of that $226m would have been absorbed in exorbitant operating costs and, accordingly, the quantity of pharmaceutical drugs supplied to the community greatly diminished. The honourable member may support the Bill which has been introduced in another place by the Democratic Labor Party, by which it is proposed that the Australian Government subsidise private insurance contributions of families on incomes up to $69.50 a week and single persons up to $30 a week. I 1am informed that this proposal could involve means testing, every year, of up to half a million families and half a million single people.

I say this so that the honourable member might, for once, appreciate the consequences of what he is saying. It is an impossible task, as was pointed out by the Canadian Royal Commission some 10 years ago. What a monolithic bureaucracy would be created to operate and administer such a scheme; and the honourable member is the one who accuses the Government of creating a mindboggling bureaucratic horror. (Quorum formed)

The program that we are putting forward is one which offers a fair deal, both to the consumers and producers of health services. It is designed to improve the efficiency with which health insurance is transacted and the efficiency with which health care resources are used. It will enhance the security of all Australians and will be conducive to a better quality of care. Its immediate benefits will flow to the less privileged members of our society, about whom honourable members opposite show so little concern. In fact, all members of the community will share its benefits and it will be tas widely and as universally appreciated as similar programs in other countries. Honourable members opposite have, as I have said, no sense of history and no capacity to learn from experience, but they will live to be ashamed of the stand they have taken on this Bill.

Mr ANTHONY:
Leader of the Australian Country Party · Richmond

– Mr Speaker, the Country Party will oppose the second reading of this Bill. We support the amendment moved by the honourable member for Hotham (Mr Chipp). In opposing the second reading, the Country Party will be acting constructively and not destructively. I support the sentiments of the Minister for Social Security (Mr Hayden) in the opening paragraphs of his second-reading speech. I support his concept that a high-quality health service should be readily available to all and that Australia’s health scheme should expand, rather than inhibit, the opportunities for freedom of choice. I also support the up-grading of hospital and community-based health facilities.

But the Bill and the White Paper make it clear that the admirable objectives of the Minister will not be achieved under this legislation. The Government does have a mandate to see that high-quality health care is available, but the mechanisms the Minister is trying to introduce are destructive. The Government talks about its mandate. The Opposition has a mandate too. We have a mandate to protect the community at large from the excesses of the Government. We will not abandon our mandate.

We have tried to point out to the Minister the weaknesses in his proposals, but he has refused to allow himself to be confused by fact! We have tried to emphasise the fundamental point that to achieve the highest standards of health care there must exist a free partnership between governments and the institutions and professions which provide that care - and the present scheme is based on such a partnership.

Before I speak of the Government’s proposals, Mr Speaker, I think it is worth asking these questions: What is so wrong with the existing health scheme? Are people generally dissatisfied with it? Of course it needs improvement, and this can be done, but has there been a public outcry against the present scheme? Is it not the case that, far from there being discontent with the present scheme, there is in fact real concern about the Government’s new scheme? It is important that we keep these questions in mind, because I believe the vast majority of the Australian people recognise the existing scheme for what it is: One of the best, if not the best, in the world.

It has some deficiencies and we want to see those deficiencies corrected as past deficiencies have also been corrected. But the whole structure of health care should not be destroyed merely to allow the Labor Government to introduce its own brand of scheme with strong political and philosophical elements built into it. My colleagues, the honourable member for Hotham and the honourable member for Indi (Mr Holten), have said - and I support them - that the deficiences can be corrected by making changes in the present well proven scheme. They have described the things that need to be done. If the Government will follow this course instead of the destructive course it has set for itself it will have our support.

We have before us 2 Bills from the Minister for Social Security. There are more Bills to come before we have the full scheme before us. But there should be no doubt in the minds of honourable members as to what these first 2 Bills are designed to achieve. They are primarily concerned with hospitals but they also have considerable significance for doctors and the service they provide. The Hospitals and Health Services Commission Bril, which will come before the House shortly, will be the instrument for setting up free community health centres. These centres will sound the death knell of private medical practice as we know it in this country. Once they are set up, private practice will not be able to compete. The ultimate objective is the total control of hospitals through the Department of Social Security and of private medical practice through the Department of Health.

This legislation is based on the principles of socialism. It will, if passed, affect the lives of every Australian in the area of most importance - his health. It is because the Australian Country Party believes that health is a matter of vital importance to the individual that we oppose this Bill. Health is not a matter in which every Australian should be dependent upon the Government, and this is what the Minister aims ultimately to achieve. Recently the Minister replied to representations I had made on behalf of some persons who had expressed their opposition to nationalised medicine. I want to quote from the Minister’s reply because I think it demonstrates the way in which people have been misled about the Government’s proposals. For example, the Minister said that the Government was totally opposed to the conscription of people into compulsory medical service and was opposed to nationalised medicine. But the Government apparently is not in the least concerned about conscripting every taxpayer into paying for this scheme. The whole concept of the scheme is one of compulsion through the levying of taxable incomes and the reduction of hospital services to the lowest common denominator in public wards. The Government apparently is not in the least concerned about conscripting and coercing specialists into a sessional system or into general practice.

Again, the Minister told me that there would be the same freedom of choice of doctor, even in hospitals, as there is now. What the Minister means is that in public wards now the patient is treated by the doctor who happens to be on duty and under his scheme, in which most people are expected to accept public ward treatment, the same thing will apply. But if the patient wants to be treated by his own doctor in hospital he will have to pay the extra cost or take out extra insurance to get into an intermediate or private ward, if he can find one that has not been converted into a public ward. He will be forced to pay into the Government’s scheme, but to get the standard of service he wants, which he gets now, and which in the vast majority of cases he is now paying insurance against, he will in future have to pay out an extra amount over and above the compulsory levy.

This explanation means that the Minister has been deceiving the people to whom he has been replying. So it will be even if they are prepared to accept public ward treatment without being able to choose to have their own doctor to look after them. If they want to have the quality of service most of them are enjoying now, it will be dearer - not cheaper - by the time they pay the compulsory levy.

What is the situation in Australia under the present system? Over 80 per cent of Australians contribute to hospital and medical funds and about 10 per cent are covered by the pensioner medical service. About 2i per cent have cover through the armed Services, or because they are war widows or war pensioners, and about 4 per cent of the population have cover under the Queensland scheme. This means that about 3i per cent of the population are without any kind of health cover. No one would suggest that these people should remain outside the scope of health care. But again I ask: Must we pull down the whole of the present scheme, and destroy the concepts on which it is based, and on which it operates so well, to accommodate this 3 per cent of the population? Certainly it would be desirable to have 100 per cent cover and certainly every person wanting to be in the scheme should have a reasonable chance, but there are some people who will not help themselves. Are these people to be the basis for changing the whole of the present scheme? In the medical services area, the bulk of the population has access under the present scheme to the doctor and specialist of their choice, and pensioners have access to general practitioner services.

The hospital area is more complex because of differing State administrations, but by and large the majority of people have access to the quality of hospitalisation they require, and pensioners have free public ward accommodation. No patient under the present scheme is denied hospitalisation on financial grounds. The means test is waived and access given to public hospitals on medical need. One of the major reasons for this legislation being introduced is the Minister’s conviction that too many people are not covered by the present scheme, but instead of seeking ways to improve the existing scheme and to cover those people, the Minister has simply set out to destroy it and to replace it with socialised medical care. He proposes to scrap the system which has served the people well, and to replace it with an inferior scheme. He wants to bring Australian health care down to the lowest common denominator - all this because the present scheme does not cover a small percentage of the community. Under the proposed scheme, a policy of improvidence will be encouraged, and there will be victimisation of the industrious and the thrifty.

Let us look at some of the effects of the Minister’s proposals. Because the patient will pay the same amount no matter how much medical attention he seeks, there will be an inevitable over-use of doctors. This has been demonstrated beyond doubt in overseas countries with a scheme similar to what is being proposed here. People with little real need of attention will make it increasingly difficult for the genuinely ill to get attention. The pressure of over-use will put an increased burden on doctors, and the quality of service will deteriorate.

Outpatient departments will suffer in the same way. Pressure will be put on public hospitals to reduce their private and intermediate ward accommodation so that they can cope with the standard or public ward patients. This will reduce choice for patients seeking preferred accommodation, as they are entitled to do now and tas 80 per cent of them at present insure themselves for.

Under the Labor scheme, of course, those who want intermediate or private accommodation will have to pay extra for it, either directly or by taking out insurance in addition to their compulsory payments through the levy on their income. Private hospitals will be pressured into making public beds available. Once this process starts the Minister can decide the number of beds needed for hospital patients, and the private hospital will lose its autonomy and its character. The Australian people will lose the services which they clearly believe the private and religious hospitals offer and which the people want and are entitled to have.

The Minister will decide what the cost basis will be for determining payments to private hospitals for the standard hospital beds they will provide, and he will audit the books and accounts of these institutions. In his White Paper he declared he would not interfere with the autonomy and management of these hospitals any more than necessary. What an empty statement. The treatment of private, religious and charitable hospitals is nothing short of vicious. But then we already knew there was no room for then under Labor’s health plan.

The effects of the Labor scheme on specialists will be most significant. The Minister’s proposals are designed to reduce the number of private beds in hospitals and the number of private patients. The intention of this reduction is to lessen the opportunities for specialists to practice privately, and to force their acceptance of sessional payments, or their return to general practice - a concept generally accepted by the promoters of the scheme. There is no guarantee that a redundant trained specialist will make a good general practitioner. In fact, the evidence is very much to the contrary.

Country people have special concern about the Minister’s scheme. The proposed arrangements for the access of general practitioners and specialists in country hospitals will mark a significant move away from the present arrangements. There is no guarantee that a country hospital patient will be cared for by his own doctor, and the proposals for sessional payments and the elimination of the honorary system will cause real problems. There are strong grounds for believing that the total effect of the new scheme will be to create serious shortages of medical staff in country areas.

A lot has been made of the $16 per day payment to the hospitals, and of the funding by the Commonwealth of 50 per cent of the net operating costs of the hospitals. The Government proposes to give the magnificent sum of SI 6 - an increase of between $3 and $6. The balance will have to be paid out of the pocket of the individual, or by his taking out extra insurance. The sum is inadequate, and the patient, particularly in the middle and lower income groups, who will be hit hardest, will have to take double insurance to cover what he now gets with single insurance. People will be forced, rather than given a choice, to go into public wards.

Underneath all the fancy words, economic pressure is being applied to patients, to private hospitals and to doctors to make them conform to a single hospital system. Where is the freedom of choice we hear so much about? I assert that the Opposition has a duty to oppose these Bills which provide for the destruction of the health care system in Australia as we know it today. The Opposition cannot support proposals that would destroy a health scheme which is widely regarded as one of the best in the world and which can be improved to make it even better. We cannot support proposals for a scheme which would reduce the quality of health care, and which would - despite the Minister’s denials - take away the freedom of choice which we believe the Australian people are entitled to enjoy.

We cannot support proposals for a scheme which will be more expensive than the existing one, and more costly for the individual taxpayers who want to maintain the standards of care they enjoy under the present scheme. We cannot support proposals which will lead to the taking away from the Australian people of their right to choose, if they wish, to enter private and religious hospitals instead of public hospitals. We cannot support proposals which will lead to the socialisation, and ultimately to the nationalisation, of health and medical care.

It is clear that the major thrust of the Government’s policy in this area is typically socialist in intent, if not in name. It seeks social levelling. It reduces professional standards, individual initiative and personal freedom to the lowest common denominator. In fact we are dealing with an anti-professional ideology. In place of the characteristic Australian philosophy which encourages innovation, initiative and personal choice, the Government by this scheme, seeks to impose a lumbering, bureaucratic monopoly that will stifle all those freedoms that Australians value. It is a blatently dishonest scheme using economic means and coercion to achieve a philosophical result. For all these reasons, I believe this Bill and associated Bills should be withdrawn and replaced by Bills containing proposals further to improve an already good scheme - a scheme which is recognised as one of the best schemes, if not the best scheme, in the world.

Mr BERINSON:
Perth

– Last Thursday week the Minister for Social Security (Mr Hayden) introduced the Health Insurance Bill 1973, and we were advised at that time that the debate on it would ensue on the following Wednesday afternoon and Thursday - a day and a half in all. Immediately we heard the standard and predictable cries of outrage from Opposition spokesmen. This limitation of time, we were told, was a denial not only of justice, decency, democracy and free speech, but also of the rights of generations dead and not yet born. In short, it was exactly the type of ritual performance which is reserved by the Opposition for all such occasions. We do not begrudge it that. It was all in the usual course of events. It was also in the usual course of events that the Opposition should call for an extension of time for the debate, even though this would require an extension of this session of the Parliament. The only unusual thing about the occasion was that the Leader of the House (Mr Daly), to the surprise and dismay of most - I refer to the silent honest majority - agreed. That is why we are here today.

Let me say something about this extension of the sittings of the Parliament in order to accommodate the cries of outrage. I do not mind an extension of the sittings of the Parliament at any time if it is for something worth while, and perhaps there are debates which are worth while pursuing in this further week’s sitting. But among them I would not count this debate on the Health Insurance Bill, for this simple reason: There are only 2 practical purposes to be served by any debate in this House. One is, hopefully, to try to persuade each other, and the other, in the absence of that possibility, is to use the forum for the persuasion of the public. Neither of those purposes can possibly be served by this debate, whether shortened or extended.

We will not persuade each other because on this question the Opposition has shown itself to be quite as intransigent as the medical profession itself. In spite of all this talk over months and years about the need for exchange of opinions, conciliation, face-to-face discussion and so on, and all these calls for flexibility and reasonableness, the truth remains that only one party to the lengthy discussions that have taken place has shown any flexibility, and that is the Government, and the extent of this flexibility can be measured by the whole range of amendments which have been made even between presentation of the Green Paper and of the White Paper. But on the other side of the House there has been no flexibility at all; the Opposition has continued to condemn us for our dogmatism. There is no purpose, either, in using the public forum for public persuasion, because nothing new can be brought forward in this debate of which the public has not already been made aware, not once but many times and even ad nauseam.

This debate has not been proceeding since the White Paper was issued a fortnight ago. It has not been limited to the period since the Green Paper was delivered over 6 months ago. In its essential elements, in the philosophy and in its basic approach, the debate today continues a discussion which started no less than 5 years ago when the present Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam), then Leader of the Opposition, enunciated 3 desirable principles. The first was universal insurance instead of partial cover. The second was the equitable payment of costs of health insurance rather than the current inequitable system. The third was some predictability in medical costs both as related to costs in total and as applicable to individual fee for service arrangements. These are the basic things that we are discussing. We can argue the mechanics, but we need to keep in mind that neither the profession, regrettably, nor the Opposition is prepared to accept even in principle that any of those are worth pursuing. So, we engage in this extended exercise.

Well, since we are on the exercise and since one cannot in this limited period cover the whole gamut of questions raised by the health insurance system, I propose to restrict myself to responding to a challenge issued by the honourable member for Hotham (Mr Chipp) in his capacity as spokesman for the Opposition on health matters. In the course of his speech in the debate on the second reading of this legislation last Thursday, the honourable member for Hotham said:

I refer now, in specific terms, to a survey published by Philip Shrapnel and Co. Pty Ltd. It has stated categorically that the Minister already has underestimated the cost of his scheme by nearly $300m in the first year and that after the first year the cost will escalate sharply. . . unless I have missed it, this is one allegation, by Philip Shrapnel and Co. Pty Ltd, about which the Minister has not cared to plant a Dorothy Dixer, has not made a statement about and has not attempted to refute, that is, that his scheme is underestimated by $300m. Why has he not done this? One wonders.

I would hate to see the honourable member for Hotham left in a state of wonderment about the Minister for Social Security over the Christmas recess. I will attempt to enlighten him.

First, it should be noted in this respect that the Shrapnel report was not published in a vacuum or for the ‘academic exercise. On the contrary, it was commissioned by the Voluntary Health Insurance Association of Australia which claims to represent the great majority of open funds but is really a front for the big business organisations in the field, notably the Medical Benefits Fund of Australia. Philip Shrapnel and Co. Pty Ltd is a firm of consulting economists. Its commission was to produce comparative estimates of the cost of hospital and medical services under the existing voluntary scheme and under the Government’s new health insurance program.

Now, so eager was Mr Moon, President of the Voluntary Health Insurance Association of Australia to obtain cheap publicity in his campaign against the Australian Government that he released the figures before the report was available to him or to anybody else. The result was that for some time wildly inaccurate statistics were bandied about in newspaper headlines, without anyone having the chance to examine or challenge the data or the assumptions on which they were based. Mr Moon claimed in newspaper headlines throughout the country that the Shrapnel report showed that hospital and medical health services under the Government’s program would cost $181m more than was estimated in the White Paper and $382m more than the existing voluntary scheme. Yet, when officers of the Department of Social Security asked Mr Moon for copies of the report on which these figures were based they were informed that the report was not available, that he had not seen it and that, consequently, and naturally enough, there was no data on which his claims could be verified or examined.

Last -week, the honourable member for Hotham joined the campaign and asked why the Minister had made no statement about the Shrapnel report. The answer, I should think, is that the Minister wanted to study the actual report in detail before making any statement on it, and that surely is a reasonable and proper enough thing to do. But the honourable member for Hotham has gone beyond the figures quoted by Mr Moon. Mr Moon said that the Shrapnel report showed that the cost of the Government’s program was underestimated by S181m. The honourable member for Hotham says that the Shrapnel report shows that the cost of the Government’s program was underestimated by $300m. Are there any further offers? The colleague of the honourable member for Hotham, that is the honourable member for Isaacs (Mr Hamer), repeated the higher figure and at the same time reflected on the competence of the Minister’s advisers and departmental officers.

Nowhere in the Shrapnel report is there any figure to justify this amount of S300m. As I will show, the shapnel report contains a number of major errors which invalidate its main conclusions. But the Opposition has chosen not simply to accept and to broadcast these conclusions but to distort them further in reckless fashion. The actual comparison of 1974-75 costs under the 2 schemes, made by Philip Shrapnel and Co., with references to the page numbers of the original Shrapnel report is in the small table which I have in my hand and which I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Scholes:
CORIO, VICTORIA

– Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted. (The document read as follows) -

Mr BERINSON:

– I thank the House. The table shows that total hospital and medical costs under the new scheme are estimated by the Government to be in the range of $ 1,075m to Sl,098m while those same hospital and medical costs are estimated by the Shrapnel report to amount to SI, 267m. On my calculations, there is a difference in the range of SI 69m to $192m in those figures. They are what the Shrapnel report itself actually says. As I have indicated, I do not accept the Shrapnel figures. But I invite the honourable member for Hotham and the honourable member for Isaacs to indicate the source of the S300m which they have claimed to discern and which they have certainly bandied about. Have they read the Shrapnel report? Have they understood it? Indeed, do they want to understand it or are they concerned that the facts may interfere with their preconceived conclusions?

I do not wish to follow the lead of honourable members opposite by using the privilege of this House to denigrate the competence of professional persons. However, I have to say that once one has seen the Shrapnel report itself it becomes clear that the Voluntary Health Insurance Association has bought a damp squib. In fact, the only differences of any consequence between the Shrapnel figures and the estimates in the White Paper are the results of errors and misconceptions on the part of the authors of the Shrapnel report. Whatever their expertise in other fields, the authors of this report reveal an ignorance of the working of the health care system and the way in which health services are funded.

Quite apart from these misconceptions many of the Shrapnel report figures are based neither on previous trends nor on any coherent reason for departing from them. Let me quote one example. Hospital benefits days under the subsidised health benefits plan increased by 42.7 per cent in 1971-72 and by 27.7 per cent in 1972-73. The report assumes that no further increases will occur and that the total subsidised health benefits days under the existing scheme will remain constant at the 1972-73 level of 815,000 days right through to 1977-78. These days could be expected to increase in future years by 15 per cent to 20 per cent at least. One of the reasons advanced for this extraordinary assumption is ‘liberalisation of the pensioner medical service’. In the first place, as the White Paper makes clear, the pensioner medical service means test is not to be liberalised. In the second place, even if it were, the impact would be minimal, since the subsidised health benefits plan and the pensioner medical service cater for 2 entirely different groups in the community.

This is one example only of the oddities and errors in the assumptions and techniques used in formulating the estimates in the Shrapnel report. There are many more. It is difficult to say how important some of them are. It must be realised - and I acknowledge - that all estimates of future events involve the use of assumptions, and there is legitimate scope for differences of opinion about what assumptions are or are not reasonable. For this reason I do not propose to quibble about minor differences which could lie within the range of error which must always attach to estimates. Nor shall I refer to the projection of costs for 5 years ahead, to 1977-78, which can only be described as flights of fancy.

But in the limited time available to me in the House I want to outline 2 major errors in the Shrapnel figures. The first is the statement that hospital costs in 1974-75 will be SI 62m higher - that is S762m as against S600m - than under the existing scheme. This statement involves a very substantial underestimate of benefits under the existing scheme, together with a total misunderstanding of what hospital costs are and what the sources of hospital revenues are. The under-estimate of costs under the present scheme is based on quite arbitrary forecasts of numbers of hospital days, which bear no relationship to past experience or to what is known of current trends. The effect of this is compounded by projecting the rates of increase in fee and benefit rates which are totally inconsistent with cost trends on which other figures are based. The combined effect of these 2 errors could be more than $50m in 1974-75. To achieve comparability between the 2 sets of figures, the estimates of costs under the new program should be reduced by $15m for a start to adjust for the workers’ compensation and motor third party cases which will be covered under the new program but not under the existing scheme.

But the major error of the Shrapnel report in its comparison of hospital costs is not the way in which the estimates are calculated. Table 11 in the Shrapnel report on hospital benefits - from which the figures of $762m and $600m are taken - is titled in part ‘Comparison of Costs of Hospital Services’. It is no such thing. The attempted comparison completely ignores the very large elements of hospital costs which are represented by State government subsidies and by fees not covered by benefits and therefore met directly by patients out of their own pockets. The plain commonsense position is that the cost of running hospitals will be substantially the same under either system and that these costs will have to be met by people, one way or the other. Since it is stated objective of the program to relieve the burden on the State governments and to reduce the amounts paid by individual patients in the form of uninsured fees, it is obvious that more must come from the remaining sources of funds, namely, the Australian Government and private funds. It is nonsense to add up the amounts coming from these 2 sources - even if the calculations are done correctly - and say that the result is a measure of hospital ‘costs’. But by doing this the Shrapnel report has managed to produce a totally spurious difference of $162m between hospital ‘costs’ in 1974-75 under the 2 schemes. In fact, the figure is wrong and the remaining gap’ is represented by reduced State subsidies and patients’ contributions. The only true difference in hospital costs under the present scheme will be due to the payment of doctors for services now performed on an honorary basis.

I have only a few minutes left and I would like to move very quickly to the question of medical services. In this area again one can say that the estimates are no closer to the mark than are the estimates of hospital costs. In particular they involve large over-estimates of the costs of services under the new program as well as other errors. The most unlikely estimates of all are made in respect of cost of services provided to pensioner medical service pensioners under the new program. Indeed, the discrepancy between the Shrapnel estimates of $199m in 1974-75 compared with the Health Insurance Planning Committee’s figure of $60m might, one would think, have prompted second thoughts on the part of those responsible. But in the event they have published a figure which is absurdly wrong and which is based on demonstrably false and even naive assumptions.

Consider for a moment how this figure of $199m was arrived at. The chain of reasoning starts with the fair estimate that in 1974-75 pensioners would use an average of 9 general practitioner services under the existing PMS scheme. It continues with the observation that general practitioner attendances comprised 58 per cent of the 4.7 services per non-pensioner patient under the medical benefits scheme in 1972-73. Then it makes what can only be regarded as an heroic assumption that since all pensioners would be covered under the new program they would incur fees for all other services in the same proportion to GP attendances as members of the insured population generally. This is an invalid approach for a number of reasons. Firstly, the report assumes that the pensioner medical service is limited to general practitioner attendances. This is not so. It includes a number of other services as well. So the assumption is wrong on its own grounds. But, more importantly, the assump tion is made that the PMS pensioners will use, and will be billed for, all other services - that is, specialist services in particular - at more than 3 times the rate of other members of the population. This overlooks the fact that when they are in hospital most pensioners will, as now, be treated as hospital patients and their medical services will not be a charge on medical benefits.

For specialist services out of hospital, most pensioners - except those already insured - now look to out-patient departments of public hospitals. Although they will be eligible under the new program for benefits for all private medical services, it is reasonable to assume that in many cases they will maintain their customary patterns of treatment. For this reason alone it is unrealistic to assume that they have the same relationship between general practitioner and specialist services as the rest of the population. In fact, the Health Insurance Planning Committee allowed for a rate of specialist attendances to PMS pensioners which was well above the utilisation of the rest of the insured population. But the Shrapnel report compounds its over-estimate of PMS utilisation by the fantastic assumption that all doctors would refuse to accept assignment of benefits and would instead charge pensioner fees at full patient rates.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Scholes:

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

Mr SNEDDEN:
Leader of the Opposition · Bruce

– The Liberal Party asserts that it is a fundamental right of every Australian to receive the best possible health care and we are determined, as Opposition Parties to achieve it. Because of this the Opposition Parties are opposed to the Health Insurance Bill and consequently to the Health Insurance Commission Bill which sets up the mechanism for the implementation of the Labor Party’s health scheme.

The most important principle to aim for in any health scheme is the interest of the consumer of the commodity, that is, the patient. The patient can so easily be overlooked, especially when a couple of economists get together to work out what the health scheme ought to be. The Liberal Party wants to maintain the present health scheme which has been built over the years into one of the world’s best. The scheme needs further improvement in specific areas. Its provisions will be improved for pensioners and those who have long chronic illnesses as well as the more generally recognised areas of socio-economic need. For those 8 per cent not now covered, arrangements can be made to provide health care without converting the 92 per cent already covered into a compulsory scheme. The full details of these arrangements will be spelt out at an appropriate early date.

The scheme proposed by the Government has to be looked at against the background of its birth. We have the remarkable situation that a Government, which ought to have as its primary task the delivery of the best possible health service to the people of Australia, has managed to achieve a scheme of which the medical profession will not have a bar. The Government has formulated a scheme of which the hospitals, especially the charitable, religious and country hospitals, will not have a bar. That is the background against which the Government has introduced this scheme and has asked the people of Australia to support it. Have honourable members ever heard such nonsensical reasoning, that if the people of Australia are to be well served they have to be well served in health by an antagonistic hospital and medical service? The public of Australia does not know the way in which the delivery of this service will be provided.

Clearly there should be some degree of government involvement - even intervention - in the appropriate place in health services. However, this should be done within the context of the existing voluntary health benefits scheme. This was the basis upon which the report of the Commonwealth Committee of Inquiry into Health Insurance - the Nimmo Committee - was based in 1969. Doctors Deeble and Scotton then felt it was worthwhile enough as a scheme for them to contribute to that inquiry at that time. One must remember that Doctors Deeble and Scotton have been propagating their views for at least 6 years. They are economists. The problem is that in a complex area such as health there needs to be other views - views of those people who actually work in the field of medicine - to offset those of just 2 men. We must not be blinded by the circumscribed views of those 2 men. No matter how selfenlightened they are, they do not hold all wisdom in this matter.

The basis of the scheme hinges upon the funding of the scheme. That was their commencement point. The patient did not come into consideration until very much later in the picture. The Labor Government will impose a 1.35 per cent tax levy on taxable income. Obviously, it is not deductible. However, the total received from the 1.35 per cent levy contributes only 41 per cent of the total cost of the scheme, on present calculations. The rest - $508m in 1974-75 - comes from the Consolidated Revenue Fund. Money does not get into Consolidated Revenue by sheer chance. It gets into Consolidated Revenue by tax raisings, whether they be direct or indirect. It is an obvious strategem to deceive the public into believing that they will not be paying higher taxes, and it must be exposed for what it is - a pretence. Calling it a levy does not change its character one little bit.

In a time of escalating costs, especially in the hospital and medical area, it must be assumed that if this proposed scheme is passed the contribution from Consolidated Revenue will rise very greatly. The levy will become less and less relevant to meeting the real costs if it is maintained at the present level. So for the Australian public to have this scheme forced upon them they must accept an increase in direct taxation as well as the heaviness of the levy on taxable income they earn. In this area of total cost the proposed Labor Party scheme has no credible defence to offer at all. Taking a -line on similar schemes, this emerges as a massive worry to the responsible Opposition. It should also be a worry to the Government, although it seems to shrug it off. It will not be very long before the public - the taxpayers - are very greatly concerned about it.

The Canadian scheme, and particularly the Ontario scheme, is the most similar to that proposed by Doctors Deeble and Scotton. The Canadians are greatly worried by the prospect of increased costs. They predict that the costs of the scheme will rise to 14 per cent of gross national expenditure. They have instituted a committee of inquiry to see whether these can be hobbled. The Ontario Health Minister - the man who will be running the scheme, the equivalent of our Minister for Social Security - is quoted as having said about the scheme: It is up to the politicians to reform the monster before it bankrupts the economy and destroys itself. Why not learn from experience rather than blindly institute a similar system in Australia in the name of socialist ideology?

We are told to look at Sweden. The Scandinavian countries have long been considered the social laboratories of the world. There is hardly a Minister in the Government who has not been to Scandinavia so that he can bring back to us the lessons of fine living. I wonder whether the Ministers have taken notice of the way in which the electors of those countries have put socialist governments in those countries out of office. There is a whole host of Labor people who keep talking about the example of Scandinavian countries. They should remember what happened in the elections in Sweden and Denmark this year. The electors have inflicted stinging rebuffs at the ballot box to those politicians who have sought to push the welfare state so far that it has become an intolerable tax burden to the people and so that all the other spending in the public sector is constrained by what is going on there. In Sweden there is a mandatory health insurance scheme. There is a fee for service for doctors, and the hospitals consume 50 per cent of the expenditure on health. The proportion of gross national expenditure in Sweden has risen from 3.2 per cent 20 years ago to 8.1 per cent now. It is clear that there is a marked increase in the expenditure on health when a mandatory health insurance system is linked to fee for service arrangements and a high level of hospital expenditure.

The Labor Party claims that the major thrust of its scheme is to provide a universal coverage in a more equitable manner. The figure of those not covered is an elusive figure with much argument about it. Quite naturally, the Government has hit upon an artificially low figure of 87.6 per cent. I have no doubt at all that the number covered by health insurance is 92 per cent. Let us make this clear - that is 92 per cent covered by health insurance, but 100 per cent are covered by health treatment. Is it to be imagined that a person who is run over in the street is left to lie there until his insurance is checked? Quite the opposite; he is taken to the hospital and given treatment. If somebody is not insured and is ill, is he to lie in bed and take a Bex, as honourable members opposite were saying last year in their famous ‘It’s Time’ health pamphlet? What will happen is that he will go to the outpatients’ clinic or the casualty department at a major public hospital. So 100 per cent of people are covered.

There is an interesting question on the notice paper in which I asked the Minister for Social Security (Mr Hayden) to tell me just who are uninsured. The question remains unanswered. Certainly the Minister has no comprehensive knowledge of who those people are that are uncovered by health insurance. How can he define the uninsured if he has no idea of who they are as individuals? It is assumed that they are in thelow socioeconomic groups, but the Minister does not know. He does not know their motives or reasons for being uninsured, nor does he know whether compulsion would solve the problem. There are itinerant people and there are those who have difficulty adjusting to decision taking in a complex society such as we live in today. I have the feeling that there is also a group who might be called the young middle income group ‘gamblers’ who are not insured because they feel confident that they will not get sick or have an accident. They are prepared to take the risk that they will not get sick or have an accident.

There is a separate group of people who feel that they should not be forced to take action such as this when they choose not to. Where is the voice of the small’l’ liberals whom the Government as a socialist party pretended it represented when it was seeking government but whom it has now cast off all aspiration to represent? There is another small group who are uninsured - the very wealthy. They undertake to cover their total expenses for medical and health services themselves. Ironically, under the Government’s scheme these very wealthy people will now have the major part of their fees, which they now pay themselves, paid for them out of Consolidated Revenue. The Liberal Party is determined to maximise the coverage of the health scheme. It will strengthen and simplify the subsidised medical benefits plan. It will also provide assistance in consultation with the States for the areas to which the uninsured tend to go - that is, to the casualty treatment wards and the outpatients’ sections of the hospitals.

It is especially important to make provision for community health services where there are now few, such as in some of the northern and western suburbs of Melbourne, some of the western suburbs of Sydney and certainly rural areas. But it is too simplistic to believe that a change in funding arrangements will automatically change the health care expectations of the great majority of the Australian people. Hospitals provide a one-stop service for medical and para-medical services and very many people will use them in this way for their personal convenience, especially those in the inner suburban areas, whereas the great majority of those people living in the suburbs maintain that close doctor-patient relationship which has existed for a long time. Recent studies have indicated that people, in the absence of general practitioner services, use public hospitals for simple medical problems as well as the more complicated medical problems. I wish to emphasise that it is important to support and bolster the general practitioner as he will remain the first line health care deliverer to the people of Australia. Make no mistake about it. The general practitioner delivering the first line of health care must be backed up by the specialist medical practitioner. If we are to have a scheme which is not accepted by the general practitioner, the specialist and the private community philanthropic and country hospitals, we are going to be in a terrible mess trying to provide health services to the people.

Together with planned allocation of paramedical and nursing services, I believe that areas of need can be reflected without a gigantic change in health care funding arrangements and without alteration in the basic doctor-patient relationship. In any system there must be checks and balances to establish a ceiling to costs. It is important in any fee for service system that a medical fees tribunal be set up with an independent chairman and that fees are not set only by the Minister, unilaterally. I advocate the establishment of a medical fees tribunal consisting of an independent chairman and representatives of the Government, the Australian Medical Association and the consumer of the medical health service - that is, the patient - to establish the fees. Once established, there will be involvement of the medical profession and it should be left to this body to achieve fee adherence by the doctors. I have full confidence after discussions with the AMA that the medical profession will agree with a government to achieve predictability of costs of the medical health service. It stands to reason that if one is involved in determining equity in fees, the assurances of the national body representing the medical practitioners should be accepted in the first instance.

The Government seeks to implement bulk billing on the assumption that this must become easier for the medical profession to adopt over a period of time. It is in fact an insidious way of removing the necessity of patient contribution by de facto absorption of his contribution into that part of the payment which the Government holds, because it is theoretically saving the individual doctor his own cost of billing. In fact, it will mean that the patient will make no contribution whatever at the time that he seeks that medical attention. In a fee for service scheme, if there are to be checks and balances on runaway costs, there must be a retention of some form of patient contribution. There is no medical scheme in the world that has not found the necessity for some form of patient contribution. Anybody who has a recollection of the English medical scheme as it was introduced 20 years ago will remember that people from all over the world went to England, received their free medical treatment, free dentures and cosmetic operations and whatever else they liked - when they felt it was time to receive medical services, off they went - and the British taxpayers just could not stand the strain. Labour governments had to introduce patient contributions, just as did subsequent Conservative governments in England. I repeat that it is my belief that if we are to hold down the fees to a level which is capable of being handled by the Australian community, there will have to be patient contribution. It is important that there be deterrents to the abuse of the health scheme either by the patient or by the medical practitioner. It is very important that we include in the scheme safeguards against abuses by the medical practitioner. These deterrents must not unduly complicate the provision and availability of health care.

Hospitals are fundamental to any health scheme. Here, needs will become more apparent on a national basis in co-operation with the States following the establishment of a hospitals and health services commission. It is important in the hospital area where health care is the most complex and expenditure the greatest that one equates the cost of hospital service to benefits accruing to the persons covered. This may be achieved by providing hospitals with incentives to contain expenditure. One possibility to achieve this is that government hospitals might be allowed to retain greater control over their expenditure mix. This may induce certain hospitals to underspend in one or other area, but it is important to leave hospitals with certain autonomy so that their cost saving efficiency will be enhanced. It is important that there be incentive schemes to improve standards in management and in so doing, the use of resources. Importantly, the Liberal Party would endeavour to shift costs involved in acute hospital care to more intensive domiciliary care of patients. This involves concentration of effort in the rehabilitation sector of medicine, whether this be psychiatric or physical rehabilitation. We stress this not only in terms of economic argument; it is also better health care for the patient to be treated in a friendly and familiar environment.

Private hospitals run by religious groups and allied organisations are ian indispensible and totally necessary part of our health delivery system. As such, they should not be cavalierly destroyed. We will not let that happen. The Association of Medical Superintendents in a letter dated 10 October pointed out how there will be a great shortage of standard beds in public hospitals if this new scheme comes into operation. It is quite clear where these beds will have to come from and that is from the private sector. As soon as the Government moves into the private sector, to the religious, the charitable and the community hospitals, there will be a destruction of the private hospital system .and we will not permit that to happen.

The totality and thrust of the DeebleScotton plan is a move by a socialist government towards complete nationalisation of the health care system in Australia. All the tools to achieve it are present, in bulk billing, in the attitude towards private hospitals and in the overall method of funding. It will be said that private medical and private hospital insurance will be allowed to be retained. However, the basic medical and hospital ‘benefits will be determined by a monopolistic government fund. (Extension of time granted) Total health care expectations cannot be accommodated within the scheme proposed by the Government. Private funds will have fewer subscribers and will he very expensive even if taxation concessions are retained. The Government insurance scheme will put immense pressure on the economic viability of private insurance. Once competition of private end public health care is removed, another constraint on the cost of the scheme as a percentage of national expenditure will be removed.

At present, the approximate appropriation for health care services is 5.3 per cent of gross national expenditure. This is recognised in industrialised Western societies as a reasonable percentage. The Deeble-Scotton scheme will cost more and the increase of benefits to the patient will remain obscure. Certainly it will mean less choice, reduced doctor to patient relationship and a vastly increased public cost, and for the great majority, intolerably in creased individual cost, through levy tax and private insurance. The Government asserts that it has a mandate on this issue. It has not. When it went to election last year, it said that it was going to have a national health scheme and one of its first decisions in government was to set up the Deeble-Scotton committee to tell it what it ought to do. It then produced a Green Paper. After we saw the Green Paper, we had a succession of statements by the Minister for Social Security saying what he would not do in relation to what was contained in the Green Paper. He did not know then and we did not know - nobody knew - until the White Paper, followed a fortnight later by this legislation, what the Government would do. How can the Government have a mandate for it? It was never understood by the Australian Labor Party at the time of the election, much less by the public. I challenge the Government to go to the polls on this issue. We will say to the public that the present scheme is the basis of the best service and I feel confident that they will agree with us. The scheme can and will be amended to maximise coverage of all the Australian community and to deliver the best health service. We have positive views in the field of health delivery and we are not opposed to the principles of a hospital and health services commission which attempts to set up a mechanism to examine the needs of a health delivery system. We are opposed to a scheme which is designed to set up an open-ended financial commitment in priority over the delivery of the best health care to the people of this country, and this is what the Labor Party’s scheme would do. The expectations of the vast majority of Australians will not be achieved by this Government’s scheme. We, the Opposition Parties, are more concerned about health than is the Government and we are more responsible, and on this basis we will be glad to conduct an election campaign on the issue.

Mr WHITLAM:
Prime Minister · Werriwa · ALP

– The Australian people now know the alternatives before them. Do they want a continuation of a scheme devised over 20 years ago, giving rise to an increasing number of burdens on taxpayers and contributors to over 100 private health funds, or do they want a completely new scheme? The present scheme is still said by those associated with continuing it to be the best scheme in the world. It certainly is unique. The Australian Parliament has the authority tn pay benefits for sickness and hospital treatment, it has done this through the unique system of private health funds - over 100 private bureaucracies subsidised by the Australian taxpayer and covering only some patients but not those in direct need and not covering the total cost of medical treatment of most patients at all. It is in fact a system which allows doctors to write their own cheques.

For a year now the Opposition Parties have had the opportunity to come up with a scheme which will be fairer to the taxpayer and fairer to the patient. We are told that they were looking around for a think tank. We are told that the honourable member for Hotham (Mr Chipp), the spokesman on health, and the Leader of the Opposition himself were giving attention to this matter and yet after long speeches by the honourable gentleman and the right honourable gentleman respectively we are told that all they can offer is a continuation of the Earle Page scheme devised 20 years ago to guarantee the incomes of doctors but not to cover the expenses of patients or of hospitals. The public now knows the difference between a return to the arid, increasingly inequitable and burdensome schemes of the last 2 decades or a clean sweep.

A great number of references were made to the Deeble and Scotton proposals, the Green Paper and the White Paper, but the Deeble and Scotton proposals were debated for many years past at universities, at medical gatherings and at various public gatherings. No schemes could have been more thoroughly debated. But one does not have to go just to advisers who at last are heeded by the Australian Government, the foremost students and expositors of these subjects, or the present Government - although the present Government does have among its members more doctors than any Federal Government has ever had before. There are 5 doctors in the ranks of the Australian Labor Government and none in the Liberal Party, the Country Party or the Democratic Labor Party. There were from 1968 onwards reports of the failures of the scheme which we inherited. My good friend the honourable member for Barker (Dr Forbes) asked Chief Justice Sir John Nimmo to inquire into the deficiencies of the scheme and Sir John Nimmo has reported on them. He did so 4i years ago. The Senate set up a committee, too, to look into medical and hospital costs and did so nearly 6 years ago. It was an allParty committee which reported on the deficiencies of the scheme.

There is no point really in abusing Drs Deeble and Scotton. Admittedly they are the Australians who know most about this, who are respected most about this not only in Australia but overseas. But quite apart from them the advice was given by Chief Justice Sir John Nimmo and it was given by an all-Party committee of the Senate and the deficiencies of the present scheme - Sir Earle Page’s scheme of 1952 and so on - are well known to everybody except the Opposition. I believe that nothing discloses more clearly the failures of this Opposition. The previous Opposition got into Government because it examined the troubles that there were in various governmental responsibilities in Australia and devised coherent contemporary programs to cure them. After 12 months in opposition the present Opposition has nothing to offer except a return to 1972 or 1952.

The present Government was elected on the basis of policies which were developed carefully, steadily and intelligently to meet the important demands of our community. We did not come into office on a sudden whim. We did not come into office because of clever gimmicks dreamed up overnight to ensnare a few votes here and a few votes there in a desperate bid to buy the government of this country. Our opponents tried that course in their last forlorn, unimaginative and wasted months. The Australian people repudiated them for it. The electors were able to see a viable alternative. They were able to see a Party which had recognised their needs and had drawn up policies which were appropriate to them.

Of all the issues for which the present Government devised such policies none stood out more than our policies on the cities, education and health. Our policies were not based on fleeting and ephemeral inspirations. Inspirations and insights may have been the starting point of those policies but several years of thought, analysis and response to criticism decided their final form. The form and importance of our policies on these great issues were already starting to permeate the community in 1969. The national election of that year demonstrated the growing acceptance of them. In that year we made strong electoral advances which provided a launching pad for our campaign to win government in December 1972. In the three years between those elections, we had the chance to develop our policies further and to explain them in greater detail to the Australian people. The people responded and decided by their votes that these were the policies most suitable to their needs and to these times. They rejected the patchwork policies of a Government which had run out of ideas.

None of our policies was subjected to greater scrutiny than our proposals for an Australian health insurance program. None of our proposals more clearly aroused enthusiasm than this program. I would remind members of the House of some of the words 1 used in my policy speech on 1 October 1969. I said then:

Precisely because of the crucial and complex nature of the health question, I have regarded it as a particular duty to explain, discuss and argue our proposals over the past 2 years, especially with and through the medical profession. The fundamental soundness of our proposals has never been effectively challenged.

Those words remain true today. The fundamental justification for our program was combined in the same speech:

We propose a universal health scheme based on the needs and means of families. This proposal has to be seen against the contrast of the existing scheme, unwieldy, unjust, enormously costly, inherently costly. I concluded:

Let the warning bc quite clear: if the Liberals pro pose next week to prop up, patch over, the existing scheme it will mean more in contributions and more in taxation for everybody. Let’s have a clean sweep. All of those words remain true today.

The taxpayer saw government subsidies for private health insurance - money drawn from his taxes - rise from S8Om to 3200m between 1969 and 1972. He saw his contributions rise and still the present scheme, the Liberal scheme, did not accord with the needs and means of families. Every taxpayer has to contribute to Commonwealth benefits - medical and hospital benefits - but no taxpaper can get any benefits, hospital or medical, for which he has paid through his taxes except by contributing on top of those taxes to a private health fund.

Mr Reynolds:

– Over which he has no control.

Mr WHITLAM:

– Over which in general he has no control at all. They are the most secretive bodies subsidised by the public that are to be found in this country. In 1972 our health insurance program was again a vital plank in our platform. A packed hall at Blacktown on 13 November last year heard me say:

The most notorious single instance of unequal sharing of burdens is the Liberals’ health insurance system.

I personally find quite unacceptable a system whereby the man who drives my Commonwealth car in Sydney pays twice as much for the same family cover as I have, not despite the fact that my income is four or five times higher than his, but precisely because of my higher income.

Those words have lost none of their force. The Australian people heeded those words. Our opponents apparently still have not even read them. If they had, they would have realised the thrust and importance of our program. They would have realised that the present system cannot achieve our objectives - spelled out over a period of 6 years - with a bit of fiddling here and a bit more of a subsidy there. The present system, the Liberal system, is fundamentally bad; ‘Let’s have a clean sweep’ remains the only sensible approach to it.

The Opposition now concedes there are weaknesses in the scheme that it administered for more than 20 years. Those weaknesses should have been apparent all that time. Even for a government which had neither the will nor the ability to see them, they should have been crystal clear for the 6 years in which the Labor Party exposed them, explained them and found alternatives to overcome them. There can be no greater single weakness in the present health insurance system than the fact that well over one million Australians have no financial protection against the cost of illness. The survey of persons covered by hospital and medical expenditure assistance schemes, conducted last year by the Commonwealth Bureau of Census and Statistics, shows that only 86.5 per cent of the Australian population has any coverage against health expenses through private insurance, the pensioner medical service and other assistance schemes. Even if uninsured people in Queensland are held to have some coverage because of the free hospital system in that State, there are still about one million people who are unprotected against medical and hospital costs. It does not say that everybody else is fully covered; there are one million who have no cover at all. The Opposition claims that those estimates are incorrect, that less than 8 per cent of the population is unprotected. The figures of the Bureau of Census and Statistics confound that proposition. But even if Liberal and Country Parties’ assertions were correct, that would still mean that one million people are faced with potentially crippling cost if they fall ill.

Who are these people? Overwhelmingly they are people who are poor and disadvantaged. For them the cost of private health insurance is excessive. For them it is most inequitable. Even if one went to the expense of providing an efficient system of subsidised health insurance to cover the need of the very poor, under the present scheme the fundamental problem of unequal contributions would remain. An efficient subsidy system might help the very poor keep their heads above water. But what about people who would miss out on this classification and who could still not be described as well-off? What about the 70 per cent of adult males and their families who earn less than average weekly earnings? They would still see a constant repetition of the example I quoted in my 1972 policy speech - the example of a car driver paying twice as much for the same family cover as a man whose income is four or five times higher than his.

This is what our opponents fail to understand. This was an essential point of my policy speeches in 1969 and 1972. Payments for health insurance must be based on the needs and means of Australians. This cannot happen under the present system. The combination of flat rate contributions and income tax deductions must eventually mean that the rich pay less for health insurance thuan low and middle income earners. It is only our insurance program - because it is based on the payment of a percentage of taxable income - which can overcome this problem. It is only our insurance program which will ensure that a low income earner will pay less than a middle income earner and that a mididle income earner will pay less than a wealthy man. Australia will not have a just and equitable health insurance system until that principle is enshrined in its laws. Let there be no mistake: If the Liberal health system which we inherited continues, it will remain fundamentally unjust and inequitable, whatever improvements are made to it. If it continues, it will ‘become increasingly expensive to the taxpayer, in terms of both contributions to health funds and taxation revenue for Government subsidies through those funds. In contrast, our program will be cheaper for the vast majority of Australians.

One of the most constant criticisms voiced by the Liberal-Country Party Opposition of our program is the effect it will have on hospitals. Yet our health insurance proposals, in conjunction with the work of the Hospitals and Health Services Commission, will lead to a major improvement in Australian hospitals. In 1974-75 alone it will result in the States getting S80m more from the Australian Government for public hospitals than they would receive if the present inherited Liberal scheme continued. The new financing arrangements will provide a continuing basis for the improvement of the public hospital system throughout Australia. It contrasts with the 23 years of neglect of the public hospital system by the Liberal and Country Parties when they were in office. Yet the Labor Government’s program achieves its objectives for public hospitals without destroying the role of private hospitals. The Liberal scheme provides a daily bed subsidy of only S2 for patients in private hospitals. The Labor Government’s program proposes a subsidy of $16. This ensures that, contrary to the Liberal-Country Party Opposition claims, people who wish to be treated in private hospitals will not have to pay excessive amounts to take out supplementary private insurance. The Labor Government’s program also provides the opportunity for religious and charitable hospitals to treat people as ‘hospital patients’ and this will moan that the Government will meet the full cost of that treatment. The proposals for private hospitals will not diminish their independence. The private hospitals will be free to set their own medicomoral policies and their own admission policies and they will retain the right to appoint their own boards of management and their own medical staffs.

The Liberal-Country Party Opposition has also claimed that the Labor Government’s program will lessen the freedom of choice of patients in hospitals. That is blatantly wrong; the reverse is true. Patients in private wards or private hospitals will have exactly the same freedom of choice of doctor as they have at present. Most importantly, all Australians will have a new freedom which means tests have denied them under the Liberal-Country Party scheme - the freedom to choose to be treated in standard wards of hospitals. People will not be forced into private wards or private hospitals, as they are at present. The present system requires, that, if under the means test it is assumed that a person can pay for intermediate or private ward treatment, he has to pay for it; he has no choice.

I come back to the 2 reports which were sought in 1968. The Senate established its Select Committee on Medical and Hospital

Costs on 3 April 1968. On 18 April the former Minister for Health, the honourable member for Barker announced the appointment of Mr Justice Nimmo’s committee of inquiry into health insurance. The Nimmo Committee reported on 25 March 1969. The Senate Select Committee presented an interim report on 25 September 1969 and its final report on 2 June 1970. The Nimmo Committee and the Senate Committee agreed that standard ward care in public hospitals should be made available by the States to every member of the community regardless of means. The Nimmo Committee added that the Commonwealth should supervise and financially support a hospital insurance scheme which will enable contributors to maintain insurance in standard ward tables without financial hardship and also ensure that payments made to hospitals on behalf of pensioners will be placed on an agreed footing having regard to the amounts received by hospitals from standard ward patients.

On 4 March 1970 the honourable member for Barker, as Minister, undertook that the Government would continue its examination of the important issues raised by these recommendations and actively pursue negotiations with the States. There was no activity - or at least no outcome - in these consultations. (Extension of time granted) I thank honourable members. Liberal and Country Party members who have spoken claim that there is something wrong with the method of payment of doctors who work in standard wards. It is nonsense to suggest that the method of payment is a critical factor in setting medical standards. Indeed this is demeaning to the majority of hard working and responsible doctors. Our opponents have suggested that the use of sessional payments rather than feeforservice payments for visiting doctors in public hospitals will have dire consequences. Perhaps they forget that at the 1971 Australian Health Ministers Conference in Melbourne the Ministers, including of course the then Liberal Federal Minister for Health, and practically all Liberal State Ministers, issued a considered statement, which said:

The Ministers agreed that where the honorary system is to be replaced, a system of sessional payments for visiting specialists appointed to hospital staff to treat public or standard ward patients be adopted as this is in the interests of patient care and would provide better administration of hospitals and a better form of medical teaching.

The abolition of the honorary system and the proper payment of doctors was, of course, one of the 42 positive recommendations of the Committee of Inquiry into Health Insurance, under Mr Justice Nimmo, which reported to the previous Government in 1969. The previous Government largely ignored those recommendations and the provision of health care has suffered as a result.

I started my speech by outlining the long history of our advocacy of the program contained in this Bill. The word ‘mandate’ may often be used loosely by politicians. When, however, a Party has spent six or seven years advocating and explaining a policy, its use is justified. When that advocacy has formed a major part of the reasons for its electoral gains in 2 successive elections - electoral gains which brought us from the wilderness into government - its use is doubly justified. The present Government has a mandate for its health program. The honourable member for Hotham, the Liberal spokesman on health, mentioned that various polls and so on showed that some confusion had been generated on this matter. He quoted some organisations selectively which, he says,, oppose the Labour Government’s health insurance program. He did not mention, of course, the many groups who support it. He did not mention the hundreds of organisations who believe it will improve the quality of health care for Australians. He did not name the Anglican bishops, the Church and Nation Committee and the Presbyterian Church and the Australian Council of Social Service who have also supported our objectives.

The basis for legislation for our health insurance program does not rest on a couple of thousand people in a gallup poll. It does not depend even on a sampling of 60,000 people, such as we are adopting for the national anthem. It rests on the votes of a majority of Australian adults. The Labor Government was elected to carry out this health program, in the same way as it was elected to provide equality of opportunity in education, to come to terms with the problems of our cities and to deal with other long neglected national problems. There could be no program which has been debated so long and so thoroughly and in so many places. My colleague, the Minister for Social Security, throughout the last Parliament, and .myself throughout the Parliament before that, discussed this program very thoroughly with everyone who wanted to hear about it. There can be no doubt that this basically new program was thoroughly understood in the 1969 House of Representatives election and in the 1972 House of Representatives election.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The time allotted for the second reading of the Bill has expired.

Question put:

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

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

AYES: 59

NOES: 51

Majority . 8

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Question put -

That the Bill be now read a second time.

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

AYES: 59

NOES: 51

Majority . . 8

AYES

NOES

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

Third Reading

Motion (by Mr Hayden) proposed:

That the Bill be now read a third time.

Mr LLOYD:
Murray

– There are grave problems regarding some of the financial provisions of this Bill. One of them is whether the taxpayers of Australia, as a right, will be entitled to receive the $16 a day bed cover. The levy of 1.35 per cent is not a general revenue tax; it is a special additional tax. Yet one reads in the Bill that unless agreement is reached with a State, all hospital patients - and by ‘hospital patients’ I do not mean those covered by the terms used in this Bill, but all people who are hospitalised in a State - are to be deprived of their right to receive the $16 a day bed payment. The question involved is: Are these people as Australian citizens to receive this payment as a right, because a special additional tax is to be levied on them as on everybody else, or is the payment to be made only in those States which have reached an agreement with the Commonwealth?

If the States reach an agreement with the Commonwealth, one sees other grave dangers. For example, because a legislative amendment is necessary before this payment of $16 a day is altered, does it mean that once the figure of $16 a day is set that level of payment will remain for all time? The situation will not be so bad with public hospitals because the difference between what is provided and the net operating costs to the State system will be split between the Commonwealth and the States on a 50-50 basis. But with the private hospitals, once the payment is set at $16 a day it will remain at that rate for all time. It is not as though a special account will operate which will keep lifting the figure provided to private hospitals. So one can see some of the fears of the private hospitals in this matter.

Another interesting point relates to the schedule of agreement. If one were ever presenting unlimited power to a Minister to dictate to the States so that he had their health care systems at his mercy, one is doing it in Schedule 2 of this Bill because it is so terribly vague. It leaves the Minister all the power he wants in order to dictate to the States. The Schedule provides that an eligible person who is a private patient in a recognised hospital or being a hospital patient in a recognised hospital elects to pay hospital charges in respect of accommodation in a single room or small ward in a hospital is to be charged only in accordance with the scale of charges set out in the agreement. Does this mean that once an agreement has been reached between a State and the Minister, that State - although constitutionally hospital services are supposed to be within its power - is unable to alter the bed charges without the approval of the Federal Minister, therefore making him once more the dictator of the whole of the Australian hospital system?

Several other curious points emerge from the vagueness of this Bill. One of the weaknesses of the previous scheme was that eye care services were excluded from it. An eye care practitioner demonstrated outside this Parliament on this very point. The old argument between the ophthalmologists and the optometrists prevented a completely universal medical benefits scheme because eye care services were excluded from it. One looks with wonder at the failure of this Government, which appears to be so all-knowing, so well ahead with its ability to sort out the problems of medical care services in Australia, even to solve this weakness in the previous system. A grandiose scheme to cure all the ills of our health scheme has been set out in principle. But it is delightfully vague and contradictory in much of its detail. Yet this Government, with its tremendous ability to overcome all the problems of health care services in Australia, has not been able to take one step forward to overcoming one of the minor weaknesses of the previous scheme concerning optometrists and ophthalmologists and to formulate a truly universal scheme which includes those people who have eye problems.

Another interesting question concerns private hospitals, and one looks particularly at religious hospitals in this regard. What happens if a religious hospital is forced to accept some public hospital patients, to become part public?

With the power of the Minister - and there are no safeguards in this legislation against this at all, although there was a vague promise in the White Paper that there would be a safeguard - what happens if the hospital staff is required to carry out abortions in that hospital contrary to the wishes of the administration and the staff of that hospital? This is no vague fear. This question was put up by the private hospitals, and in response a statement was included in the White Paper? But where is the legislative protection for the people running the religious hospitals who did not ask to be forced into this situation? If one wants to use the Minister’s words, they are acting as good Samaritans. I do not take kindly to the way in which he used the term ‘Good Samaritan’ in this context, in throwing a bait to the private hospitals on this point. Where is the protection for the staff of these hospitals?

One can go on and on talking about the problems. I turn to what I believe is the greatest danger in this Bill. When one talks about the need for improving hospital services and considers the situation of hospital bed availability, one finds that 20 per cent of a’l Australian hospital beds are in private hospitals run mainly by religious organisations. Under the Government’s scheme, these organisations running those hospitals will not extend the hospitals or provide additional beds. I think that many of them will stick to their original vocations and possibly move out of providing hospitalisation. Where will the additional beds be provided? The absurd situation is developing where this Bill will create an increasing shortage of hospital beds and another Bill, which we will debate tonight, contains special measures to try to overcome the problems that this Bill creates. The Bill which we will discuss tonight provides special financial assistance for hospitals and for hospital construction.

People in Australia, living in a democratic society, have had the choice provided by a dual hospital system - public hospitals and private hospitals run mainly by religious organisations. Because of the greatly increased cost of insurance for private hospital treatment and because there will be no special account provisions which will increase hospital insurance costs - probably the insurance funds will reintroduce the provisions relating to pre-existing ailment conditions and so forth - private hospitals will be forced to open their doors to public bed patients. The Minister will tell them how many beds he wants, and he gives no guarantee whether the supplementary payment will meet the full cost of hospitalising public bed patients. One looks in particular at some private hospitals with special account provisions which at present take over from the benefits provided by ordinary funds after 84 days hospitalisation. Some private hospitals specialise in long term patients, such as those being treated for psychiatric or orthopaedic reasons. Doctor Deeble has stated to the private insurance funds that they will not be able to insure beyond 180-odd days, anyway. We do not know this for a fact. It is another of the delightful uncertainties of this situation because the relevant legislation is not before us.

Some people are in need of special care and should have special consideration. They include these psychiatric and orthopaedic patients. Hospitals such as St John of God Hospital at Brighton, another at Ryde and various others in the country specialise in this form of hospitalisation. Possibly they will be forced out of existence. People who should be considered specially and placed in this category will be forced to return to the public hospital system. If they had wanted the services of a public hospital system they would have gone there in the first place.

When we speak about freedom of choice and people’s rights, we must look at what the vast majority of Australians want. The vast majority of Australians have made it clear that they want something more than standard ward accommodation. When we talk about some service being available to everybody and the whole community being involved, why should we drag everybody down, or attempt to drag everybody down, to that standard level? What this legislation will do, if it is passed, is to polarise hospitalisation in this country. The community will no longer support as it has in the past country hospitals, city hospitals and particularly religious hospitals through agencies and auxiliaries which have worked to provide better facilities and extra care through those hospitals. People will say: ‘The Government will do that’. There will be no need for such activities by them and this work will not be done.

What will happen is this: The very rich will still go their own way, far more than they do now, and the connection that they have with the community through these hospitals will be lost. An inordinate percentage of doctors and special care services will be provided for the wealthy who can afford them. One only has to look at what is happening in New Zealand at present with respect to the construction of private hospitals for profit. The rich will still have their special hospital arrangements; the rest of the community will be forced down to the lower standard. So, instead of having a hospital system in which all members of the community can share and for which all members of the community will work, we will have this polarisation of the rich and the poor. The average standard of hospitals in this country will drop. This will be to the detriment of Australia.

Mr REYNOLDS:
Barton

– In the few moments available to me may I say that I did not intend to speak in this debate but I have risen because the honourable member for Murray (Mr Lloyd), who preceded me, made a few remarks which, if he does not know it, were quite out of date. The idea that hospitals today are divided into public, intermediate and private wards is just a lot of nonsense. The great public hospitals of this countryunluckily I had an experience of this earlier in this year - no longer divide patients into wards in that way at all. In fact, if a person is suffering from a certain complaint, that person goes into the section of the hospital devoted to treating that complaint. Whether one is a public, intermediate or private ward patient, one is likely to be among patients who have contributed for a different category or classification.

The situation at the moment is that a patient is classified as a public, intermediate or private ward patient according to his or her means only. A patient will be given private ward accommodation if his medical condition so requires, whether he is classified as a private, intermediate or public ward patient. This is the experience that I had. In the private ward adjoining me was a pensioner. I understand that this has become the practice all over Australia today in the advanced public hospitals. The patients in these hospitals are not classified according to ward standards, but rather according to their illness. If there are people who have a prior claim ‘because of their illness-

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The time allotted for the remaining stages of the consideration of this Bill has expired.

Question put:

That the Bill be now read a third time.

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

AYES: 60

NOES: 51

Majority . . 9

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

page 4529

HEALTH INSURANCE COMMISSION BILL 1973

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 8 November (vide page 3059), on motion by Mr Hayden:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– In speaking to the Health Insurance Commission Bill one speaks to a Bill which is described as one of a sextet produced by the Minister for Social Security (Mr Hayden) - 2 being produced recently and 4 to be presented next year. Therefore the debate which has just concluded on the Health Insurance Bill had a large bearing on this Bill. The Opposition opposes this Bill because it is but an extension of the Bill upon which we have Just voted. Referring to the Health Insurance Bill - and I hope that in doing so I am not transgressing the procedures of the House - I would like the fact noted that the honourable members for Lilley (Mr Doyle), Bowman (Mr Keogh), Capricornia (Dr Everingham-

Mr Keogh:

– I rise on a point of order. In case you did not hear, Mr Speaker - your attention might have been on the honourable member for Griffith at the time - the honourable member blatantly notified the House that he was going to refer to a debate that has taken place earlier today.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! There is no point of order.

Mr Keogh:

– He is in fact referring to that debate.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! There is no point of order involved.

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– Sometimes when I hear the utterances and the interjections of the honourable member for Bowman I cannot help but think that the Queensland hospital system has been a complete failure. In addition to those honourable members I have already mentioned, the honourable members for Oxley (Mr Hayden), Leichhardt (Mr Fulton), Dawson (Dr Patterson), Brisbane (Mr Cross) and Wide Bay (Mr Hansen) were among those who voted today to introduce the Australian Labor Party Government’s new health scheme. All- of those gentlemen, of course, are fellow Queenslanders.

I wish to explain the reasons why we on this side of the House see no alternative other than to oppose the Health Insurance Commission Bill. Particularly as a Queenslander I state my objection to the legislation. The Bill we are now considering provides the machinery which will ensure the implementation of Labors health scheme. The people of Queensland are against the scheme for a number of reasons. Firstly, Queensland’s health scheme at the moment, which I readily concede was introduced originally by a Labor State government, gives all Queenslanders the right to completely free health treatment. Yet, in that State there is a large percentage of people who by their own choice insure with a private medical fund. The Minister for Social Security, who is at the table, on frequent occasions has described the private health funds as inefficient. The Commonwealth Committee of Inquiry into Health Insurance, known as the Nimmo Committee, stated in its report of 1969 that there was no truth whatsoever in the claim that the private organisations were inefficient. In fact, the findings were to the contrary.

Queenslanders :at present have a hospital scheme which is available to them at no cost whatsoever. This means that if they wish to they can opt out of making payments to hospital benefit funds. Yet, all members of the Labor Party, including those 8 Labor members from Queensland whom I have mentioned, today voted for a system which will force each and every Queenslander to make a contribution of 1.35 per cent of his taxable income-

Mr Wilson:

– In the first year.

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– I know that this percentage will go up as the years go by if Labor stays in office. I am just referring to the present projection. In return for this the Labor Government has said that it is going to give Queensland S35m. This would be a big deal if it was not simply a case of robbing Peter to pay Paul. I have some figures from the Legislative Research Service of the Parliamentary Library which indicate that in the financial year 1970-71 Queenslanders paid S2,057m in tax to the Commonwealth coffers. The present rate of inflation would cause the figure today to be greater. But so that no one can accuse me of fiddling with the figures I have referred to the situation a couple of years ago when inflation was not the problem that it is today. It is interesting to note that 1.35 per cent of tax on that figure is equivalent to S28m. If we apply the effects of inflation, particularly that of the last 12 months or of the last couple of years, to the taxable earnings of Queenslanders we can clearly see that the amount of S35m that the Minister is proposing to give to Queensland is absolutely nothing more than a surcharge and an extra tax on the people of that State. The people of Queensland are being taxed annually an extra S35m. It does not surprise me to see the honourable member for Lilley smiling. He had a majority of only 35 votes at the last election and he sees some comparison.

Another point is that Queenslanders - and I know that this applies to the rest of Australia - at present enjoy a system in which if the husband works and belongs to a medical benefits fund his contribution covers the entire family. But under this Hayden whiz-kids scheme both the working husband and the working wife will be taxed. The figures supplied by the Parliamentary Library show that 105,000 married women were employed in Queensland at 30 June 1971. So here is a case in which people will be doubly taxed.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I remind the honourable gentleman that he is now speaking to the Health Insurance Commission Bill. I should like to attract his attention to that point. If he reads the second reading speech of the Minister on this Bill he will find out what it is all about. So far he has not touched on it.

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– I have read the Bill. I was shocked at what was contained therein. This Bill is just supplementary to the original Bill and I felt I had to take the opportunity to speak against it. I am trying to outline the reasons why I do not want the Health Insurance Commission to become a reality. It will only make possible the horrid health scheme that the Government has produced.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! This is not a general debate on the subject of health insurance. It is a debate on the Health Insurance Commission Bill. I ask the honourable gentleman to confine his remarks to that Bill.

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– I will do thar. I do not want to see the Commission become a reality. That is why I have to resort to these other facts to show clearly my opposition to everything that the Government is presently proposing. I will take notice of your ruling, Mr Speaker, and follow it accordingly. As at 30 June 1971 in Queensland the total number of beds was 14.625. of which one-third belonged to private hospitals. What the Labor health scheme is doing - this is why I am opposing the Health Insurance Commission - is placing Queenslanders in a situation where many of them will no longer be able to afford the extra insurance. They will not be able to afford the extra insurance on top of the contribution that they will be forced to make by the legislation. How many Queenslanders will be able to afford 1 .35 per cent of their taxable income and then be able to afford also to insure in one of the private health schemes that might survive after the Government has forced them to the wall?

Unfortunately this will put a much heavier load on the public ward system. We all know that the private hospitals will become subject to a decision of the Minister. If they go to him and say, ‘Our hospitals are only half full now because the people cannot afford private health insurance and we would like to use some beds for your health scheme’, lie can decide the number of beds which will be seconded to the Government’s health scheme. Therefore, there will be a diminution of the availability of private beds. Under the Queensland health scheme one person in three has already indicated a preference of choice as an individual to use a private ward. I know that the Minister has endeavoured to endorse the desirability of general practitioners being associated with public hospitals in the new program.

Mr Hayden:

– Mr Speaker, may I ask how this relates to the Bill before the House? It is rather curious.

Mr SPEAKER:

-It is a pretty wide Bill. I have asked the honourable gentleman to keep to the points relating to the Health Insurance Commission.

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– I would not transgress your ruling, Mr Speaker. For the benefit of the Minister for Social Security let me say that I recall that, except for the abortion question, never in my 7 years in this Parliament have I received so many letters from my constituents. I have received some 300 letters on this subject. There has never been another subject other than abortion which has aroused such passion.

Mr Hayden:

– I know of a few interesting ones you received lately to which you were not prepared to reply.

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– The Minister’s letter was filled with propaganda. Because the present Government has increased postal rates it would cost me 15c to post his propaganda to my constituents. Half the information contained therein was not even true. I recall the magnificent efforts of Mrs Doreen Farrer, a constituent of mine, who created a national record by collecting 10,059 signatures on petitions opposing the national health scheme and this very Bill that we are discussing at this moment. For one woman to stand out in the hot sun, without any financial reward, without being related to a doctor or to any of those organisations for which the Minister claims we speak, it was a magnificent performance. The Opposition hopes that when this Bill gets to the Senate it will be defeated.

I was saying before that the Government has recognised that there are special advantages to be gained by allowing general practitioners to work in public hospitals. For instance, it has recognised the advantage in the association between hospitals and general practitioners in the care of midwifery patients who wish to be treated by their own doctors in standard wards. This is a lovely bait, but we all know that it is up to the hospital to decide which doctors will practise in their premises. If Mrs Smith is to have a baby and is being forced by the Minister into a public ward what hope has she of receiving treatment by the doctor of her own choice? The Government scheme will overburden and lessen the standard of medical care in Australia.

I readily concede that the Queensland hospital system, like every hospital system in Australia, could do with more money, but who is to say that S35m, S70m, Si 35m or S235m is the amount of money that is required? The Minister pulls a magical figure out of a hat and says: ‘Look what we are going to give you’. Yet he completely omits to say: ‘We are taking it out of your pockets, Queenslanders, and we are going to give it to the State Government’- The Queensland hospital system has been continued by the Country-Liberal Party Government since it came to power in 1957. It was commenced by the previous Labor administration. It has served Queenslanders well. This Government is introducing a situation now which will force each and every working Queenslander to pay a contribution. Honourable members opposite refer constantly to the fact that 88 per cent of people were covered under the previous scheme. We claim the figure to be 92 per cent. The British scheme - the socialist dream in Britain - manages to cover only somewhere between 95 per cent and 96 per cent. The Government is prepared to upturn completely the ship of health care in this country to introduce its own scheme with the dream of covering a couple more per cent.

I willingly concede that the previous Government’s scheme was not perfect and that we should have tried harder to get that extra 3 per cent to 4 per cent of possibles covered, but there are a lot of people out there who, if they had made application, would have had the cover which was available. They chose not to do so. So the Minister introduces a scheme which he beats everyone into joining. He says: ‘You are in whether you like it or not’. I can assure honourable members that this Commission - this costly Commission - in support of which we are expected to vote, with all the expertise that the Minister may hope to gather, will not be able to achieve a percentage cover of our population anywhere near 100 per cent.

In conclusion I would like to refer to the fact that the extra cost which is being projected is still an under estimation of the actual cost of the Government’s new health scheme. I have spent many hours talking with various doctors about the medical system. The truth is that a great percentage of doctors stand to make more money for themselves out of Labor’s health scheme than they do under the present system. The doctors’ motives in relation to this scheme are not simply those of monetary rewards for themselves - far from it. I am quite able at times to be critical of certain aspects of the medical profession and of the manner in which some members of it or organisations representing those members behave.

It has been pointed out to me that presently 85 per cent of patients requiring psychiatric treatment are treated by general practitioners because the specialists in that area have their hands so full with patients who really need their care that they can properly treat only 15 per cent. Yet the effect of the system that the Minister is proposing will be to drive more people to the general practitioners for other areas of treatment and this in turn will put a heavier load on the specialists. Therefore, the specialists who might treat but a handful of cases in a day or a week, will have to speed up their process to try to cope with the extra workload which would-: be generated as a result of the Minister’s scheme. They will be forced to try to cope with more work. This is going to be to the detriment of mental health care.

This is but one.’ aspect of the effects of this legislation. What about all the young men between about 15 years and 33 years of age? At the moment^ when they get a cold or a headache they do’ not want to bother themselves with going to see a doctor. They go to a chemist and are treated by the chemist. But under the Government’s health scheme, these people will , think: ‘Well, the Government is. whacking’ my salary to the tune of 1.35 per cent each week. I might as well go along and join the queue, be treated by a doctor and receive what I am entitled to because I have paid for it’. Regrettably, the Minister as a self-confessed socialist - I do not condemn him for this; we all have our problems - fails to recognise that there is a degree of professionalism in many walks of life. This professionalism can be manifested in the will to work, to help and do a good job. Yet the Minister sets out like a sheep dog in an open paddock to round up all concerned and bring them into his scheme whether or not they wish to be in it and this in itself will eventually produce a syndrome similar to the one which presently exists in the United Kingdom where people become very conscious of the hours which they work.

Without reflecting on hospital employees, I wonder whether the Minister has ever conducted investigations into how many operations are performed each day in a private hospital as compared to a government hospital. Here is a situation where people are away from a government set-up or a government department. They seem to give their work just that little bit extra and because of this the implementation of a huge government scheme could have an adverse effect. A situation will be reached where the hospitals and surgeons will be unable to cope with the problems which already exist in the field of health.

As I said earlier, this is a very sad day in the history of this nation because we have seen fellow Queenslanders, the honourable members for Lilley, Bowman, Capricornia, Oxley, Leichhardt, Dawson, Brisbane and Wide Bay - voting for a system which will impose an extra tax on each and every Queenslander. This tax will not entitle Queenslanders to receive any more benefits than are now received by those people who presently do not belong to a health fund. If Queenslanders want private or intermediate hospital ward care they will have no alternative but to insure again in addition to paying the levy. It has been shown already that the $16 a day which the Government proposes to. pay to the private hospitals will not be nearly enough. With the escalation of medical care costs - they will escalate even further if this scheme is introduced - woe betide the people of Queensland. Indeed, it will be a case of woe betide each and every Australian. We are suffering now. We see the implementation of a socialist dream. This scheme was promised at a time when, granted, the Liberal-Country Party scheme needed a little attention. But two or three years ago we introduced a system under which we paid in full the medical benefit fund–

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The time allotted for all stages of the Bill has expired.

Question put:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

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

AYES: 60

NOES: 51

Majority . . 9

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Remaining stages of Bill agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

page 4533

BILLS RETURNED FROM THE SENATE

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

Canning-Fruit Charge Bill 1973.

Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Bill (No. 2) 1973.

page 4533

ASSENT TO BILLS

Assent to the following Bills reported:

Pay-roll Tax Assessment Bill 1973.

Income Tax Assessment Bill (No. 4) 1973.

Income Tax Assessment Bill (No. 5) 1973.

Income Tax Bill 1973.

Income Tax (Non-resident Dividends and Interest) Bill 1973.

States Grants (Aboriginal Advancement) Bill (No. 2) 1973.

Sitting suspended from 6.8 to 8 p.m.

page 4533

FINANCIAL CORPORATIONS BILL 1973

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

Second Reading

Mr CREAN:
Treasurer · Melbourne Ports · ALP

– I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of this Bill is to provide the basis for the examination and, as necessary, regulation of activities in the non-bank financial sector in the interests of effective management of the economy for the greatest advantage of the people of Australia. The legislation has been widely foreshadowed and it has been generally acknowledged that the powers that are sought will constitute a proper and valuable addition to the economic management measures available to the Government.

Notwithstanding the fact that there have been extensive prior consultations with groups which will be affected by the legislation, I make it clear at the outset that the Government does not intend to seek the passage of the Bill during the current sittings. We recognise that the legislation will affect a wide range of institutions in the non-bank financial sector and that it is proper that those institutions, and others who may have interests involved, should have adequate time to examine the provisions of the Bill and to put forward comments. The Government, for its part, proposes early next year to introduce further provisions for inclusion in the Bill covering the question of foreign ownership and control. I shall refer again to this aspect later in my speech.

As honourable members are aware, there has in recent years been a blossoming in nonbank financial institutions, illustrated by the fact that assets of the institutions that will be covered by this legislation increased from less than 8 per cent of total assets of the financial sector in 1952 to over 23 per cent in 1972. However, despite this rapid growth the information available on the activities of the institutions has been seriously inadequate or, in some cases, completely lacking. Thus, an important purpose of the legislation will be to provide a means of obtaining additional basic information about the institutions covered in the Bill. This information will be of sufficient detail and sufficiently up to date as to enable the Government to assess for economic management purposes the need to regulate, in a variety of ways, the operations of the corporations concerned. It will also enable the publication of much more information than hitherto about the activities of the institutions. This is an aspect to which I attach considerable significance.

The other main purpose of the legislation is to give the Government adequate control powers over non-bank financial institutions, in line with those that presently exist with regard to banks, thereby supplementing, as necessary, existing monetary policy weapons so as to assist in the effective overall management of the economy.

Mr McMahon:

– Could you tell me whether you meant that the Government would have control or that the Reserve Bank would have control?

Mr CREAN:

– If you listen patiently you will hear the lot. You can read the lot - and I know that at least you can read. The proposed control powers relate to asset ratios, directions regarding volume and direction of lending, and interest rates. The availability of such control powers over the non-bank financial sector is, I consider, an essential requirement for a government charged with responsibilities for economic management. I want to emphasise, however, that the Government is fully aware of the difficulties of implementing direct controls over this sector particularly controls that would be completely new. We are also well aware of the need to ensure that when any controls are imposed, they do not undermine confidence in the institutions concerned or unduly disrupt their legitimate activities.

Mr Katter:

– Where is everybody? This is an example of socialism at its best.

Mr CREAN:

– The honourable gentleman is no good example of anything. I have indicated to the groups that have discussed this question with me that the first objective of the Government, once the Bill is passed, will be to obtain the detailed information on which controls must necessarily be based. It is for this reason that the Bill itself does not attempt to specify the controls that will in fact be applied; it rather empowers the Government to apply specific controls, within the range provided for in the Bill, by way of the making of subsequent regulations. Before such regulations are brought down I anticipate that I would arrange for my officers to consult the various groups concerned.

I might take this opportunity of expressing the Government’s appreciation of the cooperation shown by the various groups in the consultations held before the present scheme was finalised. I express the hope that cooperation in future may enable the Government to achieve its objectives without the need to bring down detailed regulations over the activities of institutions. I should also mention that the Government does not regard direct controls over non-bank financial institutions as a substitute for, as distinct from supporting, other policy actions of the kind we have taken over recent months or for responsible fiscal policies. However, in appropriate circumstances, such direct controls can help in meeting particular objectives.

The legislation is designed to cover those corporations, other than banks, which engage in the borrowing and lending of money in a major way. These are the corporations whose activities are of concern from the viewpoint of monetary policy and which are not currently subject to direct control. Their importance in financial markets - both as borrowers and lenders - gives them significant potential to undertake activities sometimes inimical to effective economic management. The legislation will thus gather within its provisions corporations which may be generally described as finance companies, permanent building societies, merchant banks and money market groups, including the authorised dealers in the short term money market, pastoral finance companies and credit unions. Other corporations whose borrowing and lending activities are important, for example, corporate retailers which, within their own operations, have outstanding finance provided totalling $5m or more, will also be covered. The legislation has in fact been drafted with the aim of covering both existing major borrowing and lending institutions and any such new institutions that may spring up in the future. There is, of course, a diverse range of other corporations operating in the financial sector, including life and general insurance companies, pension funds, terminating building societies, friendly and health societies, unit trusts, investment and trustee companies. However, the activities of these corporations either have limited implications for monetary policy or they are subject to other legislation of the Australian Parliament. Financial institutions of the kind I have indicated are therefore excluded from the provisions of the Bill now before the House.

In considering the legislation it also needs to be borne in mind that most non-bank financial institutions are already subject to supervision under State or territory laws which deal primarily with the rights of borrowers and lenders and the financial stability of companies. It is not the intention of the present Bill to exclude or limit the operation of such laws and I anticipate that they will, in the normal course of events, operate concurrently with the present legislation. Corporations of the type covered by the legislation will be required to register and to provide regular information about their activities if their total assets exceed $lm or, in the case of retailers, if outstanding finance provided exceeds S5m. However, it is not envisaged that any controls which the Government may decide to impose would necessarily apply to all institutions. A sufficient coverage - in most cases about 90 per cent - of the assets of various groups would he obtained if any controls that were applied to financial institutions were applied only to those with total assets in excess of $5m. The application of controls in this way would also reduce the administrative burdens and, more importantly, allow more flexibility.

In proposing that the registration and control provisions of the legislation should apply only to institutions above stipulated, but of variable sizes, I have very much in mind that, in contrast to the small number of banks, there are a large number of non-bank financial institutions. It is estimated that there are operating in Australia about 1,000 finance company groups, 200 permanent building societies, 750 credit unions, and somewhere between 50 and 80 corporations operating generally in the merchant banking area. Individual institutions within these groups can also show a marked diversity in the nature of their borrowings and their lending business. I referred earlier to the fact that the Government intends, after the House resumes next year, to introduce additional provisions, for inclusion in the Bill, dealing with foreign ownership and control of non-bank financial institutions covered by the legislation.

It has not been possible yet to finalise the provisions to be included in this complex and difficult area but I should perhaps refer to the Government’s general approach to foreign ownership and control in the non-bank financial sector. As I have mentioned, there has been in recent years a considerable expansion in the non-bank financial sector in Australia and a good deal of this growth can be attributed to the entry of foreign-controlled institutions. The Government takes the view that Australia is already adequately supplied with non-bank institutions and that, generally, there would be little benefit in allowing additional institutions to be established by foreign interests. As honourable members will be aware, I have already indicated in public statements that the Government does not generally favour the establishment of new foreign non-bank financial institutions and the Government’s general objective is to prevent increases in foreign ownership and control of existing institutions.

The Reserve Bank is in fact administering exchange control policy on this basis and the legislative powers which the Government proposes to include next year in the Financial Corporations Bill will merely specify this policy in a more detailed legislative framework. I should make it clear that the policy does not preclude the establishment of new foreigncontrolled institutions, but it does require that foreign interests wishing to establish in Australia in the non-bank financial sector should be able to demonstrate that the Australian economy would be advantaged by their doing so. I also mention that the policy does not prevent the growth of those foreign-controlled financial institutions that are already established in Australia. Of course, such institutions will, along with Australian-controlled institutions, be subject to the exercise of any controls imposed under the legislation. But it is the Government’s firm intention that these controls will be exercised in a manner that will be non-discriminatory as between foreign and Australian controlled institutions. The policy to which I have referred relates only to the question of ownership and control.

As I have circulated to honourable members an explanatory memorandum on the various clauses of the Bill, I do not propose to outline them in detail here. However, I would draw honourable members’ attention to certain key clauses in the Bill. Clause 8 (1) determines the type of corporations that will be covered in the legislation, subject to clause 8 (2), which provides certain specific exemptions as well as a general exemption for those corporations whose assets do not exceed $lm. Clause 10 provides for the Treasurer to draw up and publish a list of registered corporations and for such a list to divide corporations into various categories. This provision will enable any controls that may be imposed to be applied in ways which will take account of the major differences in the structure and activities of the various categories of institutions that will be covered by the legislation. It will be apparent that any attempt to impose uniform controls across the whole range of institutions covered by the legislation would be both impracticable and inequitable.

Part IV of the Bill contains a description of the powers that are sought for control of the business activities of financial .corporations. As I have already indicated, these powers will be implemented, when necessary, by way of regulations. Clause 14 provides that such regula tions may require a corporation to maintain in specified assets such percentage of its assets or liabilities as is determined from time to time by the Reserve Bank. Such determinations are, as are determinations made under other clauses, to be subject to the approval of the Treasurer. I mention that it is not the Government’s intention to introduce reserve deposit requirements of the type placed on banks. The specification of statutory reserve deposits in the case of the banks is, of course, related to their special position.

Clause 15 provides that regulations may require a corporation to comply with directives with respect to the corporation’s general lending policy, or its policy in relation to specific types of lending. Clause 16 provides that regulations may specify the maximum interest lates payable by a corporation on its borrowings or chargeable by it on its lending, including the maximum rates of specific types of lending. These control powers will provide the Government with extensive powers over the activities of the institutions covered by the legislation. However, such powers are no more extensive than those which already exist in the case of the trading banks and the Government regards it as essential that the powers be available if it is to be in a position to exercise a fully effective monetary policy in the interests of the Australian people. I commend the Bill to honourable members.

Debate (on motion by Mr Street) adjourned.

page 4536

AUSTRALIAN PRE-SCHOOLS COMMITTEE

Ministerial Statement

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

– As Acting Minister for Education I table the report of the Australian Pre-schools Committee entitled ‘The Care and Education of Young Children’. I seek leave to make a short statement.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

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

– For the information of honourable members, I present the report of the Australian Pre-schools Committee. The prompt tabling of this report is in line with the Government’s policy to make available for public examination and discussion the reports of commissions and committees. Public debate enables the Parliament to be better informed on the topic and allows groups in the community, that might not otherwise have had an opportunity, to express their reactions and to submit their recommendations.

The Australian Pre-schools Committee has recommended immediate action for a program of pre-school and day care services to be implemented on the basis of need. The objectives, as set out in its terms of reference, are the opportunity of one year of pre-school for all children and day care services for pre-school age children of working parents and underprivileged familiies. The program takes into account the need to train staff and the requirements of State legislation. Provision is included in the report for on-going modification of the proposals in the light of community response.

Community interest and involvement in this area have increased our awareness of the need for a complex and imaginative program which, along with day care centres and pre-schools, might also include family day care programs, play-groups and neighbourhood ‘drop-in’ centres. Occasional or casual care centres, before and after school and holiday care centres, as well as support services for families, including financial assistance, counselling and education, might also form an integral part of such a program. The Government wishes that any decisions taken by it should await comment on this wider range of support programs as well as on the proposals put forward by the Australian Pre-schools Committee. Because of the importance of the care and education of young children, both to the children themselves and to parents and community at large, the Government welcomes widespread comment within the next few months on the report and its recommendations. In the meantime, the Government will continue to allocate the S8m provided in the present Budget for the establishment and operation of child care centres. In the case of both child care and pre-school facilities, there are serious inequalities in existing services, and the need for action is urgent.

I would like to express the Government’s sincere appreciation to the Committee and to Miss Fry for the thorough and effective way in which their complex task has been carried through. I commend their report to the attention of honourable members and of the public.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
Wannon

- Mr Speaker, I seek leave to make a short statement. I also ask whether the statement by the Postmaster-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) will be the subject of a motion that the House take note of the paper in order that there may be a debate during the next session.

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

– I have no objection to that suggestion.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

– I want to make only two or three comments without participating fully in a debate.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Are you seeking leave to make a statement?

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

– Yes. Mr SPEAKER - Order! Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

-The group which compiled this report has obviously undertaken a very great amount of work in examining the requirements of pre-schools throughout Australia. There are only one or two preliminary points that I would like to make. Obviously it has not been possible for us at this stage to study the document. I think the Minister would recognise that quite fully. That was why I made the comment about the paper being noted so that there could be a full debate on this matter at a later point.

I would hope also that there could be a full debate on these matters perhaps before the Government has made its final and definitive decisions so that comments made in this Parliament can be taken into account in respect of any decisions that the Government might in fact make. I would ask the Minister to take that into account. One of the things which is quite vital in this area - the Minister indicated the Government’s disposition to pursue it - is to have a proper understanding of the views of pre-school and kindergarten associations in the different States. A remarkable amount of good work has been done by voluntary organisations, I think in nearly every State. Some have had more support from governments than others. But significant moves have been made in the past and it is not as though, with the report, the Government is building on empty foundations; that is not the situation. I would think that rather than to establish a new governmental organisation to oversight this kind of program, to build on existing institutions to the maximum extent possible would be the best way of doing it. I think that the Labor Government in South Australia is in fact pursuing that course. So I hope that in this instance it is an example that the present Government, while it remains in office, might be able to continue.

The Opposition would want to record its support for the expansion of pre-school facilities throughout Australia. We will be examining this report in close detail and we will look forward to the opportunity that the Minister has undertaken to make available for a full and proper debate in the next session of Parliament.

Motion (by Mr Lionel Bowen) proposed:

That the House take note of the paper.

Debate (on motion by Mr Malcolm Fraser) adjourned.

page 4538

BILLS RETURNED FROM THE SENATE

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

States Grants (Rural Reconstruction) Bill 1973.

Honey Export Charge Bill 1973.

Honey Export Charge Collection Bill 1973.

Honey Industry Bill 1973.

Egg Export Charges Bill 1973.

Honey Levy Bill (No. 1) 1973.

Honey Levy Bill (No. 2) 1973.

page 4538

HOSPITALS AND HEALTH SERVICES COMMISSION BILL 1973

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 28 November (vide page 4013), on motion by Dr Everingham:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr CHIPP:
Hotham

– We are debating the Hospitals and Health Services Commission Bill 1973. I should not be surprised if listeners to the broadcasts of the Parliament are slightly confused. They may think that this is another Bill to institute the setting up of a commission. The proposal under this legislation is, however, separate from the so-called Hayden scheme. This might be termed part of the Everingham scheme.

Mr James:

– They are two good men.

Mr CHIPP:

– I would not disagree with my friend the honourable member for Hunter on that. They are two good men, but sometimes their policies are as desperately misguided as are the policies and speeches of the honourable member for Hunter. On behalf of the joint Opposition I support in general principle what this Bill does, but 1 would like to express some reservations and some concern on behalf of the Opposition on certain sections of it. Because this Bill was introduced on 28 November, which is almost 2 weeks ago, may I for the record refresh the memory of honourable members as to what this Bill does? It really legalises or formalises the Sax commission of inquiry into national hospitals and health services. I would like to make the point that the terms of reference and responsibility of the National Hospitals and Health Services Commission were announced by the Minister for Health on 5 April 1973. When the Minister announced those terms of reference and responsibilities they were applauded by all sections and organisations responsible for the delivery of health care throughout the nation. They were supported by hospitals generally, by doctors, by the Australian Medical Association and by other organisations.

The Hospitals and Health Services Commission Bill embodies matters which were not included in the original terms of reference and which change radically the acceptability of the Commission under the terms of the legislation. The main points of difference introduced for the first time in the Bill relate to the pronouncement of executive authority as a function of the Commission. The original terms of reference of the Commission were confined to areas of research and recommendations regarding planning and development of health services, recommending priorities regarding areas of need and recommending the allocation of project grants for the development of comprehensive community health services.

The Bill now before the House not only embodies legislation to ensure the continuance of the functions I have already set out - such functions were agreed to by the State authorities, as I understand it - but also it goes much further. This is the area of concern that I want to express in this House tonight on behalf of the Liberal Party of Australia and the Australian Country Party. To illustrate our concern I read the functions of the Commission. We agree entirely with most of the functions of the Commission as they are embodied in the Bill. As an Opposition we agree with the philosophy of the Bill because what it does is establish community health centres - sometimes with salaried doctors or salaried paramedical personnel - in those areas where people are poor, where people cannot understand if they or members of their family become ill, where they can go for medical advice and medical service.

In many areas in Australia - I am thinking of those inner industrial suburbs of the big cities or country towns - it is not economically viable for doctors, dentists or other people associated with the paramedical professions to set up practice. Therefore, the people in those areas are denied medical care when they or their families need it. As I understand the thrust of this Bill, it provides for the establishment of these centres by the Commonwealth in order that those people and their families can be attended to when they are ill or need medical care. The Opposition thoroughly agrees with that basic philosophy. In fact, it is part of the platform and policies that I announced when replying to the so-called Hayden scheme last Thursday.

Therefore, we agree with clause 5 of the Bill insofar as it provides that the functions of the Commission will be to make recommendations to the Minister for Health in the Commonwealth Parliament in relation to the provision of health services. We agree that it should be the function of the Commission to ascertain the health care needs of the Australian community and to make recommendations to the Minister in relation to the needs and in relation to health care delivery systems, etc. I refer to sub-paragraphs (i) to (v) of paragraph (b) of clause 5 (1) of the Bill.

We agree that the functions of the Commission should be to investigate means of securing and, with the approval of the Minister, to arrange for, the representation of Australia or the Commission on State, Territory, regional and local government organisations involved with health care, provided it is done after consultation. We agree with the Government that a function of the Commission should be to promote and take part in planning in relation to health services, etc. We agree that one of the functions of the Commission should be to achieve the avoidance of any unnecessary duplication in health services. We agree that one of the functions of the Commission should be to achieve efficiency in health services. When the original proposal to establish the Commission was announced by the Minister in April, it was welcomed, as I have mentioned before, by all sections of the community. In fact, it was regarded - to quote the medical profession - as the hope of the side to rationalise hospital and health care services throughout the nation. The Sax Committee is respected, I think, throughout the nation by all people concerned with medical care. Its interim report, which was criticised in some small areas, was acclaimed as being an advance in research into this basic question of medical care.

The one paragraph which has been inserted into the Bill and which gives us great concern is paragraph (c) of clause 5 (1). It contains a proposal which was not announced by the Minister in his statement in April, and which has never been suggested by the Minister or by anybody else since the discussion on this question began. That paragraph states that the functions of the Commission are: with the approval of the Minister, to make grants, upon such conditions, if any, as the Commission determines, of financial assistance out of the moneys of the Commission to organisations and persons of a kind referred to in sub-paragraph (b) (v);

That virtually means that the Commission is to be given executive powers to spend money, with the approval of the Minister, in any place in Australia in order to establish a health centre which could employ salaried doctors paid for by the Government, salaried dentists paid for by the Government and salaried physiotherapists and practitioners of paramedical services paid for by the Government, without reference to any of the State governments. The Opposition agrees with the philosophy behind the Bill that those free services should be provided to poor people or to people in rural areas where doctors and those providing the other paramedical services are not available. But we are concerned to read paragraph (c) in clause (5)(1) of the Bill in conjunction with the announced aims of the Minister for Health (Dr Everingham), who is sitting at the table-, who in response to a question I asked last week confirmed that in his view -medical care and medical practice in Australia should be provided by such centres, and that the procedure of doctors attending patients in private practice, in a doctorpatient relationship, should, and will inevitably, be reserved for the very wealthy or those few odd cranky people who would prefer to go to their own doctors rather than to attend a free government clinic. The Minister essentially is nodding his agreement to my proposition.

Dr Everingham:

– No, not the last part.

Mr CHIPP:

– Mr Speaker, I ask your indulgence to allow the Minister to interject. Is that not essentially what the Minister said in reply to my question?

Dr Everingham:

– I think you were quoting more from the ‘Bulletin’ version than my version. I was saying that maybe 20 per cent of Australians would continue to prefer private care.

Mr CHIPP:

– I thank the Minister for his acknowledgment. As far as honourable members on this side of the House are concerned, I think that that is a devastating confession of the Minister. He has just recorded in Hansard, at my invitation, the fact that in his view it is not only inevitable but also desirable that in the future 80 per cent of Australians will attend for their medical care at a government run clinic where they will get their services free, where there will be no doctor-patient relationship, and that only 20 per cent, the very wealthy, will reserve the right to receive private treatment, as happens in the Soviet Union and other countries. This is the sort of remark, interjection and statement that the Minister makes. I respect him for being a socialist and for having the views that he holds, but I violently disagree with those views. This is the very reason why we express concern about this Bill, because it gives the Minister and the Labor Government the power to take over private practice, if it wishes.

Mr James:

– That is not intended.

Mr CHIPP:

– I acknowledge the interjection of the honourable member for Hunter. I was very heartened by what was said by the Minister for Health today at question time. In response to a question from his own side of the House, I believe, he reaffirmed the view that the intent of the Government was to establish health centres only in those areas that I have mentioned - in areas of need - and I thoroughly support that. But I oppose with all the vigour I have the establishment of these kinds of health centres, out of taxpayers’ money, in those areas which are already well serviced by doctors and by paramedical services and where they would be in direct competition with the forces of free enterprise in those areas.

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

– Oh!

Mr CHIPP:

– Someone said ‘Oh!’ Could I record that interjection in Hansard?

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

– I was yawning.

Mr CHIPP:

– The honourable member for Burke has something to say.

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

– I was yawning.

Mr CHIPP:

– As much as I have great affection for the honourable member for Burke, 1 would suggest that all he is capable of in this

House lately is yawning. He would be better served by making more intelligent interjections than simply yawning.

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

– You will keep.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I ask the honourable member for Hotham to ignore interjections. Interjections must cease.

Mr CHIPP:

– When the Minister introduced this Bill on 28 November, because it had such repercussions on relationships with the 6 States of the Commonwealth, I naturally assumed in my naivety that he had consulted the States before constructing the Bill and drafting his second reading speech. As a matter of form, two or three days later, as any responsible spokesman for an Opposition party should do, I telephoned certain State Ministers and asked: ‘Obviously you have had consultations with the Commonwealth Minister for Health on this Bill. What are your views?’ I must confess that none of the State Ministers to whom I spoke -

Dr Jenkins:

– Are they New South Wales, Victoria and Queensland?

Mr CHIPP:

– That is correct. I am not exactly on speaking terms with State Ministers of Health in the other 3 States. I make a point here which may please the honourable member for Scullin. That would be an achievement because it is very hard to do that at any time. As I understand it, none of those 3 State Ministers of Health had heard of this Bill, notwithstanding that the conversation was 3 days after it had been introduced. They did not have a view on it. They confirmed that they had not been consulted on it. If I could say this with great respect to those Ministers in those 3 States governed by Liberal or Country Party governments, those Ministers have departments staffed by a great number of State public servants. I would have thought that one of the functions of those State Ministers should be, even if they were not paid the courtesy of consultation by the Federal Minister for Health, to know what is going on in this place. They should have been informed of this legislation the day the Minister introduced the Bill and made his second reading speech. I should have thought that they should have had a view on the Bill and on the controversial clause 5(l)(c) when I, as the spokesman for the Opposition in this Parliament, telephoned them. Unhappily, that was not so.

I do register my disappointment that the Federal Minister for Health did not contact his State counterparts. In fact, it seems extraordinary that he should introduce a Bill which changes the terms and conditions under which the Sax Commission now operates into » different ball game and does not have the courtesy to inform State Ministers of Health of what he is doing. Therefore, as a precaution, I propose to move:

In clause 5, at the end of the clause add the following new sub-clause:

The Minister, before giving his approval to the Commission to make grants under paragraph (1) (c) to a State organisation or to an organisation or persons in a State, other than an Authority or instrumentality of Australia, shall request the appropriate Minister of that State to consult with him concerning the matter and, if that Minister does so consult with him, have regard to the view expressed by that Minister.’

The Minister informs me that the Government is prepared to accept that amendment to the Bill. I thank the Minister for his graciousness in accepting that which we believe to be a wise precaution. But this still leaves at least State Ministers of Health with a worry.

Although I have not their express approval, I do not think I am breaking any confidences if I read 3 telegrams that I have received in the last few days from these Ministers. The first telegram, dated 6 December, is from Mr Scanlan, the Minister of Health in Victoria. That telegram states:

Have received Hospitals and Health Services Commission Bill 1973 this morning. A cursory examination indicates that it is totally unacceptable in its present form and therefore request deferment of the item to enable the implications of the Bill to be studied and examined. The Bill has very undesirable implications for Victoria. The Bill has not been seen by the Ministers in either New South Wales or Queensland.

It is signed ‘A. H. Scanlan, Minister of Health’. Mr John Waddy, the New South Wales Minister of Health, sent a telegram to the Federal Minister for Health and sent a copy to me. It reads:

Have grave concern that Hospital and Health Services Commission Bill permits unwarranted extension of the Commonwealth into matters of State responsibility. Unacceptable to New South Wales because of breadth of powers granted to your Commission to possibly by-pass State authorities. The Bill is not in accord with understanding reached between officers of your Commission and mine. Urgent reconsideration and consultation requested.

I am not in a position to inform the House of the allegation here of a breach of trust. Mr Waddy claims that: ‘the Bill is not in accord with an understanding reached between officers of your Commission and mine’. I do not accept that allegation as being true nor do I reject it-

Mr SPEAKER:

-If I may interrupt the honourable member, I point out that it will be necessary for him to move in Committee the amendment which he earlier indicated he proposed to move and which he said the Minister for Health accepted. I think, in view of the guillotine procedures, that the honourable member had better arrange with the Leader of the House for that to be done before the guillotine is applied to this legislation.

Mr CHIPP:

– Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am sure that an arrangement will be made. The way things are going, I do not think that we will be pushing this Bill to 10.30 p.m. In respect of the telegram from Mr Waddy, I am not alleging a breach of trust, but I do hope that the Minister will respond to the allegation in that telegram from John Waddy when he replies in this debate. Thirdly, I have a telegram sent on 10 December by the Queensland Minister for Health, Mr Tooth. That telegram reads:

The following telegram has been despatched to Dr Everingham quote Following quick reading of the Hospitals and Health Services Commission Bill I desire to express my anxiety regarding a number of its proposed provisions and suggest deferment until views of States can be submitted for consideration stop As I understand it at the moment several of its clauses would be regarded as objectionable by Queensland unquote.

It is signed ‘Tooth Queensland Health Minister’. I quote these telegrams for the record. I repeat that I am concerned that the Minister did not consult the States, or allegedly did not consult the States, according to my information, before he introduced this Bill.

Let us get back to philosophy. We on this side of the House support the philosophical thrust of this Bill. I quote from ‘JAMA’, which is the Journal of the American Medical Association. The journal states:

The research hypothesis that the organisational structure of a health delivery system can significantly alter the pattern of medical care behaviour of its patient population was tested. The utilisation patterns of 31 multiproblem families were studied for 30 continuous months of comprehensive care provided by a family-oriented health tare team (physicians, nurse, health aide, and social worker), with continuity, co-ordination, and constant availability of care. The findings demonstrated a change from an illness response pattern to a health-orientation response pattern. There was an increasing use of health care services such as nurse counselling, psychosocial guidance, employment assistance, health education, marriage counselling, and rehabilitation, and a decreasing use of physician services for illness care. The changing pattern of medical care behaviour of these families created an effective utilisation of allied health personnel, with physician-sparing results.

I would hope that the Minister for Health, who is at the table, would agree that this is a short summary of the philosophical thrust of what he is wanting to do in these health community services. If it is, the Opposition would thoroughly concur with that objective because, as distinct from the Hayden approach, the emphasis is on preventive medicine rather than curative medicine. That is something with which we would thoroughly agree.

In general principle we agree with the Bill. We do have reservations. At a Press conference which I conducted last Thursday, I gave notice publicly that we support the Bill philosophically but reserve our right after careful consideration and after consultation with the States to amend it either here or in the Senate, or at a later date in any fashion that we believe to be responsible. We have not had time, nor by the dates on those telegrams have the States had the time, or the inclination to examine the Bill and its implications in detail. So, although supporting it philosophically at this stage in the House on the assumption that the Minister accepts the amendment that I propose to move, we reserve the right to amend it in another place at a later date.

In conclusion may I express my disappointment that the Minister has not accepted an amendment that we wanted to move after consultation with our colleagues in the Country Party. This was a further amendment to clause 5. At line 32 at the end of paragraph C we wanted to add the following words:

Being a prescribed organisation or a prescribed person.

To listeners on the radio or people in the gallery those words would not mean anything. But the intention of the Opposition was to ensure that the Minister, when instructing or authorising the Commission to make grants to an organisation, which he can now do under clause 5 of the Bill, would not only consult with the State Minister for Health or the appropriate person in a State, but would also prescribe the organisation to which he has instructed or allowed the Commission to give money. Let me give honourable members an example. It would be anathema to the Opposition for the Minister to allow millions of dollars to build a health centre in those areas which are presently well serviced by private doctors, private dentists or private paramedical services. We believe that that is not his intention. But we would think that the Parliament should have control over expenditure in these areas. At the moment there is nothing in the Bill that would prevent the Minister from going mad and doing that kind of thing about which I have just expressed a fear.

We wanted the added protection to be written into the Bill that when the Minister does hypothecate funds for the building of a health centre in any area, that hypothecation should come before the Parliament - this House and the other place - in the form that he has to prescribe the organisation. Of course, he would do this by regulation. As the Minister would know, when he prescribes or makes a regulation that regulation lies on the table of the House for a certain number of days during which this House and the other place have power to allow or disallow that regulation. As we see it this amendment would be a precaution for the Parliament to take. This amendment would give the Parliament the power to disallow expenditure which would be allowed by the Bill in its present form if the Minister, whoever he may be - he may be Labor, Liberal or whatever - does something outrageous. I think that it would be a sensible amendment. But the Minister has chosen not to accept it. We regret that.

Unless we have some unanswerable arguments put to us by the State governments the Opposition, in this House anyway, will support the Bill with the reservation that we would like to see included the amendment that I have just outlined. We will not be going to the barricades on it at this stage because we know very well that the Minister or any Federal Minister has the power to do what we fear he could do by way of section 96 grants at the moment. Therefore it would be a sham battle for us to reject this Bill and to force an amendment either here or in the other place because we know that what this Bill proposes can be done at the moment. Basically we think that it is a good piece of legislation. The Opposition supports the Bill with the qualification that at the Committee stage it will move the amendment which I foreshadowed.

Dr JENKINS:
Scullin

– I listened with some interest to the speech made by the honourable member for Hotham (Mr Chipp)) on this Bill. I find the honourable member quite disarming. He says that he agrees with the philosophy of the Bill. He has foreshadowed an innocuous amendment and I thought that this was normal behaviour in these circumstances. He talked about consultation with the States and having regard to the view expressed. He then set up a number of scarecrows which he proceeded to knock down, at least in part, himself. One thing that shone through his speech was the fact that he did make an endeavour to divide the things which the Minister for Health (Dr Everingham) is proposing from those which the Minister for Social Security (Mr Hayden) is proposing. I am sure that this was quite deliberate. But in doing so he did himself no credit because this Bill which proposes to set up a Hospitals and Health Services Commission is part of an overall pattern of health services and social services that is being put forward by the Government.

To me the establishment of the Hospitals and Health Services Commission is one of the most exciting and stimulating areas of the total picture of health services that is going forward. But it by no means can be taken in isolation from the overall picture of what is occurring. What is occurring in Australia reflects a worldwide change that is taking place. One cannot help but feel that the Opposition is acting like a group of King Canutes trying to stop the tide, trying to stop the inevitable simply by trying to divide a comprehensive plan for health and social security up into a number of groups. The Government has made quite clear the fact that it has a policy over the whole area. It has been spelling out that policy. I must contrast this approach with that of the Opposition. I recall that only a couple of months ago the honourable member for Corangamite (Mr Street), who was at that time the Opposition spokesman on health, announced that the Opposition had a policy. I think the policy was something to do with contractual arrangements with doctors after the style that is occurring in regard to the compensation matter in Victoria at the moment where doctors are to contract with the Commission so that they receive payment for insurance cases that might drag on. But then, of course, there was a change in the shadow spokesman for health. Such was the change that I would like to read an article that appeared in ‘Phial Copy’, No. 3 (New Series) October 1973. The article was headed: Shadow Minister Appointed by Liberals’. It stated:

Following the reshuffle of portfolios occasioned by the retirement from politics of the Hon. Nigel Bowen, Q.C., the Hon. D. L. Chipp, M.P., has been appointed

Opposition spokesman on Social Security, Health and Welfare.

Among other things the article stated:

When approached for an interview for ‘Phial Copy, Mr Chipp declined, explaining that his Committee had not yet fully worked out Liberal Party policy, and invited an approach at a later date.

After many years of experience in government this was a confession that the Party that had been the principal partner in government did not have a policy on these areas. In fact, the honourable member for Hotham expressed some doubts about the terms of reference of the Commission. Certainly there are wider opportunities for funding in the terms of reference for the permanent Commission. I cannot see why he takes objection to that.

The honourable member raised the question of consultation with the States. I can see why some Ministers for Health were concerned about this Bill. I entered the Victorian Parliament on the same day as the present Victorian Minister for Health, so I know his performance well. Those State Ministers have much to fear from an investigation of health services in their States. There are deprived areas without medical services, areas without adequate hospital beds and country areas with no provision or minimal provision of facilities which are all the responsibility of the State governments. Because they have concern that these various deficiencies will be revealed, undoubtedly they have some objection to the Commission’s moving in and having a look. I am sure that the people concerned in the matter will be supporting this approach so that we will know what the needs of the areas are.

One can accentuate the matter in Victoria by referring to the recent Press statement of the Minister for Health. In Victoria there is a serious situation in relation to health care facilities for 3 needy areas - the areas that the honourable member for Hotham said should be assisted. They are the Deer Park and Kingston areas of Melbourne and the Eaglehawk district of Bendigo where there is a serious shortage of doctors and other health services. The Federal Government has offered a grant of more than S2.5m for the community health programs in these areas but so far the Victorian Government has not acted on this offer. The Minister has delayed commenting on this matter. After all, these are needy areas and the people in these areas cannot wait to receive the basic health care facilities that they should receive. So much for consultation with the States.

Members of the Opposition and others have adopted the unfortunate attitude of trying to discredit any health institution that comes under government auspices. For example, we have a very fine repatriation system of hospitals. One of my constituents, a Mr J. B. McCann, was recently in the Heidelberg Repatriation Hospital. He wrote to the ‘Herald’ on 6 October and stated:

Having read a lot of comments by a minority of doctors opposed to the health scheme proposed by the Labor Government, I would like to express mine.

I interpose to say that this gentleman understands that the Government’s health plan is an overall, comprehensive one and cannot be divided into little compartments. The letter continued:

I am in the Repatriation Hospital at Heidelberg and have found that the dedication, care and attention from the specialists, doctors and the nursing stait is something I cannot speak highly enough of.

This hospital is run on the same scheme as the Minister for Health proposes in his Bill.

Health is the paramount concern of the Government, not wealth.

This man expressed what he felt about a Commonwealth hospital, and what was the response? An anonymous letter was sent to him including a copy of the book ‘Be In It, Mate’. The envelope was post marked Geelong so it must have come from one of the constituents of my colleague the honourable member for Corio (Mr Scholes). The letter said:

The answer to your letter in the paper. Do we want the whole nation to be bludgers?

What sort of program is that, trying to denigrate what are excellent institutions?

The delivery of health services in our community has been artificially divided in the past. We have had some preventive health services, usually conducted by governments at various levels; quarantine services conducted at the Federal level; immunisation campaigns at both State and local government levels; and public health services also at those levels. There has been the curative field of health services, largely conducted on a private basis or in government institutions. Finally, there has been the provision of a separate group of mental health services. I believe that this is a tremendously artificial division of health services.

In the Hospitals and Health Services Commission we have an instrument which may overcome much of this artificial division. In the past preventive medicine has been looked on as dealing with infectious disease or matters of public health, but we are becoming more and more aware of the stresses and strains of the environment, of the psychiatric factors that occur in the community, of the problems of inactivity of the housewife or other members of the community and perhaps the need for their retraining. We need to consider the rehabilitation of many people who are disabled in a number of ways and who need retraining to prevent them from moving on to another area of disease. We have to get over this question of separating our mental health services completely from the other health services. That is not a new concept.

I recall when the mental health services in Victoria were at their lowest ebb and Dr Cunningham Dax took over and certainly improved those services He later had to give up in disgust and retreat to a new area in Tasmania. He wrote a book entitled ‘From Asylum to Community’. In that book he put forward the proposition that institutions for the treatment of mental disease should not be separate from the normal flow of health services but should be located in a physical way close to the normal health stream instead of having this artificial division. Perhaps this is one of the things that the Hospitals and Health Services Commission could investigate and report upon under the very wide powers it has. It is a long time since there has been a comprehensive examination of hospital needs and the regionalisation of hospital services. When one reads the history of the development of hospitals in Australia one is surprised at the way they have just ‘growed’ like Topsy. I was recently reading a report by McEachern on the hospital services in Victoria in the 1920s. McEachern later distinguished himself with the system of accreditation and so on which has been instituted in American hospitals for the American College of Surgeons. He said just how marvellous the charitable hospital system was in the 1920s - a thing that would be quite unacceptable today.

So we look with some pleasure to what this Hospitals and Health Services Commission may be able to do in identifying hospital needs and in identifying just how services can be provided most efficiently with the necessary finance injected into the system. There are various levels of activity at which this can occur. In fact when we talk of community health centres we should note some of the experiences in country areas. The proposition was put forward that there should be a district hospital at Queenscliff in Victoria, which is some 17 miles from the large base hospital at

Geelong. That concept was changed more to the community health centre concept that was mentioned in the report of the interim committee. A similar situation occurred at Minyip with a lack of medical practitioners and other facilities. Much to the regret intially of the local people, it was suggested that the hospital should become one of these community health centres. I applaud the community health centre concept. The honourable member for Hotham criticised the Minister for Health for indicating the way in which he predicted the proportion of practice would develop in the future. But the Minister has indicated that we are looking for areas of need - areas of deprivation - in which to put these community health centres.

Mr Chipp:

– Do you think that 80 per cent of the population is deprived?

Dr JENKINS:

– It depends on over what period of time the honourable member takes it. If he looks at overseas trends and if he likes to take the United States of America-

Mr Chipp:

– Or Russia.

Dr JENKINS:

– Yes. He should look at Russia where it is 100 per cent.

Mr Chipp:

– You look at Russia. I do not want to.

Dr JENKINS:

– I have. I have already been and looked at their polyclinics and their regionalisation and I have seen the effect of the medical services that they have there. I think perhaps we should go and look at some of these areas and learn from them. The honourable member might look at the Soviet system. He might even see some of the ways in which some of our deficiencies might be overcome. He might even go and look at some of the Scandinavian countries and see how across-the-board health services are given. He could go and look at the United States of America and Canada and see what has happened to general practice in America, where cost for the patient is forcing the general practitioner out of the community into these sorts of things. They are a disappearing race. The honourable member should realise that this is occurring.

What the Minister for Health is proposing might preserve the personal type of physician in the community, even if the personal physician is in this horrible thing - this government community health centre. It is better to have it out there in the community with the doctor of first contact than to allow the situation to deteriorate so that there are no more doctors of first contact out in the community but they are all at some sort of centralised clinic or hospital.

There are lessons to be learned and I hope the honourable member for Hotham will take the trouble at some stage to have a look at them. He will find it most rewarding. He will find that the Minister for Health has been very honest indeed in what he has expressed, because what he is doing is trying to preserve the doctor of first contact out in the community where people live. His initial effort is to supply this service for deprived and needy people such as those who live in the eastern part of my electorate where I hope he will put up one of his community health centres because there are no private practitioners there. The private practitioners in the rest of the area are over worked because the distribution of medical practitioners in the community is one of the problems. These are the real needs.

The Minister for Health shows his compassion and his real concern for people when he admits that this sort of change is taking place. The other change that is taking place is that the community health services are disappearing out of the communities and going into centralised hospital areas under the most free-ranging private enterprise systems. I think that is one thing that should be considered. I think that is one of the scarecrows that the honourable member for Hotham put up and partly knocked down himself. I think he ought to rethink this.

I welcome the fact that this Hospital and Health Services Commission is to become a real entity and not just an interim one. I am glad that its terms of reference have been widened. I am disappointed that the Victorian Minister for Health should have held up the supply of services in Deer Park, Kensington and Eaglehawk where the honourable member for Bendigo took part in the discussions and where his colleague the Victorian Minister for Health by his obstruction is not allowing people who need doctors to get them. The Australian Country Party should think of this, because there are many areas that they represent where I have stumped the countryside and have been asked how they could be helped. This commission gives them hope for help. I thoroughly support the concept of the Bill and I wish the Commission well. I look forward to its reports over the years.

Mr HAMER:
Isaacs

– The Opposition supports the concept of the Hospitals and

Health Services Commission although, as the honourable member for Hotham (Mr Chipp) has pointed out, we wish to see that its method of operation takes full account of the rights and responsibilities of State governments and of this Parliament. Despite the remarks of the honourable member for Scullin (Dr Jenkins), we must never forget that governmental responsibility for health care is a partnership between the Federal and State governments and that the responsibility of this Parliament under section 51 of the Constitution is limited to the provision of pharmaceutical, sickness and hospital benefits and medical and dental services. It is important to note that this Parliament’s responsibility in the hospital field, for instance, is for benefits, not for the organisation or running of the hospital system. This is the responsibility of the State governments. It is true that the Federal Government can attempt to widen its power by using grants under section 96 of the Constitution but I believe this is an improper use of this power.

It is against this background of the constitutional position that this Hospitals and Health Services Commission must be considered. This Bill does not - it cannot - create any new powers for this Parliament. Anything this new Commission could do could already be done by the Health Department under appropriations by this House. For instance, $9m has already been approved under the community health program. It is important to recognise this, because some rather strident opposition to the Hospitals and Health Services Commission has been based on this misunderstanding. I welcome this Commission, as I welcomed the Social Welfare Commission, because it brings the operations of government out into the open but, as the honourable member for Hotham has pointed out, we do have some reservation about the way in which this particular Bill is going to achieve these ends. I am very glad to see there is to be an annual report tabled in Parliament but this is not the total need of information of this House. The information in this annual report may be up to 16 months stale, and this House must have more up-to-date information than that. In the Social Welfare Bill passed by this House a little time ago, section 16, referring to the Social Welfare Commission, provides:

  1. The Commission shall furnish to the Minister such reports as the Minister requires and may furnish such other reports as the Commission thinks fit.
  2. Where the Commission furnishes a report to the Minister, the Minister shall as soon as practicable cause that report to be laid before each House of the Parliament.

There is no such provision in the Bill we are considering. I believe there should be and I would appreciate the Minister when he replies to this debate explaining to this House why there is not.

Even that is not enough because we well know that this Government has the habit of burying inconvenient reports on the notice paper so that this House cannot debate them. If we are to have this Commission working effectively, there must be arrangements whereby this House can exercise appropriate control and have a right to debate the matter if it sees fit. That is the reason for the suggestion by the honourable member for Hotham that where this Hospitals and Health Services Commission has the power to make grants under the approval of the Minister, the organisations to which the grants are given should be prescribed organisations so that the Minister would have to approve the grants by regulation which could if desired then be debated by the House. This, I believe, is the central measure of financial control by this House. The honourable member for Hotham mentioned, of course, the ways in which the whole pattern could be distorted. Although I believe the intentions of the Minister are good with regard to community health centres, for instance, it is possible that at some stage he may have an undesirable bias. We should like to have the power to see what is happening in time to prevent it. I believe this is the right of this House.

There is another amendment which, I am glad to say, has been accepted by the Government. It is to clause 5 (1), which is a very important clause. It gives the Commission power, with the approval of the Minister, to make grants upon such conditions, if any, as the Commission determines, of financial assistance out of the moneys of the Commission to State, Territory, regional local government and charitable organisations, and to other persons involved in health care or in research related to health care. This obviously transgresses in the field which is rightly regarded as the field of the State health departments, and therefore we regard it as of great importance that the Federal Minister, before giving his approval to such grants, should request the appropriate State Minister of Health to consult with him on the matter and to have regard to the views expressed by that Minister. It is a most important step and I am very glad that the Government has accepted it.

I should also like to direct attention to clause 5(1) which involves research into better methods of delivery of health care. I believe that this is a very important area. The costs of health care are becoming of increasing concern throughout the world. There is almost no limit to what a government can spend on health care. It can spend the entire gross national product and still have unsatisfied demand. But one of the difficulties of our present system of health insurance and health care - which is not in any way cured by the Hayden scheme - is the fact that there is little overall cost control. Health care is too compartmented. One has the situation where the local general practitioner prescribes drugs for which he knows the patient does not have to pay, except for a token payment when he receives the drugs. The doctor does not have to pay fo them and there is very little incentive to economical prescribing. I think the reports of the Joint Select Committee on Pharmaceutical Benefits bore that out.

That is not the only problem. Hospital care is another area where the patient is not going to pay, the doctor is not going to pay and there will be little incentive to economising in the use of hospital care, which is an important section of our health costs. Finally, of course, the hospitals have no responsibility, generally, for the after care of the patient. Inevitably, some patients are discharged in conditions that make their return to hospital, at great cost to the community, almost inevitable. I believe that we should be feeling our way towards some system which will provide overall cost accounting and achieve the most economical use of our available health resources.

The Americans, who have a much more serious deficiency in their health care than we have, have developed health maintenance organisations of which the best known, of course, is the Kaiser-Permante scheme, which is a capitation scheme which gives total health care. There are many advantages in such a scheme, but it would be useful in Australia only because it is a profit making system. That is the incentive on the members of the Kaiser-Permanente scheme to keep their health costs low. They must service the total health care of an individual for an annual charge. If they can do it for less than the charge, they make a profit which they share. Obviously, this would be workable in Australia only if it were an alternative to the ordinary fee for service system. I believe that in our major centres such an alternative system would be highly desirable and would provide a lead in reducing the rapidly increasing costs in health care which are occurring throughout the world.

Dr Gun:

– Hear, hear! Well said.

Mr HAMER:

– I would urge the Hospitals and Health Services Commission to have an early look at the system and judge its application to Australia. There are difficulties in implementing it. Our system of pharmaceutical benefits and our hospital insurance schemes do not lend themselves easily to such a system being introduced, but I believe that there are ways around this. As a further point - I was interested in the enthusiasm of the honourable member for Kingston (Dr Gun) in relation to this - it is worth noting that such an alternative system will fit much more easily into the present health scheme than it would into the proposed alternative Hayden scheme. However, that is slightly off the subject of this debate.

What we are dealing with tonight is the Hospitals and Health Services Commission. As I have said, the Opposition supports the concept of this Commission. We have reservations about whether it will adequately protect the rights and responsibilities of the States and, even more importantly, the rights and responsibilities of this House. We would wish to see a further examination of this Bill, probably in the Senate, but apart from that we accept the concept of the Bill.

Mr SCHOLES:
Corio

– The concepts of community health services and a health commission is one which is developing in a number of fields. We have the Social Welfare Commission and a number of education commissions. I think that the most important feature of these bodies is that they are motivated by the needs of the community for service and their recommendations are recommendations by people who have something other than a political motive for developing programs of health care. It is all very well for people to say that we have a free choice of health services and that people have the right to go to the doctor of their choice and the right to choose the type of treatment that they want. This is just not true.

There are 2 classes of people in Australia when it comes to health care - those who live in areas which are well served by doctors in private practice and those who do not. It can be pretty accurately estimated that those who live in areas which are well served by doctors are normally those people in the middle to upper income brackets, and those who live in areas where health care is not readily available are those in the lower income brackets. It may be only a coincidence that under existing health insurance, those people who live in the areas best served by medical practice are the people who pay the least for the care they receive because of the greater compensations they receive from governments in the form of taxation concessions and the like.

Geelong, the city which basically I represent, although part of it is not in my electorate, has conflicting demographic areas at the north and the south of the area. At the southern end of Geelong at Highton and Belmont there are twice as many general practitioners available to the population as there are in the northern part of the city, which is mainly an area of housing commission development, and the ratio may be even higher than 2 to 1. I refer now to the concept of community health centres. Norlane is an area where for at least 10 years - possibly longer than that - the Victorian Government has set aside land for the development of a second hospital in the Geelong area. I think modern thinking in health management would suggest that one would not build a second base hospital in the Geelong area in the near future and possibly not for many years. But the need for access to health care is very great. I seem to remember someone earlier today - I think, most likely, that it was the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Snedden) - suggesting that some people do not have health care available to them. He mentioned the person who was sick in bed and who could not obtain the services of a general practitioner. The suggestion was that the person would get up and go to his public hospital out-patients’ centre to obtain treatment. One could well imagine a person who has had a coronary or something else doing that

Mr Staley:

– He did not say that.

Mr SCHOLES:

– He did. The honourable member should read his speech. That is exactly what he said - that they would get up and go to the out-patients’ centre of their public hospital.

Mr Staley:

– No, he did not say that.

Mr SCHOLES:

– Those are the words he used. The facts of the matter are, of course, that for some people access to a doctor in private practice is just non-existent because of the work load of those doctors who choose to continue to practise in what must be considered to be unfashionable areas, and community health centres would seem to be the best means by which health care facilities can be made readily available to these people in the best possible manner. It is not unusual in this day and age for people to be asked for cash before treatment in areas where I am sure doctors carry heavy loads of bad debts, but the fact that a person does not have the money to pay does not alter his need for care. The suggestion that if people are given free access to doctors or health services they will over-utilise the services is a one way suggestion. It .suggests that if a financial penalty is imposed on the people who cannot afford to pay they will over-utilise the service but that it does not matter if those who can afford to pay overutilise the service. Evidently, that is very good and possibly wholesome. I think over-utilisation is a problem which is pretty widespread among those who can afford to pay and who are in no way limited in their over-utilisation by financial penalties. It may be, although I do not think it is, as prevalent among those who cannot afford to pay. I think it is more likely that those people, especially mothers of large families, deny themselves medical services because they do not wish to embarrass their families financially.

The honourable member for Hotham (Mr Chipp) and the honourable member for Isaacs (Mr Hamer) made a point relating to dealing with allocations of funds by the Minister in the same way hs we deal with regulations in this Parliament, so that either House could reject any ministerial decision made in this area. I think that this would be a very dangerous precedent. It is something which the Opposition parties never sought to apply to themselves when in office. It is always significant that people want to protect the public from people other than themselves. The argument in relation to consultation with the States is very interesting when we remember that late last year the then Government introduced a Bill relating to child minding centres which took no account whatsoever of State Departments of Health which were looking after that matter. In fact, it absolutely overrode them and did not even place those child minding centres within the Federal Departments of Health or Education and Science but in fact made them part of the Department of Labour and National Service, as it was then called. The State Ministers were not to be consulted, State governments were not to be consulted and municipal councils were to be totally excluded from access to the scheme. So, when people talk about consulting the States and protecting State rights, I would have thought that the pre-school education and child minding area was very specifically one for the States; but in cases in which it suited the former government it had no compunction at all in excluding the States from its legislation.

In 1968-69 the Victorian Government refused to participate in schemes which were set up ‘by means of legislation passed through this House. I refer to legislation relating to paramedical services, home care for the aged and elderly citizens clubs. The Victorian Government for 2 or 3 years refused to participate in the latter scheme because it had not been consulted in relation to it and it did not agree with it. To suggest at this stage that we should consult the States when the previous Government never bothered to do it or very rarely bothered to do it is to adopt a ‘holier than thou’ attitude. This Parliament is responsible for its own legislation and it must remain so. To suggest that political bias may affect the allocations of funds made by a Minister at some future time is to suggest, firstly, that the Commission could become a corrupt body - I do not think any honourable member of this House would suggest that - and, secondly, that political bias has never affected the decisions of governments of any political colour in the past. If the honourable gentleman who made that suggestion would care to do so, he can accompany me to 2 high schools in my electorate which because of political bias - I say this quite advisedly - have been denied Commonwealth funds for libraries and science blocks while schools which are much better able to afford them have had them for 6 or 7 years. No one suggested that the list of proposed allocations, including those very welcome gifts of libraries and science blocks, should have been tabled in both Houses of the Parliament so that those who were opposed to the Government could sort them out and deny the allocation of the funds going to Government areas while allowing allocations to go to their own areas.

I think it is naive and actually destructive to suggest that every decision in relation to one particular area should be subject to parliamentary approval or should be subject to rejection by one or other of the Houses of the Parliament. If the suggestion were that the allocations go through in the form of a Bill, it might be a little more reasonable. At least then both Houses would have to agree to their passage. But this suggestion that one House should have the power to sort out which schemes it wants is fairly irresponsible, especially when one looks at the record of the previous Government in this field. I do not hear any honourable members opposite making this sort of suggestion - I did not hear them make the suggestion when in government either - in relation to the Aged Persons Homes Act under which money is provided for nursing homes. Although nursing homes were fairly substantially a State responsibility, they have been taken over almost totally by the Commonwealth by means of a Bill passed by this Parliament last year. They have been taken over to the extent that nursing homes no longer even fix their own fees. It should be noted that the State governments were not consulted about that matter. So I think the suggestion that State governments should be consulted is a lot of humbug.

The other thing I wish to point out is that recently the Victorian Minister of Health, when he brought down a Bill which allowed private organisations access to statistical information on hospitals but denied the same access to the Commonwealth Government, did not consult the Commonwealth Government about that matter. I do not remember any indication that the State governments consult the Commonwealth about these sorts of matters before they introduce legislation. The Victorian Minister of Health is now desperately trying to find a way around his own Bill. I support the concept of community health centres. I hope that in the very near future it will be possible for members of the community in the Norlane area, which is in my electorate in the northern areas of Geelong, to get together and draw up a proposal for such a scheme. I hope that all of the community bodies will co-operate in a proposal for a community health centre in the NorlaneCorio area because at the moment that area is under-serviced by doctors and will continue in that situation because it is not what is known as a fashionable area.

The fear that doctors going into salaried medical practice will in some way endanger private practice is not really supportable. Doctors go into salaried practice only from choice. The greatest danger to the general practitioner is not salaried medical practice but the attractiveness of entering specialist areas. This trend has evolved largely because of the Gorton amendments to the national health scheme which gave a very special position in the health scheme to specialists visavis general practitioners. The discussions I have had in this regard indicate that general practitioners have had a very raw deal. Unfortunately, because of the activities of a very small section of them, there is not a great deal of sympathy for them in the community, even though they represent the area of medical practice which most likely is in the greatest need of review at the present time.

I conclude on this note: The proposals before the House are to set up a Hospitals and Health Services Commission to investigate and make recommendations on health needs, hospital needs and community health centre needs. I think that this proposal should be supported by this House. I am sure that it will be supported by this House. I hope that the Opposition parties, in what appears to be a negative attitude, do not tie the whole thing up with red tape and procedures which will ensure that the Commission cannot work, as they have attempted to do in relation to other legislation. The Opposition parties should remember that any tying up of proposals by the use of their numbers in the Senate in order to take away from Ministers the power or the authority which they normally have exercised in the past not only will reflect on the present Government but also will hamper very seriously all future governments in their operations. If one chooses to tie down a Minister in a manner which prevents him from carrying out the responsibilities which are allocated to him by this Parliament, one is tying down all Ministers in the same way, and we could, and will, reach a situation where government will become impossible because of the over-regulation that one is trying to build into a system in order to protect one’s own interests at this time.

In regard to the suggestion by the honourable member for Isaacs (Mr Hamer) that we do not discuss reports in this Parliament and that they go on the notice paper, I say to him that he should revive his memory and go back and have a look at the notice paper of last year, the year before, the year before that and any other year in the last 25 years and he will find that at any reasonable time after the start of a session 20 or 30 reports had been tabled and not debated in this House. That has always been the case. I think it is unfortunate, but it is one of the facts of parliamentary life and I think the honourable member would acknowledge that.

Mr LLOYD:
Murray

– lt is an interesting coincidence, I think, that we should be debating the Hospitals and Health Services Commission Bill tonight when referendums were held on Saturday. The referendums were an attempt to transfer more power from the States to the Commonwealth Government, and of course they failed. I know this Bill was introduced before the referendums were held, but after reading the provisions of the Bil! one should ask: Why bother to have referendums, because these powers can quite easily be transferred from the States to the Commonwealth just by a simple Bill such as that which we are discussing. If one reads the Bill one finds that that is exactly what it does. Until now the States have had the major responsibility for hospital and health care services, particularly the physical construction of these services, and yet here we have them, to a certain extent, being made redundant or bypassed and, until this amendment was promoted, not even being consulted, so that the Minister for Health (Dr Everingham) has once again this direct power from Canberra over this most important aspect of our lives.

Another interesting question, I think, is: Why should this Bill be introduced at this time? An Interim Commission was set up to investigate priorities in this area of health care services. One would assume that a more substantive report than the one which has been presented will be made and that when that report is made that will be the time to transfer the Interim Commission to a permanent Commission. Why are we having the change at this time, particularly when the States say - and we have telegrams to this effect - that it is a breach of an understanding reached with the States earlier this year when the Interim Commission was first established? Is it that the Chairman of the present Interim Commission feels that he would like a more permanent appointment before he completes the first part of his work? Is it that other members of the Commission themselves feel that they would like a permanent appointment?

What is to be the procedure for appointing the permanent Chairman? Rumour has it that Dr Sax will be the Chairman of the permanent Commission, the same as he is Chairman of the Interim Commission. That may be the best decision but will anybody else be considered? What experience does he have, particularly within our Federal system in Australia, in a senior administrative role of this nature? I think some very interesting questions can be asked on this point. If this Interim Commission has not completed its investigative role of the priorities for health care services, why does it suddenly switch and have these extra powers given to it - and they are extra powers - in order to provide financial grants for these services? I believe that the States have some very real fears for the future about this proposition. I look at some aspects of this Bill in particular. Clause 5 (4) states:

An organization or person may accept a grant made under paragraph (1) (c) by way of or for the purposes of pharmaceutical, sickness or hospital benefits or the provision of medical or dental services, and may give effect to any condition subject to which the grant is made, notwithstanding anything contained in a law of a State.

In other words, because of the way this Bill was originally drafted, without allowing for the amendment, the Commonwealth - the Minister - can completely not only disregard the State but also go against the actual wishes of a State on a particular issue. Clause 5 (1) (d) states that the function of the Commission will be: to investigate means of securing and, with the approval of the Minister, to arrange for, the representation of Australia or the Commission on State, Territory, regional and local government organizations involved in health care;

Does that mean, as it appears to mean, that the Government of Australia will have its own representative on all of these boards down to a local area community centre or hospital - the State does not have representatives on them at the moment - and that it will also have representatives on all of the State organisations? If it is intended to investigate means of securing such representation on all of these boards and authorities down to a local level, one can imagine what it will mean. It will probably mean that those who play along with the wishes of the Federal Government and agree to somebody being on a board or authority will get their money, but that if they do not agree to have some Federal representative who will pull the strings at every level they will not get this grant at all.

This is to me a very dangerous infringement of any sort of autonomy, and it goes against the assertions of the Minister’s whole proposition that local areas or regions are best able to care for things themselves and should have some power in this regard. As I see it, with a member of the Commonwealth Government perhaps on all of these bodies, these areas or regions will have less and less power than they have ever had before. One also reads with interest sub-paragraph (v) of paragraph (e) of clause 5 (1) which states that the function of the Commission is to achieve: the avoidance of any unnecessary duplication in health services;

That must be one of the best laughs coming up to Christmas. When the Commonwealth intrudes in this field when it never has done so before, it can mean nothing else but increased duplication. That would be one of the best laughs we have had this week, if it was not so serious.

Mr Cohen:

– You are easily amused.

Mr LLOYD:

– It is hard to be amused in this place sometimes when one sees what is coming from the Government. There are particular problems for country areas and it has been stated - and I think sincerely - by some honourable members that this proposal will be a help to those areas. I hope that in the long run it will be a help but initially at least that will not be the case, and there are grave fears in country areas on this point. Subparagraph (i) of paragraph (e) of clause 5 (1) provides that the function of the Commission is to achieve: the organisation of health services on a regional basis;

Then the Minister in his second reading speech said:

The Government has committed itself to a policy of promoting the regionalisation and modernisation of hospitals, linked with the development of community based health services and preventive health programs.

Country areas, particularly the smaller country areas, fear that under this so-called regionalisation - and I hope that the Minister can reassure me on this later - their hospitals will be closed because it will be considered more efficient to have them on a more regional basis than is the case now or that these hospitals could be forced perhaps to become nursing homes under Government direction. Every country community deserves and needs, if it is to have a future, not only its own hospital but also its own medical, dental and other health care services. This is a difficult enough problem for these small areas at the moment. I believe that it has meant that the small country communities provide on a self-help basis to a far greater extent than does any other section of this community, whether it is helping to support a doctor to stay in the area by the provision of a house or whether it is making some guarantee of income or salary. I think that these small country communities give to a hospital on a far greater per capita basis than is the case in the bigger cities.

Country areas have this fear concerning not only hospitals but also doctors. If we are going to have these regional centres, these community centres - and the honourable member for Scullin (Dr Jenkins) mentioned that he would like to have some of them in his electorate - they will have to be staffed. They will have to operate on a salary basis. What happens when you have a salary basis? You do not have long working hours. I think that this is fairly understandable. Those people want the same provisions as those which apply to anybody else who works for a salary. This means that we need more doctors. It is not as if a magic wand could be waved to create more doctors. We have a shortage of doctors in this country at the moment, particularly in country areas. The country people fear that the attraction of perhaps an easier vocation in the cities will lead to increased shortages in country towns because the doctors will move to these other centres.

The honourable member for Scullin mentioned the United States experience, amongst other things, as something we should look at. Perhaps we should. One can see from that experience the problems that that country has had in retaining doctors in smaller country towns. The realisation of this has led to a federal-state financial arrangement which applies in some states of that country, to try to increase the attractiveness of country areas in order to retain doctors there. I would hope that one thing this Commission could do would be not only to establish these centres but also to provide financial guarantees to doctors in small country towns so that it would be attractive for them to stay there. This would apply not only to doctors but also to the other health care services. The honourable member for Scullin said - I am not criticising him in this regard - that there were not enough general practitioners in his electorate and that there were no general practitioners at one end of it. But that end may be only a few miles - per haps less than that - from the other end of the honourable member’s electorate, and public transport is available. But what happens in the country towns? If centres are established at Ballarat, Bendigo, La Trobe Valley and Albury-Wodonga, this may sound fine in theory. But if in practice it means that in setting up these centres facilities are taken away from the country towns up to 100 miles around them, the quality of life of people in those areas will be severely limited and their capability to obtain modern health care services will be restricted. There is no public transport in these areas such as is available in the city electorates in which honourable members are concerned because a doctor may not be available within an area of one or two square miles.

Labor Party members seem to be wondering - we read about this in the Press - why they are not more popular in country areas and why all their expensive proposals on one subject or another are not going down with country people. The point is that these expensive proposals never get through to these country areas. As I said before, it is one thing for Labor Party members to think that they are doing wonders in a few provincial cities. But at the same time, it is quite another thing when these country people see the doctors and the dentists leaving these smaller country towns. This is what the country people see, fear and realise is contained in these bland promises that somehow or other things will improve for them.

The Opposition is not opposing the Bill, with the exception of the amendment that has been moved. I had hoped that there would have been more time to consider it, not just for us here in this Parliament but also for the State Parliaments. They should have been consulted at an earlier time than they were. Had that been done, certain dangerous provisions in the Bill would have been deleted and certain others included, such as those suggested by the honourable member for Isaacs. I hope that when the Bill is considered in the Senate certain of these provisions will be rectified.

Dr GUN:
Kingston

– In supporting the Hospitals and Health Services Commission Bill I would like firstly to make a few remarks in reply to the speech of the honourable member for Isaacs (Mr Hamer). I think that he made a very constructive contribution to the debate. In fact, I had to pinch myself to confirm that I was actually listening to a member of the Opposition espousing anything other than the sanctity of the fee for service method of supplying medical services. I thought that the honourable member made a very worthwhile contribution. The honourable member mentioned the provision of health maintenance organisations. I think that this is an area that could bear very close and careful examination in the Australian context because I think that it has a lot to offer.

I know that this matter is close to the heart of the Chairman of the Interim Committee of the national Hospitals and Health Services Commission who, as I understand it, is also to be the Chairman of the Commission itself when it is founded. Those of us who read the excellent book written by Dr Sax last year know that he has given considerable attention to the provision of health maintenance organisations and how those services have operated in the United States of America. I think that they could well operate profitably and with success in the Australian scene. It is not just cost control that could be applied in the circumstances. There are also many other benefits in this type of arrangement. For instance, there is much greater incentive towards preventive medicine. In addition to the cost control which was mentioned by the honourable member for Isaacs there is a considerable incentive within these organisations towards quality control in the field of evaluating the quality of medical and surgical services that are provided by them. I think that this is something we could do very well in Australia.

However, I would have to take issue with the honourable member in his claim that the health maintenance organisations would fit into the Australian setting much better under the the existing system of voluntary health insurance. It is my very strong conviction that this type of health maintenance would fit much better into a universal system of health insurance such as that which the Government is seeking to introduce at the present time. Although I know that we have already canvassed that issue in the House today, may I just say in reply to the honourable member for Isaacs that if health maintenance organisations were introduced in the existing context, there would not be a universal arrangement. This is because in a health maintenance organisation the participants must actually contract with the organisation that provides the health service. As is the case under the system we have at the present time individuals virtually must insure themselves with a health insurance organisation. There would be the same problem that exists under the present system if a universal health insurance system were not introduced first. There would be certain elements of people missing out. Very often, such people who miss out are the most needy people.

This position applies in the United States of America. If a person belongs to a well organised labour union in the United States that insures its members on a capitation system under a health maintenance organisation arrangement, he is in a sound position. But the people who do not have regular work, perhaps some of the less well paid and the less well off members of society, are the ones who tend to miss out under a health maintenance organisation arrangement, just as such people miss out under the present system of health insurance, fee for service, which we have in Australia. What I suggest is that if we introduced a universal health insurance system within Australia, individual organisations could contract with the universal health insurance plan for the provision of a prepaid medical service in certain geographical areas. I think that this is one way that the service could be provided.

For instance, I think that the sorts of organisations that could provide a prepaid medical scheme after the introduction of a universal health insurance scheme would be some of the health insurance organisations that already exist. They could contract under the national health insurance plan to provide a prepaid system. I think that is one of the areas at which our Hospitals and Health Services Commission could look and which would be of great profit to the people of Australia by providing a better quality health service. Of course, it would not necessarily exclude fee for service operations within Australia. I think that probably the ideal arrangement would be for the 2 systems to operate in parallel. I am aware that both the prepaid scheme and the fee for service scheme have their advantages and their disadvantages. Perhaps to obtain the best of both worlds the 2 schemes should operate in parallel. I think that this is just what would be permitted under the scheme that we were debating in the House earlier today.

I am a little disappointed with the remarks made by some of the other members of the Opposition on this Bill we are discussing tonight. I think that what should be pointed out is that for the first time an Australian Government will be promoting an actual health policy within Australia. This is a very significant first in Australia. In years past, in the distant past, efforts have been made by the Australian governments such as those made to provide quarantine services or a tuberculosis program. Such programs got up much momentum under the Chifley Government. But in recent times the Commonwealth Government, under successive Liberal-Country Party Administrations, confined itself to subsidising private fee for service medical arrangements. Really all that amounted to was the provision of a systematised flow of money to purchase the services of doctors and hospitals in the open market; there was no effort to organise the provision of health services, no effort to have an overall health care program, and above all no effort to have a preventive health care program. In all the other services for which governments seek responsibility, such as in the fields of education or protection against fire, we have organised resources for the benefit of the community. For goodness sake, I do. not see why we should not do that in the case of health services as well, and this is what we seek to do by. the establishment of the Hospitals and Health Services Commission, the subject of the measure we have before the House tonight.

I particularly congratulate the Minister for Health (Dr Everingham) not only for getting about his business in establishing this Commission so early but also on his apointment of Dr Sax as the Chairman of the Commission. I think it will be an excellent appointment and one which I believe has been applauded by everybody of all political colours within Australia. I think it is important that we have this initiative now in Australia actually to try to organise a comprehensive health care policy. I think the first speech I made on health care in this House about 4 years ago was on the subject of having a medical manpower policy. It has always been my view that this should be the prime responsibility of the medical schools at the universities in the various capital cities. Unfortunately the medical schools in all capital cities have neglected that responsibility, and therefore I believe it is the responsibility of the Government. I think one of the major tasks for the Hospitals and Health Services Commission will be to evolve a medical manpower policy.

I was also a little disappointed that the Opposition seems to think that all the Commission would do would be to establish health centres, overriding the political interests of State governments. That is not so. The charter of the Hospitals and Health Services Commission will be very much wider. It is quite obvious that most Opposition members have not read any of the reports of the Interim Committee on Hospitals and Health services. Obviously very few of them have read the first report giving a general outline of a community health services program to be provided in Australia. It is worth reminding the House that quite recently, in the last couple of weeks, the second report came out from the Committee on the provision of a rehabilitation scheme. So the Committee is very busy already and I think it foreshadows a range of activity which will be very wide and very useful to the community. I disagree with the remarks of the honourable member for Hotham (Mr Chipp) about the prior importance of the doctor-patient relationship. He apparently believes that the establishment of health centres will somehow undermine the relationship between patients and doctors.

Mr McLeay:

– You do not believe that anyway, do you?

Dr GUN:

– I think it is possible to place too much emphasis on the relationship between patients and doctors. We must remember that many of the conditions, perhaps the majority of conditions, for which people go to see doctors these days are psychosomatic in origin, and the type of treatment which has been provided and which has been excessively orientated around this socared doctor-patient relationship has unquestionably resulted in excessive use of drugs, with all the consequent problems of drug habituation and drug induced disease. As a matter of fact, in this context, I was rather interested, after I made a speech on this subject a couple of weeks ago in the House, to receive a report from the University of New South Wales. I think it is rather interesting to see what happened in a survey which was carried out. Twenty-five general practitioners were picked out at random by the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners. Two people went to see these 25 general practitioners and described symptoms, which they said they had, of a mild depressive illness which was clearly of a psychosocial nature rather than primarily a psychiatric problem.

Each of the 25 doctors were seen by 2 people - there were 50 interviews in ali - describing this mild depressive illness. Although it was clearly of a psychosocial origin, I believe that in only 2 cases did a doctor refer the patient for social welfare counselling. In fact, in 76 per cent of the cases drugs were prescribed and to those 76 per cent psychotropic drugs were prescribed. On only very few occasions did the doctors actually describe the dangers of the drugs which were being provided or give a caution about the concurrent use of alcohol with those preparations.

Mr McLeay:

– Who were the people making the survey?

Dr GUN:

– They were people from the university. General practitioners were picked at random by the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners. Once we get in to the health centre context in which there is a more ready availability of paramedical services and other supportive services, such as welfare counselling, I think we will find that there will be far less recourse to drugs with the consequent problem of drug induced disease. Incidentally, one interesting sidelight of the things that did happen with 25 general practitioners is that six of them spent some of their time actively canvassing against the Government’s health insurance proposals. Perhaps the Opposition will concede that something valuable did come out of the interviews which took place.

I would like to make a few suggestions on a couple of matters to which I would like the Commission to give particular attention. I know that a report already has been given out on the subject of rehabilitation, but I would like to see early attention given to the specific subject of geriatric care, which I think has been neglected in the past. It is going to assume increasingly greater importance because of what 1 think is called the age profile of the community. The community is becoming older. It is being revealed that because people are living longer the geriatric, chronic and degenerative illnesses are becoming very much more prevalent. I think the community will have to face up squarely to the fact that there is going to be a much larger outlay on and a much greater amount of the community’s resources are going to have to be diverted to the treatment of the elderly in the community. But let us go about it in a planned way and ensure that the resources are used in the most efficient way and to the best advantage.

I have in mind in particular the nursing home problem. Unfortunately in the past this has nearly always been managed by private enterprise. Nursing homes are often run by private entrepreneurs. I think the motives of those that are owned by, in particular, large investment organisations are sometimes noi entirely orientated towards the best interests of the patient and they are run purely as a commercial enterprise. Another broad area al which I would like the Commission to look is the whole question of social priorities in the field of health care. I think there is a great capacity for basic research to be carried out here. I have in mind in particular that costbenefit analyses ought to be carried out on the various types of programs that could be undertaken. For instance, there has been a lot of discussion recently about multi-phasic screening - providing a whole range of battery of blood tests for people who turn up and screening them for the prevention and the detection of disease. I think that considerable doubt has been raised in recent times as to whether the community really gets good value for its investment in this. In spite of the large amount of public money that is being diverted to these types of ventures, it appears as though there is not really very much return from them by way of the increased welfare or health of the community.

Finally, I would like to make one further suggestion of a parochial nature. It refers to the provision of a health centre in the Christies Beach area of South Australia, which is in my electorate. I know that the idea of the provision of a health centre in the Christies Beach area was mooted some time ago. I also know that the reasons for the delay in the provision of this health centre were unavoidable. Those problems have been largely overcome. There will be a meeting to discuss this subject very shortly. I am pleased that the Deputy Chairman of the Sax Committee will be able to attend that meeting. I hope that the Minister for Health will be able to ensure that the very real needs of this area will be met and that , we will be able to provide a community health centre in association with the Flinders Medical Faculty at the very earliest opportunity. I have very much pleasure in supporting the Bill, and I am sure it will herald a great improvement in providing a systematic flow of health services to the people of Australia.

Mr WENTWORTH:
Mackellar

- Mr Deputy Speaker-

Mr Daly:

– Not again.

Mr WENTWORTH:

– My words are not always acceptable to the Leader of the House (Mr Daly), that notable falsifier of Hansard, but I will still go on. I agree with some of the ‘ things that have been said by the honourable member for Kingston (Dr Gun), and particularly do I agree with what he has been saying about the importance of improving geriatric care. Many things in the Government’s explanation of this Bill are worthy of support, and indeed we are supporting them. I am a little worried, however, that in some respects the terms of the Bill are not quite in consonance with the Government’s explanation and the Minister’s explanation of them. I look particularly at clause 5 of the Bill, and I draw the attention of the House to the drafting of that clause.

The description put forward by the Government is that this Commission is a planning commission only, that it will not be active and will not put in services; it will set the framework in which other agencies can act. That is what the Government has said, but I am worried that clause 5, which sets out the functions of the Commission, is not more explicit in confining the work of the Commission to that planning function. Paragraph (f) of sub-clause (1) gives as one of the functions of the Commission the following:

  1. to promote the provision of adequate health services, including -

    1. information and education services for the preservation of health; <ii) services for the prevention of illness;
    2. diagnostic, treatment and rehabilitation services; and
    3. domiciliary health care services;

Those items really cover the whole gamut of a possible health service and, if the function of the Commission is simply to plan, it is proper that it should be covering that whole gamut. However, the introductory words state that it is to promote the provision of adequate health services. That does not say that it will promote the planning for the provision of adequate health services, and it would appear that this Bill, perhaps because of bad and obscure drafting, is not confining the Commission to the planning function.

Paragraph (h) sets out one of the functions of the Commission and refers to ‘such other functions in relation to health care as the Minister approves’. It does not mention planning health care, as it should if the description of the Minister and the Government of this Bill is to be taken at face value. In other words, we have a provision in the Bill which is different from the Government’s own description of it. I am especially worried about it because this follows the kind of treachery of which the Government has been guilty in respect of at least two other Bills recently before this House. I shall give the examples of the Government’s treachery which lead me to suspect the drafting of this clause. The Minister for Minerals and Energy (Mr Connor), in his second reading speech on the Pipeline Authority Bill, said that the Pipeline Authority was to be a common carrier. But when the Bill came into the House, not only was there no provision that it should be a common carrier but the Minister himself rejected a provision that it should be a common carrier. The way in which he is developing his authority shows that it was essential for his purposes he should reject that provision. There we have an example of government treachery: The description of the Bill was different from what was in the Bill.

Let me give another example that occurred only today in respect of the Health Insurance Bill. It was said in the Minister’s second reading speech that preference in employment would be given to members of the staffs of health funds That is right and proper. But, unhappily, when we looked at the details of the Bill - I am not going into details; the debate was guillotined and we could not discuss it further because the Government stopped the discussion - we found that no such preference was provided. Here again was the position of the Government giving a description of a Bill in the Minister’s second reading speech, supported by Government supporters, but a study of the Bill indicating that the terms of the Bill meant, or could mean, something else entirely. I am just wondering whether this same kind of treachery may not be inherent in clause 5 of this Bill. The Government describes this Commission as a planning commission. Well and good; there is something to be said for that and I think the proposition should be supported. But when one examines the functions of the Commission as set out in the Bill, one finds that they could go beyond that. I would suggest to the Government that when this Bill goes into the Senate, if it is not treacherous, if it really means what it says, the Government should perhaps amend in some respects the drafting of clause 5 to make it clear that the Bill does what the Minister says it is intended to do and that the Commission is confined to this planning function.

My worries about this are confirmed by the drafting of clause 35 of this Bill; that is, the secrecy provisions, admirable, appropriate and good as they are. But if the Commission is simply a planning commission, I am wondering whether this kind of emphasis needs be placed on these provisions. The inclusion of clause 35 may be due in some respects to the fact that the Government proposes to go outside the ambit of the functions of the Commission as described in the Minister’s second reading speech.

I do not think that one can trust this Government. And because one cannot trust it, I believe that Bills that come before this House must be tightly drafted so that they do confine the functions of the authorities which are being set up to the description given to them by the Minister, speaking on behalf of the Government, when he makes his speech on the second reading. It may be said that the Government has no intention of going beyond that description of those functions. However, I do not think that the Government can be trusted. I say that it cannot be trusted particularly because of the treacherous behaviour of the Minister for Minerals and Energy who said in this House in his second reading speech -

Mr Keating:

– Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It is not in order, I submit, for the honourable member for Mackellar to speak in such derogatory terms of a Ministe in this House about the content of a debate which took place a long time ago. What the honourable member has said is not true and, of course, he has never given the Minister an opportunity to come into this House to defend himself.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Scholes) Order! No point of order is involved.

Mr WENTWORTH:

– What I am saying is true. It is provable by the documents and by the Minister’s second reading speech as recorded in Hansard. The honourable member should know better than to raise such a frivolous point of order. I do not .want to go beyond the established facts - and they are, of course, relevant. The Minister for Minerals and Energy did say these things in his second reading speech. He did refuse an amendment which, if it had been accepted, would have put the Bill in line with his second reading speech. He developed a policy afterwards which showed that he intended this to happen and that it was not entirely just an accident. Perhaps 1 am wrong in describing this as treachery. Perhaps my standards are different from those of the honourable member for Blaxland. But I would think it is a fair description of what happened in this House, it is for that reason I say that we have to be careful and I believe we should be careful in this regard.

I understand that the Minister has given an assurance to the honourable member for Hotham that in the Senate the Government will accept a certain amendment, not the amendment about which I have been talking but another amendment of quite specific character which will preserve the very proper authority and function of the States in respect of this Commission. Because of that I think it is essential that I cut short my remarks and allow the Minister 5 minutes in which to speak before the guillotine comes down at 10.30 p.m. I will finish by saying that this is another instance where proper Committee discussion in this place is made impossible because of a quite ridiculous Government guillotine being brought down. This is perhaps not a Bill of absolutely major importance like some of those we have been talking about earlier today, but it is still an important Bill and there should be a Committee stage for it.

Again I say, as I said earlier today on another occasion, thank God for the Senate because, if it were not for the Senate which has the power of amendment and the power of protection of the people of Australia against despotic action by this Government using its brutal majority as it does in this House, there would be no recourse against, dictatorship in Australia. I think this illustrates the importance of the Senate and the importance, while this Government goes on as it is, of maintaining always in the Senate and after the next election an anti-Government majority. It is vital to the whole of the people of Australia.

Mr CHIPP (Hotham)- by leave - When the Minister for Health (Dr Everingham) is replying will he also answer the question asked by the honourable member for Isaacs (Mr Hamer) as to whether between now and the passage of this Bill through the Senate he will give consideration to amending the Bill to allow for reports under this Bill to be treated in the same way as are reports that are submitted to the Minister under the Social Welfare Commission Bill?

Dr EVERINGHAM:
Minister for Health · Capricornia · ALP

– in reply- I thank the participants in the debate. I am grateful that the Opposition secs that the principle of this Bill - the broad principle at any rate - is a good one. lt seems to be a principle that the Opposition, when in government, resisted when we suggested in the past that the national Government should have its own hospitals commission. We welcome this step forward. With regard to the specific criticisms and questions that have been raised, the honourable member for Hotham (Mr Chipp) was dismayed because we had not given to State Ministers due notice of this Bill before it had been presented to the House. In the time I have been a Minister I have never known any State government to ask me my views on any State Bill that had any bearing on my portfolio. It seems a quite extraordinary suggestion that the States should be given more consideration than members of this Parliament in having brought to their notice the sorts of Bills which we bring forward. Certainly, some of these Bills do have an unusual impact on what the States do. But in the case of this Bill the issues with the States have been well canvassed. The members of tha interim committee will become members of the Hospitals and Health Services Commission. They have had extensive consultations with hospital commissions in the States.

Mr Chipp:

– In all States?

Dr EVERINGHAM:

– Yes, in the process of actually working out what the grants would be under this Budget. So I feel that there could have been very few illusions in the mind of any State Minister who took an interest in those discussions as to what was intended in the Bill and what was intended in the decisions made for the granting of moneys to the various projects in the States. The fact that the amendments mentioned tonight - those that have been moved and those that have been discussed with me but not moved - were never mentioned in relation to the Bill which led to the setting up of the Social Welfare Commission suggests to me that this is a rather late, panic reaction in the hope that something will be done by the Hospitals and Health Services Commission. However, nobody seemed very much afraid that it would happen with the Social Welfare Com mission although, essentially, the functions of the 2 Commissions will run parallel. So I think that if any of the misgivings expressed in this regard apply to this Bill they should have applied all the more to the Bill brought down by my colleague the Minister for Social Security (Mr Hayden).

With regard to the matter which the honourable member for Isaacs (Mr Hamer) raised about the tabling of reports, it is true that this Bill does not make it mandatory for the Minister to table all reports of the Commission. However, as a matter of fact I shall be tabling a report which I did not request but which the Commission is quite entitled to produce of its own initiative. It is a report on medical rehabilitation services and it will be presented to the House this week. So, in practice, the suggestion made by the honourable member will be followed. He quoted from the Social Welfare Commission Bill which states:

  1. . the Minister shall, as soon as practicable, cause that report to be laid before each House of the Parliament.

On this matter I refer briefly to the Hansard record. At page 1 239 it states:

An important provision in the Bill is that which requires all reports of the Commission to be tabled in each House of the Parliament. Such reports will include not only those requested by the Minister but also those initiated by the Commission.

This is the part I want to emphasise:

This is a marked deviation but an improvement on past practices.

I point out that there is no precedent other than the one quoted by the honourable member for Isaacs. I am not against the principle. I think it is an excellent one. I can see no reason why I should not follow it out, even though it is not embodied in the wording of the Bill.

Mr Hamer:

– Why not put it in the Bill?

Dr EVERINGHAM:

– The honourable member may also care to have that brought forward as an amendment in the Senate stages. Now that the honourable member has given notice of it we will have due time in which to consider it. Quite possibly it will be acceptable in the other place. There is no need to specify that the Commission has power to bring out reports. That is included in its genera] terms of reference. I assure the honourable member for Murray (Mr Lloyd) that the Commission is aware of the needs of country areas and that regionalisation will decentralise considerably these decisions which at the present time are made all loo often in State capitals.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The time allotted for all stages of the Bill has expired. The question is: That the Bill be now read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The question now is: That the remaining stages of the Bill be agreed to.

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

page 4559

ADJOURNMENT

Postal Department - Political Parties - Inflation - Petroleum Products - Brandy

Motion (by Mr Daly) proposed:

That the House do now adjourn.

Mr FOX:
Henty

– My purpose in speaking at this time is to register a protest at the deteriorating services provided by the Post Office in quite a number of different areas. I informed the Postmaster-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) that I would raise these matters tonight and I told him of the items about which I intend to speak. My criticism is not of the Minister, except in one instance; it is a criticism of his Department. Last week I sent him 4 letters which, although correctly addressed by the sender, had been returned to the sender. I also sent him another letter on which the Post Office had altered the address to the correct address but, instead of the letter being delivered to the addressee, it was returned to the sender.

I have here a $20 postal order about which I spoke to the Minister a couple of weeks ago. This postal order was issued at the Castlefield post office in Victoria. It was paid into a bank account and returned marked ‘Not negotiable at present - refer to the Post Office’. My friend took the postal order to one of the chief post offices in Melbourne. There it was suggested that he should try cashing it at his local post office. When he took it to his local post office he was referred to the sub-agency which had actually issued the postal order and which, he was assured, would be prepared to cash it. The only trouble was that the sub-agency did not have $20. I spoke to the Postmaster-General about this matter and he said that if I provided him with the postal order he would give me the cash for it. I have the postal order with me and I thank the Minister for that offer. But on the back of this postal order it is marked clearly that the postal order is payable at any post office. This is not the way that this matter has worked out. 1 have a further complaint in regard to my own telephone account. On 7 November, at the post office here in Parliament House, I paid my telephone account, at least 2 weeks before the account was due. I have done this on a number of occasions previously. Three weeks later my wife rang me; she was quite distressed because she had had a telephone call from the Telephone Accounts Branch in Melbourne, saying that unless my account was paid promptly the service would be disconnected. She did not know that I had paid the account. I telephoned the Telephone Accounts Branch and explained the circumstances, namely, that the account had been paid at least 2 weeks previously at the post office here in Parliament House. This was noted and I thought that that fixed the matter. But last Thursday, without any further notice, my telephone was disconnected. On Friday, when I returned to Melbourne, my wife told me about it. I rang the Telephone Accounts Branch again and, I can tell you Mr Speaker, I was not very polite on that occasion. I said that I had paid the account on 7 November. An officer checked, and then apologised and told me that the account had been marked as being paid. I do not think that this is anywhere near good enough.

Mr Lloyd:

– Were you charged a reconnection fee?

Mr FOX:

– I am waiting to see whether that happens. Last week a lady called at my office and complained that it now costs $1 a month to redirect mail. I know that this matter has been given publicity recently. Previously this service was provided free of charge by the Post Office. In this House last week - on 6 December - in answer to a question asked by the honourable member for Wakefield (Mr Kelly) about the downgrading of post offices, the Postmaster-General gave a reply. This is the one criticism I have of him personally. As reported at page 4373 of Hansard, he said:

It is for that reason and because of the loss of $10m that is involved - and the only alternative way to make up the loss is continually to increase postal charges, which is something we do not wish to do and have not done -

This is completely wrong. The present Government has increased postal charges, and it has increased them substantially. I want to illustrate that point. Before the last Budget it cost 7c to post a letter weighing up to 1 oz. For a letter weighing up to 2 oz. the rate was 12c. Since the Budget the new postage rate for a letter weighing up to 20 grams is 7c, representing an increase of more than 40 per cent over the previous rate, and for a’ letter weighing up to 40 grams it is not 12c, not even 14c. but 15c, which is an increase of more than 75 per cent. I believe that the rates for priority paid mail, special deliveries and registration also have increased considerably. It is absolute nonsense for the Minister to claim that the Government has not increased postage rates.

During the life of the last Government the Post Office reduced suburban deliveries in Melbourne - no doubt it did so in Sydney and in other capital cities also - from two per day to one per day. But it also increased postage rates. I am not blaming the Minister for this; it is a matter for his Department. I have found that many people have become increasingly dissatisfied with the service provided by the Post Office and increasingly critical of the Department. The fact is that while charges have increased substantially the service provided by the Post Office has deteriorated substantially.

Mr SHERRY:
Franklin (10.37

– This is the first occasion on which I have spoken in the debate on the motion for the adjournment of the House in the 4 years that I have been a member of this House. Therefore what I have to say must be regarded as serious. Last Thursday evening the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Snedden) made the incredible claim that he had been misrepresented by me and other Tasmanian members of this House in a radio advertisement broadcast over 7HO in Hobart and other Tasmanian commercial stations. Last Thursday night I rejected that claim in the face of the evidence available in the ‘Australian’ of 22 January ‘1972. Mr Speaker, I will quote from that newspaper what was said by the then Federal Treasurer who is now Leader of the Opposition. The article states:

The Federal Government was gaining more control over wage inflation through its economic policies, the Federal Treasurer, Mr Snedden, said yesterday.

Mr Snedden said in Sydney the economic climate was preventing the unions pressing for over-award payments, a major contributor to inflation.

It continued:

We have achieved what we set out to do in that we have created an environment in which over-award payments are depressed,’ he said. The temporary advantage to powerful unions’-

I stress this- of over-full employment is no longer there, and the Government is better able to resist excessive award increases by intervening in Arbitration Commission hearings.’

In other words what he was saying in effect was that as a result of his policies unemployment was the answer to inflation. Having said that, what I want to turn to now is a most serious exhibition by the Leader of the Opposition. I would like him to answer the following questions: Firstly, did he, on Friday of last week, demand that the commercial station 7HO discontinue these advertisements? Secondly, did he further demand that the Liberal Party receive free time to broadcast its own advertisements? Thirdly, did he at any time make his protest through the proper channel - that is, the Australian Broadcasting Control Board? Fourthly, was the whole tone of his message to the management of 7HO in Hobart one of a threatening nature if it did not accede to his request?

This is a very grave situation because the Leader of the Opposition has attempted, quite improperly in my view, to dictate to and to impose his will on an independent commercial radio station in Hobart. This is a situation which no management, quite properly, will tolerate either now or in the future. This is an attack on the independence of station 7HO to carry out its normal commercial business function. Further, it is a blatant example of political interference by a high handed boorish politician who has by-passed the only regulating body, that is, the Australian Broadcasting Control Board. Members of this House should not stand by and allow this man to impose his own personal whims and wishes on the commercial media of this country. His attitude on this occasion is typical of that of his Party when it was in Government; it is all the more repugnant when that Party is in Opposition. This action by the Leader of the Opposition must and will be resisted. I ask him to state quite plainly what prompted him to take this quite extraordinary action.

Mr GILES:
Angas

– It is not very often that members in Opposition get a chance to agree implicitly with everything written in a newspaper. May I refer to an editorial in the Sydney ‘Sun’ of today’s date which is headed: ‘A Holiday Trip to Blunderland!’. The editorial states:

Wake up, Australia. You’ve just been kins hit. In the pocket.

Australian voters on Saturday denied Federal Labor the power directly to control prices and wages.

Cabinet has now countered with a decision that is both inflationary in itself and dangerously contagious.

The decision was to give 330,000 Commonwealth public servants a cash bonus on top of their annual leave.

The measure, to cost about $35m a year, plumbed the depths of Whitlam in Wonderland.

His two-headed Cabinet shouts for inflation cures with one mouth - and offers us inflation causes with the other.

And this holiday handout to 350,000 pampered voters will be inflationary. Make no mistake.

The Government is committed to making it so.

It is committed to supporting before the Arbitration Commission a flow-on to all workers.

Cabinet cannot excuse this staggering decision by saying that it was foreshadowed months ago.

The public is beginning to expect a bit of belt tightening in Canberra.

I might add that the public is evidently expected to tighten its belt to pay for this gesture by the Government.

I do not know whether this proposal represents the reaction of the Government in a fit of pique to the outstanding vote on Saturday last when both the prices and incomes referendum proposals were answered No, No. But, sir., it is a staggering example, and an absolute justification for everything that the front bench of the Opposition and many of us on the back bench have been saying all along, that is that one cannot resort to overexpenditure without causing inflationary pressures.

Now I turn to the matter of petroleum resources. I cannot get an answer out of the Minister for Minerals and Energy (Mr Connor) in relation to this matter on any occasion when I bring it up. Already, due to the fact that there are not likely to be increasing discoveries of petroleum resources - this will be the result of the policy of this Government, based I might add on the sort of depression mentality of the Minister for Minerals and Energy himself - and because of this-

Mr Keating:

– What would you know about it?

Mr GILES:

– Listen to squeaker; words fail me. If that policy of this Government is carried to its logical conclusion, with the shortage of petroleum products in this country and elsewhere, the result will lead to every person in this nation having available to him a mini mal amount of petroleum for his own private use, let alone the defects which may be visited on the entire business and productive elements of the Australian economy. This sort of policy is blind and stupid. It is time that the Government realised that it is on the wrong foot completely and that the people of this country, and of the world, will not put up with this parochial attitude of trying not to find petroleum products for the use of the Australian people. I want to say that because it is fair, I think, that it should be said from this side of the House. The Government’s policy is a shortsighted, stupid policy which is based on a bigoted obstinancy with which the Government has been foisted, and I beseech the Government to undo this policy and to search for further petroleum resources and find them. This was done previously, due entirely, I think, to the incentives for exploration offered by the Opposition, when it was in Government.

There is another matter which I wish to raise. It is of very great concern to myself and to my electorate and it has arisen since the House last sat. The Tariff Board report on brandy protection has been presented, and the Government has accepted the recommendation not to alter the current position in relation to the protection of imported brandies. I wish to make it plain that neither myself nor the wine-brandy industry, for one minute, thinks that there should be a protection wall up against named, good quality, French or other imported brandies. This is not the intention of the industry. But the intention of myself and the industry, I think it is fair to say, is to have this Government or any government which is in power make quite plain that it will not allow to be foisted on the Australian public brandies of very questionable and doubtful origin. It is not for me to say in this place, under the protection that this House offers, what some of this brandy is made of. I let the imagination of honourable members run riot in relation to that. There has been one raw material - potatoes - from which there is reason to suppose a proportion of some of the brandies entering this country at present could be made. What happens in Australia? A brandy producer, by law, must have his spirits stored in wood for a mandatory period of 2i years, I think. In the case of quality brandies of Australian origin, which no doubt many honourable members buy-

Mr James:

– We do not.

Mr GILES:

– The honourable member for Hunter certainly must have sampled them. The brandies which many honourable members buy have been stored for a maturation process up to 5 years. Roughly the same regulations apply also in France - there is a mandatory period there - so that people will not be poisoned by wood alcohol or by other devious materials that are questionable on health grounds alone. But these regulations in France do not apply to brandies that are exported. The complaint of myself and the industry is that the Government, at any rate, and probably the Tariff Board have not looked quite sternly enough into some of these suspect products that are being foisted on the Australian public today - ian unsuspecting public - in this way. In addition to increasing the excise on spirits, the equating of the differential which previously worked in favour of Australian brandy, the increase in private company taxation, the special provisions which were previously available for the establishment of vineyards with which many of these wineries are involved, the revaluation of stock of wine and brandy, the thinking section of this industry thought that when this report was introduced there would be some amelioration of the dreadful attack which the Government seems to have made on this one industry.

What happens? There is an added impost - not the sort of impost which is not an impost according to the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam), although the Premier of South Australia violently disagrees with him, but one more impost on the brandy industry. Now honourable members have the picture. The increasing trend to import brandies into this country threatens to drive the Australian brandy industry out of existence. I do not think that that statement is a wild one. If it is, we have the word of the Treasurer <Mr Crean) that, if the industry goes broke, he will see what he can do to resuscitate it. I remember my friend the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Wentworth) pointing out that it was a very quaint way of dealing with an industry. I go further and remind honourable members, particularly those on this side of the House, that perhaps this is part of a worse plot and a worse plan, to use the phrase of my friend the honourable member for Mackellar once again. Is it the intention of the Government to drive some of these firms from the private sector of the economy, which is what it will do, and drive them to insolvency so that it can grant them equity, as the honourable member for Adelaide (Mr Hurford) suggested in a question recently, with funds from the Australian Industry Development Corporation? Is this what the Government has in mind. I do not know. But it is a lesson to every private businessman who is operating in a productive capacity in our economy today that governments can wilfully and ignorantly tackle industries and hit them to the extent that they are virtually exterminated from the Australian scene and then may be AIDC funds will give the Government an equity. If this is so, what better and quicker way is there to socialise vast sections of the Australian public? This is no joke to the industry that I represent. Once again I am forced to voice my deep disquiet and disgust over this latest impost foisted on the brandy wine industry.

Mr Lionel Bowen:
Postmaster-General and Special Minister of State · KINGSFORD-SMITH, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Earlier tonight the honourable member for Henty (Mr Fox) mentioned a few matters related to the efficiency or otherwise of the Post Office. He was good enough to tell me at about 10 o’clock this evening that he intended to raise these matters. But because of the hour of the evening at which I was informed I am unable to give him all the answers that might prove satisfactory to himself, particularly in regard to his own personal problem. I apologise to the honourable member for the fact that although he had paid his telephone account his telephone was disconnected. That action on the part of the Post Office was, of course, wrong and inefficient. From what he said I understand that his account was paid at the Post Office in Parliament House on 7 November. I will be keen to check the position first thing tomorrow.

The honourable member also mentioned the problem of trying to cash what is known as a $20 postal order. I am not able to defend that situation because I think it is wrong that although we issue a $20 postal order that order is not acceptable for cashing. The reason for this is the rather unwise attitude adopted by members of a Post Office union who feel that their jobs are in jeopardy because $20 postal orders have been issued and they would much rather have people buy money orders. I am - not able to convince them otherwise. However, it is clear that the public is interested in using the bank cheque system and that it is patronising neither money orders nor postal orders. But I am not going to be put in the position of saying that we should not offer the public the postal order of $20. I think it is a reasonable proposition that a postal order of this amount should be issued. I do not think that anyone should be made to buy a money order. I do not approve of that sort of tactic.

The obvious thing that the Post Office now has to do to satisfy the public and to prevent the inconvenience that is caused is to issue only $10 money orders, which are available. The ridiculous situation is that there is no problem about cashing two $10 money orders. This just shows the limited approach by some people to the preservation of their jobs. I am convinced that in the mind of the public these postal employees are losing goodwill. After all, if these postal employees think they are protecting the public but the public does not think so, one is not gaining any goodwill from the public. That is one of the lessons that some day may be learned. The reason why money and postal orders are now in such restricted use might be that the public is not convinced that they were ever as efficient as they should have been.

I want to take issue with the honourable member in regard to what he said about the efficiency of the Post Office. It does not do the Post Office much good to hear itself being attacked continually. Nevertheless, if the attack is justified it should be made. But it is wrong to say that the Post Office is inefficient just because postal rates have been increased. In fact, I think that the Post Office gives a very efficient service when one considers the size of this country, the population it has to serve and the charges that are imposed.

Mr FOX:

– You said there had not been an increase.

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

– I said that there had not been an increase - and I stick to that - in the basic letter rate, which is 7c. There has been a reduction in the weight of a letter that can be posted for this amount. But the fact is that we did not increase the 7c basic letter rate which covers 97 per cent of all mail. One can read letters in the Press about the dreadful service being provided by the Post Office. The fact is that the Post Office is providing a service very comparable with that provided by other countries when one consid ers that for 7c one can post a letter in Melbourne which will be delivered in Perth. In not many countries do the postal services have to traverse the same distance as ours. The Post Office provides a very good service when one considers the problems. I do not think it is fair that the service should be criticised by saying that it could do better for less than 7c. lt could not. It compares more than favourably with the services in most other countries.

The same thing applies to our airmail letters. We have to haul our letter a long distance across the oceans of the world, yet in other countries with closely settled populations and short air traffic hauls they charge even more than we do and receive more out of it because the haul is so short compared with ours. One should look at the efficiency of the service. It could be bettered, and that is why we have appointed a royal commission to look at better ways and means of dealing with some of the problems. When I inherited the Post Office I inherited the problems faced by the people in the service. The workers at the Redfern Mail Exchange and other exchanges received very little consideration at all. There was more industrial trouble there than I have seen in any other period of my career. Nobody was taking any interest in the service. The Labor Government has given the workers better conditions and has shown interest in them. Naturally this has caused greater operating costs but we have received a return in the sense that the service has been more stable.

The people of Sydney give the Post Office no credit if the mail is not being distributed, nor do the people of Melbourne. Often there are industrial disturbances over very minute matters. There are far too many unions involved in the Post Office, but that is not a matter for this Government to solve. It will be solved one day. There are some 26 unions involved and nobody has rationalised that position. If one looks at the record of increases in postal rates one will find that this Government’s action compares more than favourably with that of any other government. I repeat that when I took over the portfolio I was faced with a Post Office program designed by the previous Government which was for a rate of 8c a letter last October and a 20 per cent increase in the telephone bill. It follows, does it not, that when the problems of having to borrow capital are imposed on the Post Office and the problem is added of having to repay that capital with interest, as the previous Government did- up until 1960 the Post Office did not pay $1 interest and the Bill this year is $179m - the cost has to be met by the taxpayer who uses the telephone or who buys postage stamps? Nobody ever looked at the problem, but the royal commission is looking at it now. When one looks at the costs the Post Office is having to pay and which were saddled on it by the previous Government which said it ought to be efficient, one realises that it is no help to attack the Post Office on the basis that it is inefficient. I submit that it is not inefficient when one considers what it has to do.

There are problem areas, and these ought to be attacked. There has been a lack of communication between the highest and lowest levels. There has been a problem at the lowest level. The rates of pay have been out of proportion to other parts of the Public Service. It seems clear that we should separate the Post Office from the Public Service because it cannot work under that ancient, archaic method of grades and levels. In Sydney alone 3 million articles a day are dealt with. People are working 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, to keep the mail moving because the volume is so great. The volume cannot be dealt with in the abstract way of the Public Service. So there are a lot of problems that have to be ironed out. It is no help to the people in the Post Office, who regard themselves as being efficient, to criticise them. It is the manual work, the hands and feet of the situation, which cannot be improved. They cannot be made to run when they are entitled to walk. They cannot be made to carry heavier loads when there is a limit to their capacity.

It is in the postal area that there have been heavy losses. Last year it had a loss of $21m on the previous Government’s Budget. The registered publications area is now making a loss. The Post Office is in difficulty in trying to obtain some increase for it but honourable members opposite were anxious to attack that situation. Who is picking up the cost? If it costs 7c for a 20-gram letter and we are sending out registered publications for 3.5c for about 100 grams there is some lack of relativity in those costs. We are picking up the loss on registered publications. The Parliament will not let us charge what it costs. It demands a subsidy. Mr predecessor, Sir Alan Hulme, had no success at all in Cabinet every time he raised the matter because the Country Party said: That is not what you are going to do’. So there have been continual losses saddled on the Post Office. If there has been inefficiency it has been due to that position.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! It being 1 1 o’clock, the House stands adjourned until 11.30 a.m. tomorrow.

House adjourned at 11 p.m.

page 4565

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS UPON NOTICE

The following answers to questions upon notice were circulated:

Statement by Minister for Transport: Urban Public Transport (Question No. 897)

Mr Lynch:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice:

  1. Has his attention been drawn to a speech on 3 September 1973 in which the Minister for Transport announced that the Department of Transport has been directed to investigate additional means of raising revenue by the levying of special taxes on motorists.
  2. If so, has he been consulted by the Minister for Transport in this matter.
  3. Is it the Government’s intention to provide additional finance for urban public transport systems on the basis of revenue from new forms of indirect taxation on motorists.
  4. Does foreshadowed action of this type lead to speculation and apprehension in those areas of the community most likely to be affected.
Mr Crean:
ALP

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

  1. and (2) I am aware of the contents of the speech made by my colleague, the Minister for Transport, to a symposium on urban public transport at Melbourne University on 3 September. However, I am informed by the Minister that he did not say that he had directed his Department to ‘investigate addi tional means of raising revenue by the levying of special taxes on motorists’. I am also informed by the Minister that what he did say was that he had instructed his Department to investigate alternative approaches to pricing policies adopted for public and private motor vehicles to determine how a more equitable distribution of costs could be achieved.
  2. The Government does not have under consideration any proposal to finance urban public transport improvements through increased indirect taxation on motorists.
  3. There was nothing in the Minister’s statement on this matter which should raise community apprehension. However, the misquoting of his statements could well give rise to such disquiet.

Elections: Television and Radio Broadcasting by Political Parties (Question No. 746)

Dr Klugman:
PROSPECT, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister for Services and Property, upon notice:

Can he say what sum was spent on each (a) television channel and (b) radio station in each of the States by each of the political parties which contested the 1972 General Elections for the House of Representatives.

Mr Daly:
ALP

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

New South Wales - The returns of expenses, submitted by some political parties only, do not refer to individual television channels and radio stations. Victoria - The only return of expenses submitted (by the Communist Party of Australia), shows nil expenditure on television and radio stations. Queensland - Only two political parties have submitted returns of expenses. Expenditure in respect of television channels and radio stations is shown on the returns as follows:

South Australia - Returns of expenses submitted show the following:

Western Australia - Returns of expenses submitted show the following:

Tasmania - Returns of expenses submitted show the following:

Schools: Provision of Funds (Question No. 1195)

Mr Malcolm Fraser:

asked the Minister for

Education, upon notice:

When may I expect an answer to my Question No. 1097.

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

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

My answer to Question No. 1097 appeared in Hansard (page 3864) on 26 November 1973.

Statement by President of the Western Australian Chamber of Manufactures (Question No. 1245)

Mr Bennett:
SWAN, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– Asked the Treasurer, upon notice:

  1. Has his attention been drawn to a statement by the President of the Western Australian Chamber of

Manufactures that Australia is facing another recession within 12 to 18 months which will be worse than the 1970 debacle and which saw the mining market collapse and home values plummet under the previous Government.

  1. If so, can he say (a) what outside extra information the President has to make these predictions and (b) what qualifications superior to Treasury the President has which enables him to predict the precise time of the economic recession.
  2. Will he investigate the situation and make public any evidence of outside influences which may be revealed.
  3. What were the circumstances of the previous recession referred to.
Mr Crean:
ALP

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

  1. Yes. The exact words quoted in the Statement referred to were ‘. . unless inflation is faced up to, the nation faces another recession within 12 to 18 months and it could be of a type infinitely worse than we have just experienced’.
  2. No.
  3. I doubt that such an investigation would be productive.
  4. It is not practicable to provide a full account of the circumstances here. In broad terms, the growth in non-farm gross domestic product slowed from 6.7 per cent in 1969-70 to 4.5 per cent in 1970- 71 and to 2.9 per cent in 1971-72; unemployment rose from a low point of 50,000, seasonally adjusted, in April 1970 to a peak of 118,700 in August 1972.

Willowra and Kildurk Station: Valuations (Question No. 1225)

Mr Hunt:
GWYDIR, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice:

What were the Commonwealth valuations at the time of purchase of the properties of Willowra and Kildurk in the Northern Territory which were financed with grants from the Aboriginal Trust Account.

Mr Bryant:
Minister for the Capital Territory · WILLS, VICTORIA · ALP

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

Willowra Station was valued at $320,400 by the Valuer General prior to purchase.

Kildurk Station was valued for the Australian Government by a firm of pastoral consultants prior to purchase. The consultants’ valuation of the property was $919,000. The purchase of these properties was funded by the Australian Government with grants and loan assistance from the Capital Fund for Aboriginal Enterprises.

Schools: Provision of Funds (Question No. 1293)

Mr Malcolm Fraser:

asked the Minister for Education, upon notice:

May I expect an answer to Question No. 1097 of 16 October 1973 before legislation giving effect to the Karmel recommendations is debated.

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

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

Yes. My answer to Question No. 1097 appeared in Hansard (page 3864) on 26 November 1973.

Department of Minerals and Energy: Interdepartmental Committees (Question No. 1367)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Miner als and Energy, upon notice:

Following his answer to question No. 1082 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.

Mr Connor:
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 13 November (Hansard, page 3278) and to the Prime Minister’s answer to his Question Without Notice on 15 November 1973 (Hansard, pages 3373-4).

Coal Exploration Program (Question No. 1375)

Mr Anthony:

asked the Minister for Minerals and Energy, upon noice:

  1. In what areas have exploration activities occurred under the$1m coal exploration program foreshadowed in the Budget.

    1. How many personnel are employed in the program.
    2. How much of the Budget allocation has been expended to date.
Mr Connor:
ALP

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

  1. None. I add however that this year’s allocation of $lm is only the first instalment of a larger long term program to be conducted in association with New South Wales and Queensland and necessarily involving preliminary planning and negotiation.
  2. and (3) See answer to (1).

Redcliffs Petrochemical Complex (Question No. 1379)

Mr Anthony:

asked the Minister for Minerals and Energy, upon notice:

  1. What types of petrochemical products are intended to be produced by the petrochemical complex at Redcliffs.
  2. What is the estimated annual production of these petrochemicals at the Redcliffs complex.
Mr Connor:
ALP

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

  1. and (2) Products and annual production are not yet firm but assuming a steady flow of 380,000 tonnes per annum of ethane the following indicative information was provided by the petrochemical Consortium of South Australia in October:

Redcliffs Petrochemical Complex (Question No. 1380)

Mr Anthony:

asked the Minister for Minerals and Energy, upon notice:

What company will have managerial control over the petrochemical complex at Redcliffs in South Australia.

Mr Connor:
ALP

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

My understanding is that the consortium management will reflect the varied interests of the member companies.

North-West Shelf and Gidgealpa Gas Deposits (Question No. 1383)

Mr Anthony:

asked the Minister for Minerals and Energy, upon notice:

Why is it proposed that the liquid petroleum gas, to be processed from North-West Shelf and Gidgealpa gas deposits, be further converted into motor spirit instead of being sold as liquid petroleum gas.

Mr Connor:
ALP

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

Because Australia is notably deficient in crude oil reserves having only about 8 years’ supply.Motor spirit derived from natural gas is expected broadly to double our reserves and give Australia further time in which to explore for more crude oil.

Liquid Petroleum Gas (Question No. 1384)

Mr Anthony:

asked the Minister for Minerals and Energy, upon notice:

  1. What is the estimated (a) capital cost and (b) annual production capacity of the plant near Gidgealpa to remove CO2 and separate liquid petroleum gas from the natural gas production.
  2. What is the estimated production cost per gallon of motor spirit to be produced at Redcliffs by processing liquid petroleum gas.
  3. What is the estimated annual maximum production capacity of the Redcliffs complex to process liquid petroleum gas into motor spirit.
Mr Connor:
ALP

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

  1. This plant is the responsibility of the Cooper Basin Producers Consortium and any questions about it should therefore be directed to the Consortium.
  2. As this will be determined in part by the price paid to the producers for LPG and condensate, which price has still to be negotiated, production cost of motor spirit is not yet available.
  3. Dependent on an assured supply of feedstock and production processes yet to befinally settled, up to 157,000 tonnes per year.

Mr Milton Friedman (Question No. 1388)

Mr Bennett:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice:

  1. Has his attention been drawn to reports of the views of Milton Friedman, an American economist, being circulated to members, recommending a negative income tax, a shut down of social security and the closure of tax loopholes; if so, what is his attitude to these proposals.
  2. Is it a fact that books written by the economist are not available to Treasury officials; if so, does he consider that there is a need to rectify the situation.
Mr Crean:
ALP

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

  1. I have seen the report circulated to honourable members. Negative income taxation is among the matters being looked at by the Asprey Committee of Inquiry into the Taxation System and the Government has formulated no policy attitude in relation to it. Obviously I do not favour a “shut down of social security”. I do favour the closure of tax loopholes - indeed, this year many taxation measures have been taken with that objective in mind.
  2. Contrary to certain reports that I have seen, the Treasury Library contains a number of the works of Milton Friedman.

House of Representatives

General Elections (Question No. 1396)

Mr Morris:
SHORTLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister for Services and Property, upon notice:

What was the percentage of (a) votes gained and (b) seats won by (i) the Liberal Party, (ii) the Country Party and (iii) the Australian Labor Party at the General Elections for the House of Representatives in (A) 1963, (B) 1966, (C) 1969 and (D) 1972.

Mr Daly:
ALP

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

State Electoral Districts (Question No. 1397)

Mr Morris:

asked the Minister for Services and Property, upon notice:

  1. In respect of the State electoral districts in each State, can he say what is the (a) total State enrolment, (b) number of electoral districts, (c) average enrolment, (d) number of zones, (e) highest enrolment in a district and by what percentage is it above average enrolment, (0 lowest enrolment in a district and by what percentage is it below average enrolment.

    1. Can he provide details of the distribution into State electoral districts of each of the States: if so, what are the details.
Mr Daly:
ALP

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

  1. See Table A.
  2. See Table B.

DIVISION OF STATES INTO ELECTORAL DISTRICTS/PROVINCES FOR STATE LEGISLATIVE PURPOSES

New South Wales -

New South Wales has two Houses of State Parliament - the Legislative Council (60 Members) and the Legislative Assembly (99 Members). The last redistribution was proclaimed 5 September 1973.

Legislative Council - 60 Members. The Council is elected by indirect election by a Joint Sitting of existing Members of the Legislative Council and the Legislative Assembly.

Legislative Assembly - 99 Members. For Assembly purposes the State is divided into two zones:

Victoria -

Victoria has two Houses of State Parliament - the Legislative Council (36 Members) and the Legislative Assembly (73 Members). The last redistribution was proclaimed 17 December 1965.

Legislative Council - 36 Members. Two Members representing each of 18 Provinces. Elected for a term of 6 years, one Member from each Province retiring triennially. For Council purposes the State is divided into 2 Zones:

Queensland -

Queensland has only one State House of Parliament - the Legislative Assembly (82 Members). The State is divided into 4 zones. The last redistribution was proclaimed 1 March 1972.

South Australia -

South Australia has two State Houses of Parliament - the Legislative Council (20 Members) and the House of Assembly (47 Members). The last redistribution was proclaimed 12 March 1970.

Legislative Council - 20 Members. The Council will in future be elected by a list system of proportional representation - the whole State being regarded as one electorate.

Tasmania -

Tasmania has two Houses of State Parliament, the Legislative Council (19 Members) and the House of Assembly (35 Members). No zoning of electoral districts is employed for the Upper and Lower Houses. State Assembly Divisions are identical with Federal Electoral Divisions. The last redistribution for the Legislative Council became operative 26 May 1968. The last redistribution for the House of Assembly was proclaimed 21 November 1968.

Private Vehicles: Total Energy Consumption (Question No. 1409)

Dr Klugman:

asked the Minister for Minerals and Energy, upon notice:

Is an estimate available of the proportion of the total energy consumption in Australia which is used by private vehicles.

Mr Connor:
ALP

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

In a survey of Motor Vehicle Usage for the twelve months ended 30 September 1971, the Commonwealth Statistician reported that for all vehicles (except buses) 46 per cent of annual mileage is for private purposes. Using data from this survey, it is estimated that in 1971-72 the proportion of total energy consumption in Australia, which was used by private vehicles, was approximately 7 per cent.

Department of the Special Minister of State: Interdepartmental Committees (Question No. 1463)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Special Minister of State, upon notice:

  1. Does the Department of the Special Minister of State maintain a record of interdepartmental committees in which it participates.
  2. If not, then how is the Minister aware of all the interdepartmental consultations in which his Department is involved through interdepartmental committees.
  3. Will he ensure that such a list is in future available to him.
Mr Lionel Bowen:
KINGSFORD-SMITH, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. and (3) See (1) above.

Department of Aboriginal Affairs: Interdepartmental Committees (Question No. 1480)

Mr Snedden:

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

  1. Does the Department of Aboriginal Affairs maintain a record of inter-departmental committees in which it participates.
  2. If not, then how is the Minister aware of all the inter-departmental consultations in which his Department is involved through inter-departmental committees.
  3. Will the Minister ensure that such a list is in future available to him.
Mr Bryant:
ALP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. See answer to (1).
  3. This list has always been available to the Minister and will continue to be so available.

Children’s Books: Lead Content (Question No. 1524)

Mr Bennett:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Customs and Excise, upon notice:

  1. Has the Minister’s attention been drawn to statements in the November issue of ‘Choice’ that some imported children’s books contain heavy metals and are potentially dangerous to children if chewed or sucked by them.
  2. If so, will the Minister investigate the situation with a view to prohibiting the import of children’s books with a heavy metal content.
  3. Will he also investigate the number of these books that have already been imported and issue warnings or have them withdrawn from sale.
Mr Lionel Bowen:
KINGSFORD-SMITH, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. and (3) The matter has been investigated by the Department of Customs and Excise in conjunction with the Departments of Science and Health. The maximum lead content of rag books found by the Australian Government Analyst was 26 parts per million. This figure is significantly lower than the lead content recommended recently by the National Health and Medical Research Council in respect of crayons, pastels, paints and painted toys. In view of the outcome of the investigation it has been decided not to seek controls over the books concerned.

Report on Observance of Australia Day (Question No. 778)

Mr Lynch:

asked the Minister for Immigration, upon notice:

Will he make available the report on the observance of Australia Day prepared by Mr P. N. Shaw?

Mr Grassby:
ALP

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

The report has been circulated amongst Good Neighbour Councils and I expect to be able to table it in Parliament this week.

Education (Question No. 844)

Mr Corbett:

asked the Minister for Education, upon notice:

  1. What is the saving to revenue by the reduction or elimination of aid to some independent schools.
  2. If parents decided to send their children to other independent schools or to government schools, will there be sufficient classrooms and teachers to accommodate students from these schools.
  3. What amount of extra capital and recurrent expenditure would be required if all students had to be accommodated at government schools, and how many extra teachers would be required.
  4. What is the saving per capita and in total of expenditure to the Government through children being educated at independent schools.
  5. Does the Government desire to have all students attend government schools.
Mr Lionel Bowen:
KINGSFORD-SMITH, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

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

  1. and (5) The Australian Government’s decisions on the Karmel Report are aimed at achieving balanced development in the schools system as a whole. Since there are obvious inequalities and deficiencies at present, the Government has decided as a matter of priority to give help where it is needed most. As far as aid to certain non-systemic, non-government schools is concerned, it has done this with the Karmel Committee’s recommendations clearly in mind. It is worth noting the Committee’s own words on the matter:

The Committee’s recommendations are aimed at raising the standards of all schools that are below the target and at phasing out the financial support of the Australian Government for those schools above that target. In recommending this action the Committee does so not because it disapproves of high standards - quite the reverse - but because it believes that government aid cannot be justified in maintaining or raising standards beyond those which publicly supported schools can hope to achieve by the end of the decade.’ (paragraph 6.48 Interim Committee Report)

The Government is embarking on a program of support for non-government schools in the States which, at $72.1 million in 1973-74, is $24.3 million higher than in 1972-73. The proposed expenditure on non-government schools should provide more than sufficient assurance that the Government wishes to afford parents a real choice in the education of their children.

Department of the Media: Interdepartmental Committees (Question No. 1069)

Mr Snedden:

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

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

Mr Morrison:
Minister for Science · ST GEORGE, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

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

No. On 20 September 1972, 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.

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 answer to Question Nos. 964 and 1057.

F111 Aircraft (Question No. 1139)

Mr Sinclair:
NEW ENGLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice:

  1. How many F111 aircraft have now been delivered to Australia.
  2. How many hours flying time has each F111 aircraft undertaken within Australia since the date of delivery.
  3. Is the average number of flying hours per F111 aircraft in Australia above or below (a) the planning expectations of the Air Force and (b) the F111 programs of the United States Air Force.
  4. If there is any difference, what is it.
  5. In the operation of the aircraft what have been the major problems faced in servicing them.
  6. On how many occasions have the problems prevented the aircraft from flying operations.
  7. Have shortages of spare parts prevented flying operations at any time by any of the aircraft.
Mr Barnard:
Minister for Defence · BASS, TASMANIA · ALP

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

  1. Eighteen.
  2. As at 25 October 1973, the aircraft had flown the following hours: 109; 96; 64; 145; 111; 103; 76; 70; 70; 71; 53; 55; 9; 25; 6; 16; 1; 21.
  3. (a) Marginally below- resulted from shorter sortie times than originally envisaged; (b) Of the same order.
  4. See answer to Question 3.
  5. There have been no major problems in servicing the aircraft.
  6. See answer to Question 5.
  7. Aircraft maintenance has occasionally been delayed due to the immediate unavailability of spare parts. Other serviceable aircraft have been available on such occasions to enable the program to be met. Spares problems have been no greater with the F-111C than with other sophisticated aircraft flown by the RAAF. As our experience increases, short term spares requirements arising from minor unscheduled unserviceabilities will be established.

Army Apprentices School (Question No. 1164)

Mr Lynch:

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice

  1. Was the planned intake for the Army Apprentices School for 1974 approximately 200.
  2. Has the intake for 1974 been altered to approximately 50: if so, why.
Mr Barnard:
ALP

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

  1. It was planned that the 1974 intake for the Army Apprentices School would be approximately 250.
  2. The intake for 1974 has now been reduced to approximately 100.

This reduction has been brought about by the announced Government decisions to maintain the strength of the Army at about 31,150 during 1973-74 and to increase the strength of the field force.

The predicted requirements for tradesmen for the 31,150 man Army can generally be met from apprentices already undergoing courses at the Apprentices School. In those trades where deficiencies exist, use will be made of the existing Adult Tradesman Scheme, to make good the shortfall.

Motor Vehicles: Consumer Protection and Information Standards (Question No. 1218)

Mr Bennett:

asked the Minister for Trans port, upon notice:

What stage has his investigation reached as to the possibility of having displayed in a prominent position on all new cars sold in Australia a plate indicating a Government certified expected fuel consumption per kilometre as an Australian vehicle standards requirement.

Mr Charles Jones:
ALP

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

The Australian Government is fully aware of the need for appropriate standards in regard to vehicles both to ensure their safety and to protect the consumer.

In order for meaningful consumer information standards to be introduced, a great deal of preliminary investigation is required. Thus for instance, the fuel consumption measured in a test on a vehicle would depend on test conditions such as speed, acceleration and temperature, as well as on the fuel used. Different optional equipment such as an air conditioner or automatic transmission would also change the fuel consumption.

I have asked my Department to investigate the formulation of a suitable fuel consumption standard. The voluntary fuel economy labelling program, which has recently been introduced for 1974 model vehicles in the United States will form part of this investigation.

When the National Authority on Road Safety and standards is established by the Australian Government next year, it will have the resources to undertake more comprehensive programs on consumer protection and information standards in relation to motor vehicles.

Salvado’ Project (Question No. 1235)

Mr Bennett:

asked the Minister for Urban and Regional Development, upon notice:

  1. Has his attention been drawn to the opposition of the Local Government Association of Western Australia to the urban development under the Salvado project.
  2. If so, can he say whether the opposition is well founded; if it is not well founded, why not.
  3. Will projects such as the Salvado project adversely affect any section of local government.
  4. If not, can he say why such opposition has come from the Local Government Association.
Mr Uren:
Minister for Urban and Regional Development · REID, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. The concern expressed by Local Government Authorities about the proposed Perth North West Corridor, named ‘Salvado’ by the W.A. Government, is premature and unfounded.

Development proposals for ‘Salvado’ are linked with the prospect of a deep water port being constructed in the Northern end of the corridor and several other crucial questions still are waiting investigation. Feasibility studies for this port and other aspects of the proposal are now being prepared.

At any rate the Shire of Wanneroo, one of the Shires to be affected by eventual development in this corridor has expressed basic agreement with the objectives of development in the area. Its concern is about the establishment of a Land Commission and presumably a Development Corporation if the Australian Government and the Government of Western Australia reach agreement on the ‘Salvado’ development.

Land Commissions and Development Corporations form an integral part of this Government’s urban development policies, aimed at eliminating land speculation and achieving orderly and efficient growth in centres outside the metropolitan areas.

Development Corporations have to be seen in the context of the Australian Government’s overall decentralisation policy which is based on concentrating new urban development in a restricted number of growth centres.

The long list of failures in attempting to establish individual manufacturing establishments in widely scattered rural areas shows that successful decentralisation must be based on a policy of selected growth centres.

The planning, construction and development of a modern city requires a comprehensive planning and development authority. Such corporations have been a fundamental feature of the British new town program.

There are several established Australian parallels to the proposed development corporations, e.g., the National Capital Development Commission, the Sydney Cove Redevelopment Authority, the South Australian Housing Trust.

I have also invited representatives of Local Government Authorities in the region affected by the Salvado’ proposal to meet with me and to discuss likely problem areas.

  1. See part (2) above.
  2. See part (2) above.

Lake Pedder (Question No. 1253)

Mr Anthony:

asked the Minister for the

Environment and Conservation, upon notice:

  1. When were the terms of reference of the committee investigating the flooding of Lake Pedder first made available to the Committee.
  2. What were those terms of reference.
  3. Did the Committee subsequently request a change in those terms of reference or were they subsequently changed.
  4. If so, what were the terms of reference which were ultimately applicable to the committee’s deliberations.
Dr Cass:
Minister for the Environment and Conservation · MARIBYRNONG, VICTORIA · ALP

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

  1. Terms of reference were drafted in consultation with the Committee at its first meeting on 9 March 1973.

  2. The terms of reference were:

    1. To inquire into the history and the circumstances surrounding the decision to flood Lake Pedder in Tasmania, and in particular:
    1. to inquire whether there was any failure at any stage, to consider adequately, or to give sufficient weight to, any of the factors relevant to the making of that decision;
    2. If the answer to (a) is yes, then, (without attempting to attribute any fault or blame) to inquire
    1. Whether there was any deficiency in the law or decision-making procedures applicable to, or followed by the Australian or Tasmanian Government or Parliament, or the Tasmanian HydroElectric Commission, or any other body which caused or contributed to such failure; and

    2. What other factors, if any, caused or contributed to such failure.

    3. To state what lessons, if any, may be learned from the study of the above matters.
    4. To suggest what action might be taken to remedy or alleviate the consequences or deficiencies if any, in the decision-making processes as they affected Lake Pedder.
    5. To recommend, with regard to development projects which may have a significant effect on the environment, such changes and improvements in laws and decision-making procedures as the

Committee may consider necessary or advisable to prevent, or to minimise the likelihood of, any failure to take relevant matters into account.

In pursuing its inquiries and making its recommendations, the Committee is authorised and requested to seek information and assistance from such Governmental, statutory or private bodies and such persons or organisations, and to make such interim and final reports, as it sees fit, on any aspect of the various matters falling within the scope of the inquiry. The Committee has been asked to prepare its final report before 31 July 1973.

  1. The Committee did not request a change in those terms of reference. However Tasmanian authorities suggested some modifications which were accepted by the Committee on 23 March 1973.

  2. The revised terms of reference were:

    1. To inquire into the history and circumstances surrounding the flooding of Lake Pedder and in particular to consider:
    1. whether there was at any stage insufficient or inadequate investigation of factors relevant to the decision to flood the lake;
    2. the legal or administrative procedures leading to the making of such decisions.

In making such investigation the Committee will concern itself with the facts and matters of principle and will not attempt to attribute fault or blame should any deficiencies in investigational or administrative procedures become apparent.

  1. To suggest what action, if any, might be taken to alleviate, or compensate for, any adverse consequence which may be considered to have arisen from the flooding of Lake Pedder.
  2. To state what lessons, if any, may be learned from a study of the above matters, with particular reference to the Australian Government’s future role in relation to development projects in the States and Territories.
  3. To recommend with regard to development projects which may have significant adverse effects on the environment, such changes and improvements in investigational, legal and administrative procedures as may be considered necessary or desirable to prevent or minimise the likelihood of such effects.

Brake and Clutch Repair Companies: Training Programs (Question No. 1267)

Mr Bennett:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice:

  1. Do companies which claim to specialise in brake and clutch repairs run their own brief training programs, the result being that unskilled and semi-skilled people can effect repairs to these vital safety parts of vehicles.
  2. If so, will he investigate the possibility of instituting national training and examination of personnel by an independent authority before they are permitted to work on vehicles.
Mr Charles Jones:
ALP

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

  1. Yes, it is true that brake and clutch repair companies run their own training programs for employees who are not qualified as mechanics or fitters. At this time I am not, however, in a position to say whether the training provided by brake and clutch repair companies is adequate for the tasks being performed by these employees.
  2. Yes. I have asked my Department to investigate the matter.

Free Bus Services (Question No. 1269)

Mr Bennett:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice:

  1. Has his attention been drawn to the success of the Perth Metropolitan Transport Trust’s free ‘City Clipper’ bus service within the city block of Perth.
  2. Can he say whether any other States have instituted this service or plan to do so.
  3. Will he endeavour to encourage those States not already planning such a service to do so at the earliest possible date.
Mr Charles Jones:
ALP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. To the best of my knowledge no other States have instituted such a service or have decided to do so. The honourable member will, however, be aware that in Canberra a similar service is provided around the city centre. Also, it is planned to introduce a free bus service between Canberra City and the Woden Valley for a trial period in 1974 in order to evaluate public reaction.
  3. I strongly support the introduction of such services, at least on a trial basis, and I have constantly advocated new initiatives in the field of urban transport. Should any States wish to conduct studies related to the introduction of such services I would be prepared to consider these projects for the purposes of support by the Australian Government under the research and development grants allocated as part of the urban public transport improvement program.

Bureau of Transport Economics: Studies (Question No. 1285)

Mr Nixon:
GIPPSLAND, VICTORIA

asked the Minister for Transport upon notice:

  1. What studies is the Bureau of Transport Economics presently engaged in, and when will the studies be completed.
  2. Will the reports be made public.
Mr Charles Jones:
ALP

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

The studies, additional to those listed in my answer to question No. 1110 (Hansard 7 November 1973, page 2971), which the Bureau of Transport Economics is presently engaged in, categorised by type of report, are:

Studies for which reports are expected to be published.

Lakes Entrance Port Development.

Urban Transport Pricing and Public Transport Financing.

Removing Road Transport Controls in South Australia - an Assessment of Effects.

Review of Railway Intersystem Rating Practices and their Effects.

Wheat Freight Rates and their Effect on Wheat Movements.

Benefits of a Unified National Railway System.

Evaluation of Proposed Sandy HollowMaryvale Rail Link.

Air Transport and Terminal Facilities in Eastern Australia.

Survey of Pallet Use in Australia and Proposals for a New Standard Pallet.

Transport and Handling of Waste Products.

Alternatives to Petrol Driven Motor Cars.

  1. Studies of a Technical or Research Nature for which Technical Papers may be issued.

Simulation of Single Track Railway Operations.

The Treatment of Modal Effects in Transport Evaluation.

Scale Economies in Private Bus Operations in Melbourne.

Sensitivity of Estimated Transport Benefits to Key Parameters.

Estimation of a Railway Track Maintenance Function.

Implication of Energy Resource Limitations for Transport in Australia.

Estimating the Value to Public Transport Users of Comfort Improvements.

  1. Studies of a Technical or Research Nature Undertaken for Internal Purposes for which Reports or Papers are unlikely to be issued.

A Linear Programming Model for Oil Product Tankers.

Truck Use Data Collection from Truck Checking Stations.

It is not possible to state specifically when each individual study will be completed.

Unemployment Benefit Claimants (Question No. 1344)

Mr Wilson:

asked the Minister for Labour, upon notice:

  1. How many of the persons receiving unemployment benefit as at 3 March 1973 as detailed in his answer to question No. 1043 had been previously offered work by the Commonwealth Employment Service.
  2. How many claimants for unemployment benefits were reported by the Commonwealth Employment Service to the Department of Social Security for refusing an offer of suitable employment between 1 January 1973 and 3 March 1973.
  3. What effect did such reports have on the determination by the Department of Social Security of the eligibility of such claimants for benefit.
Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

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

  1. and (2) The Commonwealth Employment Service does not compile statistics under these headings and to provide the information the member has requested would require an immense clerical task involving the examination of hundreds of thousands of registration cards. In terms of the possible value of the information the cost involved in the exercise would not appear to be justified.
  2. The Department of Social Security which is responsible for determining eligibility for Benefit has advised that it does not compile the required information, and that to produce it would involve a task similar in proportion to that needed under (1) and (2) above.

Eyre Highway: Western Australian Section (Question No. 1352)

Mr Bennett:

asked the Minister for Trans port, upon notice:

  1. What period of time was taken to complete the last 200 miles of the Western Australian section of the Eyre Highway.
  2. How does this compared with the estimated period for the last 200 miles of South Australian section.
  3. What was the cost per mile of those 200 miles in Western Australia.
  4. What was the Commonwealth contribution to that cost.
  5. What is the estimated cost per mile of those 200 miles in South Australia.
  6. What will be the Commonwealth contribution to that cost.
Mr Charles Jones:
ALP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question has been obtained from the road authorities in Western and South Australia, as the bodies responsible for construction of the Eyre Highway; and is as follows:

  1. Of the total 451 miles sealed in Western Australia between 1959 and 1969, the last 200 were completed between 1966 and 1969.
  2. Contracts arranged by South Australia require that the 232 miles between Bookabi and the Western Australia border be completed by 1975. This assumes a similar construction rate to that achieved in Western Australia.
  3. The total expenditure by Western Australia on the Eyre Highway was $9.5m for the period 1959-60 to 1969-70. Figures for the expenditure per mile on the last 200 miles sealed are not available.
  4. The Australian Government did not make a direct grant to Western Australia to seal this highway. However, the State received annual grants under the 1964-69 Commonwealth Aid Roads legislation, and there is no doubt that part of these funds would have been directed to this work. The precise amounts are not available from existing records in Western Australia.
  5. Estimated cost for the 232 miles between Bookabi and the Western Australian border is $42,700 per mile.
  6. The Australian Government in 1972 made a special grant of $2.5 million for the 303 mile section between Penong and the border. In addition, funds available to South Australia under the current Commonwealth Aid Roads Act could also be used on this work, if the State wished to do so. Figures relating only to the last 232 miles are not available.

Consumer Price Index (Question No. 1355)

Mr Lloyd:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice:

  1. Is it a fact that the weighting of the Consumer Price Index was last altered in 1966-67.
  2. If so, as mutton consumption has dropped 37 per cent since then, is the importance of mutton prices as a cause of inflation greatly exaggerated.
Mr Crean:
ALP

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

  1. The Consumer Price Index is compiled as a chain of linked indexes with significant changes in composition and weighting effected at relatively short intervals generally of four or five years duration. The last such link was effected as from December quarter 1968 and the present set of weights is broadly typical of the pattern of consumption of 1966-67. Work is well advanced on a new link to be effected as from December quarter 1973, if feasible.
  2. There has been recently a marked decrease in the average apparent consumption of mutton in Australia at a time when its price has increased much more than the average of all other commodities. If the All Groups Consumer Price Index (weighted average of six State capital cities) was re-calculated as from September quarter 1972 to incorporate a decrease of 37 per cent (the figure mentioned by the honourable member) in the weight of mutton, the resultant increase in the year to September quarter 1973 would be 10.3 per cent compared to the 10.6 per cent shown by the published figures. These facts, however, signify very little as regards the importance of mutton prices as a cause of inflation - the rise in mutton prices essentially is an effect of forces operating in the domestic and international economy rather than a primary causal factor in its own right.

United Nations Conference on a Code of Conduct for Liner Conferences (Question No. 1386)

Mr Nixon:

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

  1. Is the UNCTAD committee on shipping policy meeting in November 1973.
  2. If so, is the question of 40 per cent of trade being carried in national lines before the committee.
  3. Recognising that the expressed Australian Government policy is that 40 per cent of Australian trade should be carried in Australian built and crewed ships, has the Australian delegation been instructed to vote for any resolution favouring 40 per cent.
  4. If not, what are the instructions to the delegation.
Mr Whitlam:
ALP

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

  1. The United Nations Conference on a Code of Conduct for Liner Conferences is currently in session and will conclude on 14 December 1973.
  2. The draft Code under consideration by the Conference has a commitment to reservation of 40 per cent of cargo for the national flag in liner trades.
  3. The Government considers that the carriage of 40 per cent of self generated cargo is an equitable share in some trades. It is necessary however, to draw a distinction between what is regarded as our rightful share of the trade and what is regarded as practicable in the short and medium term. The actual share considered to be acceptable to us will therefore vary with the trade and it may be that the achievement of any given quantum, for example 40 per cent, will have to be considered as a long term objective. As a matter of principle however, the Australian delegation will press for international recognition of Australia’s flag rights.
  4. See (3) above.

Crash Repairs: Use of Secondhand Parts (Question No. 1389)

Mr Bennett:

asked the Minister for Transport upon notice:

  1. Will he investigate the use of secondhand parts in smash repairs.
  2. Will he introduce national repair standards for crash repairs.
  3. Will he ban the use of secondhand parts or provide for testing procedures of these parts.
Mr Charles Jones:
ALP

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

  1. I have asked my Department to investigate the use of secondhand parts in smash repairs.
  2. and (3) Action will depend upon the results of the investigation.

Licensing and Registration of Mechanics (Question No. 1390)

Mr Bennett:

asked the Minister for Transport upon notice:

  1. Has his attention been drawn to Western Australian proposals to license mechanics as a safety factor and to protect the consumer.
  2. Can he say whether there is union support for this proposal.
  3. Will he have the matter considered at a national level to ensure the licensing and registration of mechanics to protect the consumer and help reduce the road toll.
  4. Will he give urgent attention to the panel beating section in particular.
Mr Charles Jones:
ALP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. I undestand that a deputation led by the Secretary of the Amalgamated Engineering Union met with the Western Australian Minister for Traffic Safety, Mr C. J. Jamieson, to discuss this matter.
  3. and (4) I have asked my Department to obtain further information on the licensing and registration of mechanics. Action will depend on the results of the investigation.

Accident Surveyors (Question No. 1391)

Mr Bennett:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice:

  1. Will he investigate the licensing and examination of accident surveyors who are employed to assess vehicle smash repairs.
  2. Will he institute a national code of qualifications for these surveyors/assessors.
Mr Charles Jones:
ALP

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

  1. I have asked my Department to investigate the licensing and examination of accident surveyors employed to assess vehicle smash repairs.
  2. Action will depend upon the results of the investigation.

Fire Control Equipment (Question No. 1400)

Mr Bennett:

asked the Minister for Trans port, upon notice:

  1. Has his attention been drawn to statements by the Western Australian police criticising inadequate fire control gear for accident attention, brought to notice recently by incineration of accident victims.
  2. If so, will he confer with State authorities with a view to (a) increasing the fire equipment of all accident attending authorities and (b) making it mandatory for all vehicles sold and licensed to be equipped with workable extinguishers.
Mr Charles Jones:
ALP

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

  1. and (2) I am aware that such allegations were reported in the Western Australian Sunday Independent of 18 November 1973.

The Australian Transport Advisory Council through the implementation of its Australian Design Rules, is requiring all new vehicles to progressively meet new design rules. The Advisory Committee on Safety in Vehicle Design has already been asked to examine the need for and form of a design rule lor fuel systems for passenger cars. In addition the Committee is examining the flammability of interior materials used in motor cars.

It is considered this approach is more effective than the compulsory carrying of fire extinguishers by all vehicles particularly since a New South Wales study carried out by the Traffic Accident Research Unit has shown that fire was involved in less than 2 per cent of fatal road accidents.

Commonwealth Railways Employees: Compensation (Question No. 1420)

Mr Wallis:
GREY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice:

  1. What sum in compensation has been paid by the Commonwealth Railways to employees for loss of hearing as a result of employment by the Railways.
  2. How many employees have been compensated.
  3. What has been the cost of supplying hearing aids to these employees where such aids were considered necessary.

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

  1. Since payments first commenced in 1966-67, the amount paid by Commonwealth Railways to employees for their loss of hearing as a result of their employment by the railways totalled up to the present time, $72,515.39.
  2. During the same period, a total of fifty-four employees were compensated of which thirteen were compensated in the last three years.
  3. During the same period, the cost of supplying hearing aids to those employees where such aids were considered necessary totalled $1,080.00.

Newspapers: Charges for Advertisements (Question No. 1422)

Mr Bennett:

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

Can the Minister say what are the comparative prices charged by newspapers in each of the capital cities per page of advertisement. Can he also say if any of these charges are affected by monopoly situations.

Mr Morrison:
ALP

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

I am unable to give the detailed figures requested, but I understand such prices as are charged by newspapers are dependent upon a number of factors such as the nature of the advertisement, the time of its insertion, and the frequency of publication.

Newspapers are registered under the various State Acts. It is not possible for me to state what particular situations, monopolistic or otherwise, are pertinent to the advertising policy of each newspaper. This question is more one for my colleague the AttorneyGeneral.

Productivity Growth (Question No. 1433)

Mr Drury:
RYAN, QUEENSLAND

asked the Minister for Labour, upon notice:

  1. Is it a fact that, in order to curb the inflationary spiral, it is necessary that productivity growth be kept reasonably in line with wage and salary increases.
  2. How does productivity growth since December 1972 compare with wage and salary increases during the same period.
Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

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

  1. Inflation is a complex phenomenon and there is no simple or single solution. Any policy which attempted to restrain wage and salary increases to productivity growth in order to constrain inflation would ignore, for example, the more important contribution to the present inflation of the excessive build-up in liquidity under the previous government, and the repercussions of the upsurge in prices on the international commodity market. Further, in the twelve months to the September quarter 1973 the gross operating surplus of companies increased by 26.7 per cent compared with an increase of 19.3 per cent in total wages, salaries and supplements paid to all employees. (Source: CBCS Quarterly Estimates of National Income and Expenditure, September Quarter 1973 - Preliminary Statement’)
  2. There are no official estimates on the increase in productivity since December 1972 and in any case it is difficult to make meaningful measures of productivity over such a short period of time. Between the December quarter 1972 and September quarter 1973 average weekly earnings per employed male unit increased by 11.8 per cent after allowance for seasonal influences. (Source: CBCS ‘Average Weekly Earnings, September quarter 1973’)

Alice Springs: Commonwealth Railways Facilities (Question No. 1434)

Mr Wallis:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice:

  1. Were discussions recently held at Alice Springs concerning the relocation of Commonwealth Railways facilities in that town.
  2. If so, did officers of the Commonwealth Railways take part in these discussions and what was the outcome.
Mr Charles Jones:
ALP

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

  1. Discussions concerning the relocation of Commonwealth Railways facilities at Alice Springs were held in Alice Springs on Tuesday, 13 November 1973.
  2. Officers of Commonwealth Railways took part in these discussions which concerned future railway development at Alice Springs and which centred on the relative merits of three alternative sites for the relocation of Commonwealth Railways facilities. No decision on these sites was made at the meeting pending further study and discussion of the alternatives.

Restrictions on Travel to Southern Rhodesia and Taiwan (Question No. 1505)

Mr McLeay:

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

In view of the legislation sponsored by the Government to give recognition to basic human rights, what is the justification for the Government to withhold passports from public servants and others seeking to travel to Southern Rhodesia and Taiwan.

Mr Whitlam:
ALP

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

There is no general restriction on private travel to Taiwan by members of the Australian Public Service. However, no Australian citizen may travel to Taiwan on a diplomatic or official passport.

It is the Government’s policy to implement the United Nations Security Council’s Resolutions imposing sanctions on Southern Rhodesia, especially those

Resolutions which call on member States to sever all relations with the illegal regime there. The Government believes that it would not be in harmony with this policy for Ministers or public servants to visit Southern Rhodesia even for allegedly private purposes. However, the Government is prepared to consider cases in which public servants wish to visit Southern Rhodesia for compassionate reasons. The rules relating to travel to Southern Rhodesia do not violate basic human rights. On the other hand, they do require public servants not to compromise the Government for which they work.

Zimbabwe (Question No. 1508)

Mr McLeay:

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

  1. Why does the Government use the term Zimbabwe in referring to Southern Rhodesia.
  2. Are there any Zimbabwe people and is there any such race, culture or nation.
  3. Is it a fact that the Matabele and Mashona tribes comprise 90 per cent of the African population of the region.
  4. If so, does the term Zimbabwe have any significance to members of these tribes.
  5. If not, why does the Australian Government continue to use the word.
Mr Whitlam:
ALP

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

  1. The expression ‘Southern Rhodesia’ refers to the British Colony whose unilateral declaration of independence in 1965 has never been recognised either by the British Government or by any member of the United Nations. However, the overwhelming black majority of the people of that territory have adopted the African word ‘Zimbabwe’ as the name for their country, and the Australian Government sees no reason why, for everyday usage, their wishes should not be respected.
  2. , (3), (4) and (5) It is indicative of the significance of the term ‘Zimbabwe’ to Africans in Southern Rhodesia that the three most important African nationalist political movements in the country - the African National Council of Zimbabwe, the Zimbabwe African People’s Union and the Zimbabwe African National Union - have incorporated the word ‘Zimbabwe’ into their names. These political movements draw their support not only from the Matabele and the Mashona which comprise more than 90 per cent of the total Black African population of Southern Rhodesia, but also from other tribes in that Territory. The name ‘Zimbabwe’ does not have a tribal connotation but expresses the aspirations of the African people there for a multi-racial independent nation.

Minister for Foreign Affairs: Discussions With Sudanese Foreign Minister (Question No. 1509)

Mr McLeay:

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

  1. Has the Minister had recent discussions with the Foreign Minister or any other Minister of the Sudan.
  2. If so, did the Minister discuss such matters as the discrimination by the Arab Muslims in the North towards the negroid Christians in the South.
  3. Did the Minister express any concern at the massacre of thousands of negroid Christians in the Sudan over the last 5 years.
Mr Whitlam:
ALP

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

  1. Yes. The Minister had discussions with the Sudanese Foreign Minister, Dr Mansour Khalid, on 6 November in the course of the latter’s recent visit to Australia.
  2. No. .
  3. No.

Namibia (Question No. 1510)

Mr McLeay:

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

  1. Why does the Government use the term Namibia in referring to South West Africa?
  2. Are there any Namibian people and is there any such race, culture or nation?
  3. Is it a fact that the Ovambo people comprise nearly half the population of the region and regard the area as Ovamboland?
  4. Is Ovamboland a self-governing territory?
  5. If not, what is the function of the Legislative Council and Executive Council in Oshakate?
  6. Does the term Namibia have any significance to the people of South West Africa?
  7. If not, why does the Australian Government continue to use the word?
Mr Whitlam:
ALP

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

The Australian Government refers to the territory formerly known as South West Africa as Namibia in accordance with United Nations General Assembly Resolution 2372 (XXII) of 12 June 1968 which proclaimed that henceforth the territory shall be known by that name.

Bureau of Roads: Reports (Question No. 1038)

Mr Mathews:
CASEY, VICTORIA

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice:

  1. What are the titles and dates of the reports prepared by or for the Bureau of Roads since its inception which were listed in response to the request the Prime Minister is understood to have made of all Departments in December 1972.
  2. What is the status of the various reports listed in part (1) with respect to making the contents available to the Parliament and the community.
  3. Will he take action to ensure that the unpublished reports of the Bureau of Roads are made public at an early date.
Mr Charles Jones:
ALP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: (1), (2) and (3) In pursuance of undertakings given prior to the election, a list of the reports prepared by or for the Bureau of Roads in recent years has been provided to the Prime Minister with a view of his considering their release. If the honourable member wishes particularly to nominate a specific report for release I should be glad to give his request my early attention.

Municipal Type Vehicles: Freight Rates (Question No. 1152)

Mr Bennett:

asked the Minister for Tran sport, upon notice:

  1. Is it a fact that vehicles and machinery as used in municipal type works, including fire engines, road sweepers and ambulances, attract a higher freight rate of up to 100 per cent on conference line ships from Europe and the United Kingdom.

  2. If so.

    1. what are the reasons for the higher charges and
    2. will he endeavour to have the rates reduced.
Mr Charles Jones:
ALP

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

  1. The question does not indicate with what the freight rates for municipal type vehicles are to be compared but if the comparison is with ordinary motor vehicles, the answer is that municipal type vehicles do generally command a higher rate of freight.

(2)

  1. The reason for higher freight rates for vehicles and machinery as used in municipal type works is that they arc generally more difficult to accommodate and stow aboard ships than ordinary, motor vehicles, and they also incur heavy lift charges in cargo handling.
  2. Freight rates for imported cargoes are established overseas. The role of the Australian Government is limited under the Restrictive Trade Practices Act to outwards cargo shipping from Australia.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 11 December 1973, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1973/19731211_reps_28_hor87/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant