House of Representatives
24 September 1974

29th Parliament · 1st Session

  1. House of Representatives
  2. 29th Parliament
  3. 1974

Mr SPEAKER (Hon. J. F. Cope) took the chair at 10.30 a.m., and read prayers.

page 1649

PETITIONS

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

Child Endowment

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:

Child Endowment received by families has declined relative to average earnings so that today it is about 20 per cent of its value in 1949.

The Interim Report of the Australian Government’s Commission Into Poverty recommended a substantial increase in Child Endowment as a way of alleviating poverty.

This report pointed out that increased Child Endowment deserved priority and would be advantageous to the community in the long run.

It specifically recommended increasing child endowment from 50 cents to $ 1 . 50 for the first child; from $ 1.00 to $2.00 for the second child; from $2.00 to $4.00 for the third child; from $2.25 to $7.00 for the fourth child; and to $8.00 for subsequent children.

Your petitioners humbly request that the Government increase Child Endowment in the September Budget.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Crean, Mr Bourchier, Mr Connolly, Mr Erwin, Mr Kerin and Mr Staley.

Petitions received.

Universal 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 Universal Health Scheme is essential to the well being of all Australians, in so far as it will-

  1. Provide that all Australians irrespective of their means will have access to a high standard of health care.
  2. Every Australian will be automatically covered for doctors’ and hospital bills thus ensuring that citizens will no longer be burdened with additional psychological strains because of inability to meet the high cost of medical treatment.
  3. It is committed, in principle towards the ideal that an individual’s contribution to the cost of health services should be based on his or her capacity to pay- that people who derive the most financial benefit from our society should give the most for its support.
  4. It guarantees freedom of choice so that every Australian will be able to attend the doctor or hospital of his or her own choice.
  5. In the long term it will take the politics out of medical care and will thereby allow dedicated members of the medical profession to return to the occupation of their choice . . . The care of the ill and the prevention of disease.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government will hasten to introduce this much needed scheme so that health care services in Australia can begin to function efficiently and economically.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Dr Klugman, Mr Morris and Mr Mulder.

Petitions received.

Family Law Bill

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 (1 ) We are strongly opposed to any reduction in the present 24 month separation period requirement now to be fulfilled prior to the date of commencement of the hearing of an application for the dissolution of a marriage.

  1. We believe that evidence should be produced that genuine attempts have been made at reconciliation.
  2. We believe that both parties are entitled to equitable distribution of family property and assets.
  3. We urge the inclusion, in this Bill or in other legislation, of positive steps to provide funds for Family Life Education in Schools and in post school years, for preparation for Marriage programs and for the decentralising of approved Guidance Facilities for education in Marriage Courses for young marrieds.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government will amend the proposed Family Law Bill in accordance with the points contained herein.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Drury and Mr Hodges.

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 freedom 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 Dr Forbes and Mr McLeay.

Petitions received.

Baltic States

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:

Whereas according to the principles embodied in the United Nations charter the right to self-determination belongs to every nation, big or small, the Baltic States of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania have been deprived of it for 30 years by the Soviet Union. Whilst all Australian Governments hitherto have not recognised the Soviet sovereignty over these States, the Prime Minister has now made a single handed decision to grant such recognition. The undersigned petitioners wish to express their concern and dismay and humbly beg that such a decision be reversed.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Dr Forbes.

Petition received.

Baltic States

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:

Whereas the Governments of the United Kingdom, the United States of America, Canada and many European countries have not recognized the unlawful annexation of the Baltic States of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania by the Soviet Union, it has been announced from Moscow that the Australian Government is now recognizing them as part of the Soviet Union. We wish to point out that according to United Nation Charter these States are entitled to independence and their peoples to self-determination and beg that such recognition be disallowed.

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

Petition received.

Australian Wool Corporation Report

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 implementation of the recommendations of the Report of the Australian Wool Corporation will be detrimental to the interests of the woolgrowing industry in Australia;

That the recommendations of the Report of the Australian Wool Corporation do not permit Australian woolgrowers the freedom to select the methods by which they sell their clip; and

That the cost of the operation of the scheme proposed by the Australian Wool Corporation will be burdensome and outweigh any financial advantages to woolgrowers.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House take steps to ensure that the Government rejects the recommendations.

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

Petition received.

Baltic States

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:

Whereas the Baltic States of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania were independent republics and members of the League of Nations until occupied and annexed by the Soviet Union following a secret agreement between Hitler and Stalin, such annexation has not been recognised by the Governments of the United Kingdom, the United States of America, Canada and many European countries. As announced recently in Moscow, the Australian Government has now recognised them as part of the Soviet Union and according to the Australian Minister for Foreign Affairs such decision has been made by the Prime Minister without consulting the Government or Parliament. We the undersigned petitioners humbly beg Parliament to express its disapproval of such action.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. byDr Gun.

Petition received.

Aid for Sahelian Region of Africa

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 up to ten million people are said by the UN SecretaryGeneral, Mr Kurt Waldheim, to face death by starvation in the Sahelian region of Africa and that as a result of this drought, many nomads are being forced to give up their traditional way of life, and

That the resources of the Governments of this region are inadequate to cope with either the immediate or long-term needs of these people.

We your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House urge that the Australian Government gram both immediate emergency aid to a value of at least ten million dollars and continue to assist in the long-term agricultural and social development of this region.

And that it take a leading part in initiatives to set up a World Food Fund and World Fertilizer Fund at the World Food Conference this November. byMrStaley.

Petition received.

page 1650

MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS

Mr WHITLAM:
Prime Minister · Werriwa · ALP

Mr Speaker, I inform the House that the Foreign Minister (Senator Willesee) will be absent from Australia from 20 September to 14 October to attend the 27th General Assembly of the United Nations and to visit Britain. In his absence I am the Acting Foreign Minister until I go overseas on Friday, and the Special Minister of State (Mr Lionel Bowen) will be the Acting Foreign Minister during the remainder of Senator Willesee ‘s absence.

Also, the Minister for Northern Development and Minister for the Northern Territory (Dr Patterson) is absent for approximately one week for discussions in London on the implications to Australia of the European Economic Community Sugar Agreement. In his absence the Special Minister of State will be the Acting Minister for Northern Development and Acting Minister for the Northern Territory.

page 1651

QUESTION

REPORTED STATEMENT BY PRIME MINISTER

Mr SNEDDEN:
BRUCE, VICTORIA

– Did the Prime Minister say last night:

I have nothing but contempt for those who accept and peddle lies and my own colleagues in many cases are among them.

If so, the nation has a right to know which of its leaders have behaved in such a manner, such actions clearly disqualifying them from holding responsible office. I ask the Prime Minister to identify immediately those of his colleagues to whom he was referring.

Mr WHITLAM:
ALP

– I used those words among others. I was speaking at a dinner of the Heavy Engineering Manufacturers Association, a dinner which I have attended every year since the Association was first formed. I was following a speech by the President in which he made references to assistance policies of the Government. I drew a contrast between the generally valid and factual submissions that that Association made and, on the other hand the submissions, and in fact the allegations, which are made by other associations which concern themselves with the assistance programs of the Government. I did deplore the fact that too many people in public life- and I do not exempt my own colleagues from this- accept without question and peddle irresponsibly the allegations which are made by many of these associations. I drew the contrast with the Association to which I was speaking. I heed the submissions and the representations that it makes because they are very often, in fact usually, well-founded. But I deplore the attitudes that are too readily accepted by persons in public life, including the Parliament, without checking the facts.

A great number of associations and industries in Australia have imposed too long on Australian consumers. I resent the fact that what has been investigated or recommended by the Industries Assistance Commission is so readily disregarded and vilified by people who do not get at the facts. Perhaps I should add that I also took the opportunity last night to point out to the Association that people in the industries which it covers benefit very much more from government orders and programs because those industries largely supply the public sector, than they do from artificial measures such as embargos, tariffs, impositions and deductions.

page 1651

QUESTION

REPORTED STATEMENT BY PRIME MINISTER

Mr LYNCH:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA

– My question which is addressed to the Prime Minister follows the comments that he made at the Heavy Engineering Manufacturers Association dinner last evening in which he said, after his reference to the peddling of lies, that one of the most remarkable developments in this field is the collusion between multi-national companies and Australian union officials. I ask the honourable gentleman: What is the collusion to which he is referring. Is the Prime Minister prepared to support that serious allegation with detailed facts that can be brought before this House? Finally, is the Prime Minister prepared to indicate what action his Government is prepared to take concerning the allegation which he made last evening?

Mr WHITLAM:
ALP

-The honourable gentleman and his Leader were not at the dinner last night.

Mr Snedden:

– But you agreed that you said it.

Mr WHITLAM:

-There is no mystery about what I said. I do not know whether the honourable gentleman was not asked or whether he did not care to turn up.

Mr Chipp:

– We heard you this morning ourselves.

Mr WHITLAM:

-You heard part of it. I do not in any way resile from what I said. But I do point out that the excerpts which the honourable gentleman quoted are not the only things I said. I am not suggesting that there is anything against the law in this particular collusion. The honourable gentleman would remember that when he was in Government there was such collusion. His Government readily succumbed to it. This Government may succumb to it, but so far as I am concerned it will not so readily succumb to it. The important thing is, I believe, that the public should know where and how it pays for government protection for certain industries. I do not dispute that protection assistance for industries is justified in many cases, but I want the public to know the cost to it of that protection and that assistance.

Mr McMahon:

– I take a point of order. The Prime Minister is now indulging in a smear campaign and is not answering in a relevant way the question asked by my colleague. Can the Prime

Minister be brought to order to answer the question.

Mr SPEAKER:

– No point of order is involved. I call the Prime Minister.

Mr WHITLAM:

– I would have thought that the right honourable gentleman would know that many of my remarks were very relevant because he in fact succumbed to this pressure himself, conspicuously. The fact is that a very great number of industries in Australia, because they are badly located or because they have not met current demands for particular models or products, have found themselves losing portion of the market. It is an old technique for the directors or the managers of those companies very early to mention to union officials that the policy of the Government is hurting the company. The fact is that many companies continue to prosper from the same policies. It is absurd, for instance, to blame the Government because Leyland models cannot sell. Credit might as well be given to the Government because Holden and Ford models do sell. There is collusion in this way between companies- very often multi-national companiesand some union officials. My sole concern is that the public should know the facts and the implications.

page 1652

QUESTION

MIGRANT NOMINATION BY DEVELOPMENT COMPANIES

Mr DAWKINS:
TANGNEY, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– The Minister for Labor and Immigration will recall that on or about 20 August this year he undertook to inquire into the matter of migrant nomination by development companies with particular reference to Western Australia. Has the Minister completed his inquiries? If so, does he intend to take any action?

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

-Quite serious allegations were made concerning a certain company in Western Australia about the sponsoring of migrants, mainly from the United Kingdom. I had this matter thoroughly investigated. I discovered that at a conference of Ministers for Immigration in November 1973 it was agreed that a strict set of operating rules, such as those applying in South Australia, should be introduced throughout the States where the land and housing companies were engaged in these sponsorship schemes. The South Australian rules provided that on arrival the nominees would be met by the company concerned and taken to their accommodation. Within 3 days it would be incumbent upon the company to convey its nominees to the State immigration office so that they could be given an advisory talk on such subjects as house purchase, contracts, hire purchase and many other matters that were of vital concern to a new migrant coming to this country. They provide also that any type of contract or agreement for the purchase of a home must not be entered into prior to these advisory talks being given. The present Minister for Immigration in Western Australia, the Honourable Bill Grayden, or William Grayden I suppose I should say, soon after his appointment received a letter from the Chairman for Landall Construction and Development Company Pty Ltd requesting a revision of these conditions governing the acceptance of personal nominations from private development companies. I am informed that immediately or very shortly after the Minister received the request from the Landall company, he decided to revoke the 2 rules which the Ministers for Immigration had previously agreed upon so that there would no longer be the necessity, which previously would have operated, of letting migrants know something about the law before they entered into these contracts.

There has been quite strong criticism of Landall participation in the scheme in Western Australia. From time to time cases have arisen where migrants have complained about the dealings they have had with housing development companies. The disproportionate burden of complaint from Landall nominees was a matter of very great concern to my colleague, the former Minister for Immigration, and he took steps to see that an inquiry was made into them. We found that there were serious allegations about the company’s handling of financial arrangements for the sale of houses. It was involved also in the sale to migrants of second hand cars which proved to be not worth the money that they were made to pay for them under terms which prompted serious complaints and critical comment and which indeed raised doubts as to the ethics of the actual dealings.

Mr Sinclair:

– I rise on a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Opposition will be quite happy to give the Minister leave to make a statement after question time. But surely it is an abuse of question time for him to read from a prepared statement in this way.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I have repeatedly asked Ministers to make their answers very brief. The Minister has been going for some time now.

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I got caught like this once before. This is a serious matter.

Mr Sinclair:

– Make a statement after question time.

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

-No, I will not. I got caught like that once before. I will not get caught a second time.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I ask the Minister to make his answer very brief.

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I will make it as brief as possible, but there is certain information which the House is entitled to know. In a moment I will put my finger right on the reason why the honourable member for New England is so excited.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I ask the Minister to finish answering the question.

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– There is little doubt that the Landall company was engaged in some very questionable activities. Information has come to hand that some Australian and State immigration officials may have been acting, and there is very strong evidence they were acting, in collusion with the company. I decided that in the light of what I had found out I would inform the Western Australian Minister for Labour and Industry, Mr Grayden, that the Government had cancelled all arrangements to permit these development companies engaging in these sponsorship schemes. The Landall company is quite a questionable one in more ways than one. Now I am coming to the part that is upsetting the honourable member for New England. Its chairman is a Mr D. W. Clark, who was director of St John’s Court Limited until 1971. The principal shareholder of St John’s Court Limited is the Premier -

Mr Sinclair:

– I raise a point of order. This matter is of tremendous importance. Could I ask the Minister to make a statement after question time so that the matter can be fully canvassed and debated adequately instead of abusing the practices of the House in the way he is doing?

Mr SPEAKER:

– I should like to point out that the Chair has no control over the length of answers given by Ministers. If there were a standing order dealing with it I would certainly act upon it, but I can only request the Minister to answer the question as briefly as possible.

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I will do it as briefly as possible. The principal shareholders of St John’s Court Ltd are one Lady Court and a person called B.M. Court. Mr H.M. Kitson is a director of the Landall company but he is also a director of the Kimberley Finance Corporation which is part owned by Cherrita Pty Ltd and Solo Investments Ltd. The Premier’s family owns the Cherrita company and the Premier himself was the original director and manager of the company. He did not resign as chairman of that company until 1974. Solo Investments, the other company which I mentioned, is controlled by the following shareholders: Mr R. M. Court with 5,000 shares, Mr K. W. Court with 5,000 shares, Mr R. F. Court with 5,000 shares, and Mr G. W. Court with 5,000 shares. I have other information, which is so serious that I am not prepared to disclose the details of it until I can check it further. But Sir Charles Court is, I would think, very deeply involved in the decision by the Minister for Immigration in that State to cancel the arrangements which the State Ministers agreed to enter into.

page 1653

QUESTION

TARIFFS

Mr ANTHONY:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES

-My question, which is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister, is related to his responsibilities for industrial adjustment. Is it a fact that the Government’s actions on tariffs, perhaps despite the Government’s good intentions, have resulted in a substantial number of people being thrown out of work? Is it the Government’s intention to maintain its present attitudes or will it urgently review those attitudes, especially in relation to the textile industry? Will the Government take full account of the worsening unemployment situation when it makes its decision on the Industries Assistance Commission’s report on the motor vehicle industry? Is it a fact that members of the Government have peddled lies about the impact of tariff reductions?

Dr J F CAIRNS:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

-I have no knowledge that members of the Government or of the Opposition have peddled lies about tariff matters. I am very conscious of the unemployment that has taken place in the textile- both clothing and apparels- and footwear industries. It is difficult to say to what extent any of that unemployment is as a result of tariff changes or of the appreciation of the currency, which was the far more significant of the 2 things. It seems to me that the imports that have come into Australia in the last 12 months would substantially have come in even if tariff levels had remained the same. Those imports came in because of a very high level of demand in this country and because of the increased availability of supplies from overseas. I think that the effect of the tariff changes is summed up fairly well in the judgments made by economists of the influence of the tariff changes on price, and there is one competent estimate that it has made only 0.8 per cent of difference. But there has been a considerable increase in the volume of imports, and I would say that the appreciation of currency is far the more significant thing, and that the very high level of demand in Australia and the availability of supplies rank next.

In any case, the Government and I are concerned to assess the effect of this increase. We will have no hesitation whatever in adopting policy measures of a quite opposite effect if that is considered to be necessary. A great deal of work has been done on this by departmental officials. An interim structural adjustment board was appointed last week to consider applications. A number have been granted already. We are concerned to deal with the situation by specific matters rather than by general changes such as tariff changes. We are prepared to look at the extension of the introduction of quotas which we have adopted already under GATT, which are subjects of agreements up to now. We are prepared to consider an extension of those if necessary. Finally, in taking into account the IAC report on the motor vehicle industry, the present state of the economy and the level of unemployment will certainly be taken into account when a decision is made about that.

page 1654

QUESTION

NATIONAL SEWERAGE PROGRAM

Mr MATHEWS:
CASEY, VICTORIA

– I ask the Minister for Urban and Regional Development a question. Last year the Government set out to provide sewerage services for one and half million Australians whose homes are not connected to any completed sewerage works, the first national government ever to involve itself in the provision of this essential basic urban service. The Minister will recall that this was done by providing loans at the long term bond rate. I ask the Minister Is it intended to impose the same terms and conditions for assistance under the national sewerage program in 1974-75 as were imposed in 1973-74? If not, on what terms and conditions will assistance be provided?

Mr UREN:
Minister for Urban and Regional Development · REID, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– As honourable members are aware, the sewerage backlog in our major urban areas in Australia was a major social problem when we came to power. In fact, 50 per cent of Perth homes were unsewered and in Sydney and Melbourne one-sixth of the people lived in unsewered homes. Honourable members will also be aware that most of the sewerage authorities had an enormous debt burden. In Perth, for every $ 1 collected they had to pay at least 50c in servicing charges to meet their interest debts. In Melbourne the figure was 58c in the $1, in Sydney 52c and in Newcastle 53c. In our first year of office we made $3 8m available at the long term Commonwealth bond rate, repayable over a period of 40 years. Although these financial terms were better than previously, if we were to solve the States’ problems we had to try to improve the financial arrangements so that the State governments, together with the Australian Government, could alleviate the enormous backlog of sewerage problems in urban areas. Therefore the Australian Cabinet decided that this year it would make available approximately $100m to the sewerage authorities and State authorities to try to overtake the sewerage backlog. Of the $100m made available, 30 per cent would be interest-free non-repayable grant money and the remainder would be at the long term Commonwealth bond rate.

page 1654

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH RAILWAYS FREIGHTS

Mr CALDER:
NORTHERN TERRITORY

– My question is addressed to the Minister for Transport. I refer to the proposed rise in freights on the Commonwealth Railways, specifically in central and northern Australia, on block rate traffic and classified goods. This rise is on top of the rise in August for perishables and groceries. Is it a fact that freights on livestock will rise by 40 per cent, on some building materials by 15 to 33 per cent and on bulk fuel by 10 per cent? Will not these rises affect inflation upwards with a general freight increase? Is this another vicious attack on the people of the outback, as has been the implementation of the Coombs report, or is it a continuation of the vindictive attitude of this socialist Government in an endeavour to smash private enterprise and, in so doing, to injure all classes of people living in these outback areas?

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

-I will give the honourable member a detailed list of the proposed increases. At the moment it is a matter for decision by Commonwealth Railways. It might be interesting for the honourable member, when he makes attacks on the Government for its alleged attacks on country people, to take into consideration that the Australian railway system as a whole in the 6 States has recently increased freight rates by 20 per cent and it is proposed that further increases will take place from 1 October. There has been a total increase recently in road freights- the increase has occurred in bits and pieces- of 40 per cent between Sydney and Melbourne and 46 per cent on the Melbourne to Sydney run. So when the honourable member talks about these increases he should take into consideration that they were introduced first of all by the State railways and, in the case of road transport freight rates, by private enterprise. I suggest to the honourable member that he should look at all the facts and stop the narrowminded bitching that he is going on with.

page 1655

QUESTION

UNIVERSAL HEALTH INSURANCE PROGRAM

Dr KLUGMAN:
PROSPECT, NEW SOUTH WALES

-Has the Minister for Social Security noted the recent report in the ‘Bulletin’ of 21 September concerning a Morgan gallup poll survey of the preference of people for the present health insurance scheme or ‘a salaried medical service financed by a 1.35 per cent levy on taxable income’? Is the article in the ‘Bulletin’ illustrated by a photograph of the Minister for Social Security with the caption ‘polls show no liking for his schemes’? Does that survey refer to the Government’s universal health insurance program which is to come into operation next July or to an imaginary scheme which has not been suggested for Australia?

Mr HAYDEN:
Minister for Social Security · OXLEY, QUEENSLAND · ALP

– I have noticed the report in the ‘Bulletin’ and it is totally wrong. It reflects either incompetence or dishonesty on the part of the people who conduct the Morgan polls. It would be well known- not even the most malevolent critic of the scheme on the opposite side of the House would try to deny it- that one of the principles of the scheme is that fee for service medical practice will be covered by this scheme. In fact, the universal health insurance program which will come into operation on 1 July next year is essentially based on the private practice of medicine, on the freedom of choice of one’s medical practitioner and on the payment of that medical practitioner by fee for service. There has never been any suggestion that it would be based on salaried medical practice. Accordingly there has been a wilful, malicious effort on the part of the Morgan polls to try to colour the attitude of people to the scheme which will be coming in by effectively using what is supposed to be an objective poll for political propagandising purposes. If it does that in other fields one wonders whether there is any value in the sorts of surveys it carries out.

page 1655

QUESTION

WHITLAM MINISTRY

Mr SNEDDEN:

-My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Does he understand that he has a duty in honour to disclose which of his colleagues have accepted and peddled lies? Does he understand that the public cannot have confidence in any single Minister when the Prime Minister has declared that included among the Ministry are some who are stupid enough or dishonest enough, acting contrary to the Government and national interest, to accept and peddle lies?

Mr WHITLAM:
ALP

– As I pointed out before, the right honourable gentleman was not present at the dinner last night. I do not know whether he was not asked or whether he declined to attend it. The point is that I am not going to take up question time embroidering his selections or his interpretations. When I used the word ‘colleagues’ I was not referring merely to Ministers. (Opposition members interjecting) -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The House will come to order.

Mr WHITLAM:

-There are honourable gentlemen on both sides of each House- on the front and back benches- who accept at face value allegations about employment in various industries which further investigation by the relevant departments shows to be without foundation or grossly exaggerated. I believe that it is fair enough to make the point that industries which distort or falsify the facts hurt their own cases for assistance from the Australian Government. The Australian Government is elected to represent the whole of the Australian people and the Australian people should know the cost and the nature of the assistance which the Government makes available to various industries at the expense of the Australian community.

page 1655

QUESTION

HUME HIGHWAY

Mr WHAN:
EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES

-Is the Minister for Transport aware of a report of the National Roads and Motorists Association which condemns the condition of the Hume Highway? Is he aware also of a fatal accident which occurred because of a semi-trailer hitting a pothole and then ramming a car and killing a woman? Does the Minister have any suggestions as to how the condition of this road and other roads which service the Australian Capital Territory can be quickly improved?

Mr CHARLES JONES:
ALP

-I am aware of the NRMA survey concerning the Hume Highway. I am aware also that the Hume Highway is in its present condition firstly because of the failure of State governments to build roads which will stand up to modern traffic, particularly national highways. The damage to this road in recent weeks results from heavy rains and flooding. However the basic responsibility is that of the State governments which have failed in discharging their responsibility to this nation by not providing an adequate national highways system. That is why, in recent road legislation introduced in this Parliament by the Government, we are setting out to ensure that Australia will have a national highways system which will stand up to the problems of flooding to which the Hume Highway has recently been subjected. As the honourable member realises, the appropriate Bills were finally passed by the Senate last Tuesday. Yesterday we had a meeting of all State road commissioners with representatives of various Australian Government departments involved in this matter to work out how the whole system is to operate between the States and the Australian Government Department of Transport. As a result of these discussions we will be in a much better position to cope with the requirements of highways. It has not yet been determined whether the necessary money for the Hume Highway will come from a flood relief grant or whether it will be part of the national highways maintenance allocation, but the honourable member can be assured that the work will be done. At the moment it is still the responsibility of the New South Wales Department of Main Roads to ensure that this road is traffickable.

page 1656

QUESTION

WHITLAM MINISTRY

Mr SNEDDEN:

– The Prime Minister saidand this morning he confirmed that he used the words- that there are Ministers who accept and peddle lies. The Deputy Prime Minister today has said that there are not. I ask the Prime Ministen Who is to be believed?

Mr WHITLAM:
ALP

– The right honourable gentleman, of course, does not bother to hear speeches that I may make at functions to which he is invited outside the House and he cannot understand statements made by Ministers in the House.

page 1656

QUESTION

UNEMPLOYMENT

Dr EDWARDS:
BEROWRA, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I preface my question to the Minister for Labor and Immigration by saying that recently in Sydney the employees of a small textile manufacturer were stood down. This was attributed to the 25 per cent tariff cut. The employees are being paid at the rate of their normal earnings. Can the Minister give me an up to date figure as to how many persons throughout Australia are at present being paid unemployment benefit at this rate-or is it rather structural adjustment assistance? How many persons paid in this way does the Minister plan for? Incidentally, can he confirm that persons in this category are counted as unemployed? Someone has suggested to me, perhaps rather maliciously, that they are employed, so to speak, on re-training.

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I do not think the honourable gentleman would expect me to be walking around with all those figures in my head but if he will come to my office at tea time I will give him a cup of tea and the figures.

page 1656

QUESTION

WELFARE HOUSING

Mrs CHILD:
HENTY, VICTORIA

– The Treasurer announced in the Budget that $25m of the money allocated to the States for welfare housing was unused at the end of the 1973-74 period. Will the Minister for Housing and Construction clarify why the States, and Victoria in particular, failed to take advantage of the money?

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-Last financial year the Government made available $2 18m- I think some 26 per cent more than in the previous year -for welfare housing and of that amount $16m was unspent by New South Wales and $9m was unspent by Victoria, making a total of $25m. The honourable member asks why this occurred. The fact is that the States, having received such a large amount of money, found themselves in competition with a very buoyant private sector of the housing industry. After all, we are talking about a year which involved a record output of houses in Australia’s history- some 153,000. A lot of builders are not orientated to working with the State housing authorities. Some of the dividend-paying companies just could not meet the stringent conditions which are required by some of the State authorities. Many of them, of course, are not accustomed to the tendering processes and are not prepared to subject themselves to scrutiny and the progress payment system.

The Government has been very concerned that funds made available for welfare housing have remained unspent considering that there has been such a large number of outstanding applications for Housing Commission homes. Needless to say, this year we have made available an even larger amount of money- $67m or 34 per cent more than was spent last year. I know the States have been relating very heavily to industry in the hope that they will get a good response from their tendering processes. In fact, we have told the States that depending on their capacity to spend $235m this year, according to the way they are able to perceive their needs we will examine the possibility of making even more funds available. But what the situation calls for is a lot more versatility on the part of the private sector and a greater preparedness to work in a co-operative way with the Housing Commission so that we can fulfil our aspiration to break down the waiting list for low income families who have been seeking houses for such a long time.

page 1657

QUESTION

RURAL POLICIES

Mr HUNT:
GWYDIR, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Is the Prime Minister aware of the great number of meetings being held in country areas to discuss the crippling level of industrial disorder and the inadequacies of the Government’s rural policies to meet the difficulties currently being experienced? Is he aware that an estimated 5,000 people attended such a meeting at Moree? Will he give an assurance that he will meet representatives of these groups with a view to giving a sympathetic ear to the problems that are concerning a great number of people living outside the metropolitan areas of Australia?

Mr WHITLAM:
ALP

-I do not believe that I have so far received an invitation to meet delegates from any such meeting. I believe the honourable gentleman would know that if it is at all possible for me to receive delegations, I do so. I believe honourable members would know that I am not inaccessible or unresponsive to their representations, written or oral. I believe that any elected representative must try to get access to a Minister and I try to meet as many applications as I can. Honourable members will know that a huge number of applications of this nature come to me, and obviously many of them are much more relevant to particular Ministers than to me as Prime Minister. All I need add about the general matters which the honourable gentleman asserted before he put his question is that I believe there has been some diminution, not before time, in the number of industrial disputes and the extent of industrial disputes in Australia. The figures for last month did show a decline over those for previous months.

Furthermore, I believe that the Government’s rural policies are soundly based and are having a beneficial effect. The Government does not believe that it is fair to primary producers or to the community as a whole to encourage people to engage their efforts and their capital in industries for which there is not a good future. The Government on the other hand does believe that, particularly as regards primary producers, there ought to be a proper return for the efforts and the money that they put into production. Secondly, the Government wants to mitigate as far as possible the vagaries of climatic changes and overseas markets. There has never been a government which has signed so many overseas agreements or agreements of such the extent, range and duration of those agreements- as have been signed under this Government by my colleagues, the Minister for Overseas Trade and the Minister for Northern Development.

page 1657

QUESTION

RURAL MEETINGS

Mr JAMES:
HUNTER, NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Treasurer and it follows the question asked by the honourable member for Gwydir. Could the Treasurer tell me, or could he confer with his colleague the Minister for Transport to ascertain, how many of the alleged 5,000 persons who attended the meeting at Moree recently flew in on Cessna aircraft, as reported in the Press? Are Cessna aircraft used by primary producers still a substantial tax concession? Is it true that the average grazier can write off the cost of a Cessna aircraft in approximately 3 years? Is it true also that Mr Joh Bjelke-Petersen, an arch enemy of the Prime Minister, inspired a lot of Queensland graziers to fly to Moree in their Cessna aircraft to attack the Australian Government?

Mr CREAN:
Treasurer · MELBOURNE PORTS, VICTORIA · ALP

– I am not aware of the meeting to which the honourable member has referred. In so far as primary producers substantiate that aircraft are employed as a necessary part of earning their income, I suppose their cost would be deductible. But I would guess there would be some doubt in always establishing that.

page 1657

QUESTION

TAXATION ON UNEARNED INCOME

Mr HOWARD:
BENNELONG, NEW SOUTH WALES

-Has the attention of the Treasurer been drawn to the gathering public resentment at the foreshadowed imposition of the 10 per cent surtax on so-called unearned income? Is it a fact that this extra tax will fall very heavily on those in the community who have saved and are saving for their retirement, as well as many young people who are saving for a home? Will the Government, even at this late stage, revise the incidence of this tax in the interests of fairness and equity to those in the community who, notwithstanding current economic difficulties, are still prepared to save?

Mr CREAN:
ALP

– As part of the Budget presented last week the Government indicated the intention to impose a differential rate on income from certain sources- rent, interest, dividends- as distinct from income from personal exertion. This is a practice which is followed in quite a number of other countries. It is one which was followed in this country prior to 1953-54. The logic of it is that there is a difference in 2 incomes of the same amount, one of which is derived from personal exertion and the other of which is derived from property. The differential rate acknowledges that difference.

page 1657

INDUSTRIES ASSISTANCE COMMISSION

Mr WHITLAM:
Prime Minister · Werriwa · ALP

-For the information of honourable members I present 3 reports by the Industries Assistance Commission on ‘Steam, Gas and Water Fittings’, dated 24 May 1974 and forwarded to me on 26 June; ‘Gloves, Mittens or Mitts’ of 1 1 June and 26 June respectively; and ‘Industrial Tractors’ of 4 June and 5 July respectively.

page 1658

INTERNATIONAL BAUXITE ASSOCIATION AGREEMENT 1974

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

– For the information of honourable members I present the text of the International Bauxite Association Agreement 1 974. In order to save the time of the House I would ask leave to table it and to have it incorporated in Hansard.

Mr Sinclair:

– It is a most unusual way for parliamentary proceedings to be conducted if statements by Ministers which are listed are to be tabled in this manner.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! Debate is not permitted on whether leave is to be given to a member to incorporate material in Hansard. The answer has to be plainly ‘Yes’ or ‘No’. A member does not require leave to table a paper but he must ask for it to incorporate a paper in Hansard.

Dr J F CAIRNS:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

-I have asked for that.

Mr Sinclair:

-No, he has asked for leave to table the paper. I am rising on a point of order because a number of ministerial statements are listed on the blue sheet which sets out the proposed business. I question a procedure by which the Government seeks to avoid parliamentary debate and a public presentation of matters of significance to the Australian community. The Government is doing this by tabling statements instead of presenting them in this place in the normal manner. It has been a common practice of this Parliament that major statements on Government policy should be made in the Parliament by Ministers immediately after question time has been concluded. The Standing Orders of this place have been drafted so that the Parliament itself can have an opportunity to consider those matters of public importance and to debate them where necessary. The procedure put forward by the Minister is designed to abort completely the requirements of Standing Orders. It is a procedure which is designed to conceal from the Australian people matters of significant Government policy. Mr Speaker, I would contend that it is not in accord with our Standing Orders that ministerial statements of this kind be merely tabled and not made in the normal way.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The Minister is in order in tabling the statement without receiving leave to do so, but he must seek leave to have the statement incorporated in Hansard.

Dr J F CAIRNS:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– Speaking to the point of order, I submit that most of what the Deputy Leader of the Australian Country Party has just said is so vastly exaggerated that we ought to take this into account in determining the order of the House: I will be circulating this document to every member of the House and to every member of the Press gallery. I am asking that it be incorporated in Hansard so that it can be fully printed in Hansard and read by everbody and so that it may be then debated, if honourable members opposite wish -

Mr Sinclair:

– You will make time for debate?

Dr J F CAIRNS:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

-I will make time available for debate if the honourable member wishes. It can be debated on the Appropriation Bills as well. I am quite prepared to co-operate even with the most irascible member of the Opposition.

Mr Killen:

– Do not use offensive terms.

Dr J F CAIRNS:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

-There are some irascible ones, Jim. I am not including you. But there is no attempt to conceal anything. It is an example of the exaggeration that comes from the other side of the House. I sometimes wonder whether the honourable member realises what he is really saying? I do not mind what the honourable member does. The alternative is open to him, but in each case it is a completely open presentation of the information for everybody to see and understand.

Mr Snedden:

- Mr Speaker, the -

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The Minister has not tabled the statement yet.

Mr Snedden:

– Yes he has. He threw it on the table.

Dr J F CAIRNS:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

-I did not throw it. I put it down quite gently. If the honourable member cannot understand that I think he ought to have a second thought.

Mr Snedden:

– Calm down; steady.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! Is the right honourable gentleman seeking to take a point of order?

Mr Snedden:

– Yes, Mr Speaker. The Minister for Overseas Trade was given considerable latitude by you to make a rather extensive point. I think I ought to be given a short amount of latitude to answer it. The fact is that a certain procedure has existed in this Parliament for the duration of the period I have been here. It happens that I was elected to the Parliament on the same day as the Minister for Overseas Trade. During that time the practice has been for Ministers to make a statement and to give the Opposition a copy of the statement 2 hours before the time appointed for the making of the statement so that the Opposition could then decide whether to give leave for the statement to be incorporated. If the Opposition gave leave it was on terms of having the opportunity to answer the statement. The honourable gentleman has produced a statement. It is unseen. He moves to table the document, and he can table it without leave. Having tabled the document it then goes to the Publications Committee to decide whether it should be printed. It can be given the widest distribution. It is a one-sided argument if the Opposition is not given an opportunity to reply to the statement. This Parliament cannot become a one-party system. We will fight right along the line to resist that. We not only have the Minister for Overseas Trade but also we have the Minister for Education -

Mr Keating:

– A point of order, Mr Speaker.

Dr J F CAIRNS:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

- Mr Speaker, how long will you allow the Leader of the Opposition to go on?

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The right honourable gentleman is now debating the matter. I have mentioned that as far as the Chair is concerned the Minister does not have to seek leave to table the document, but has to seek leave to have it incorporated in Hansard. The question is: Is leave granted to have the document incorporated in Hansard?

Mr Killen:

– Leave is not granted.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Leave is not granted to have the document incorporated in Hansard.

Mr Snedden:

– Considerable latitude was given to the Minister for Overseas Trade. I was just about to conclude.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! If the right honourable gentleman has a point of order it must refer particularly to the Standing Orders relating to the general practices or procedures of the House. The right honourable gentleman is debating the question.

Mr Snedden:

– The point of order is that if the Standing Orders are not complied with in the spirit intended the processes of this Parliament will be obstructed. The Labor Party is being obstructive if it pursues this sort of course.

Mr SPEAKER:

– That is a point of opinion, not a point of order.

page 1659

QUESTION

TAXATION STATISTICS 1972-73

Mr CREAN:
Treasurer · Melbourne Ports · ALP

-I present the Taxation Statistics 1972-73 dated 1

September 1974, being a supplement to the fiftysecond report of the Commissioner of Taxation, and the fifty-third report of the Commissioner of Taxation dated 1 September 1974, and move:

That the papers be printed.

By way of explanation, honourable members will recall that it is the practice of the House to agree forthwith to the motion to print these papers so that they be covered by parliamentary privilege. This course has the concurrence of the Leader of the Opposition. When the motion is agreed to the papers will be circulated immediately.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 1659

NATIONAL DEBT COMMISSION

Mr CREAN:
Treasurer · Melbourne Ports · ALP

– Pursuant to section 18 of the National Debt Sinking Fund Act 1966-67, I present for the information of honourable members the fiftyfirst annual report of the National Debt Commission for the year ended 30 June 1 974.

page 1659

DAIRY PRODUCE EXPORT CONTROL ACT 1924-73

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
Special Minister of State · KingsfordSmithSpecial Minister of State · ALP

– Pursuant to section 29 of the Dairy Produce Export Control Act 1924-73, 1 present the forty-ninth interim annual report of the Australian Dairy Produce Board for the year ended 30 June 1 974.

page 1659

MEAT INDUSTRY ACT 1964-69

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
KingsfordSmithSpecial Minister of State · ALP

– Pursuant to section 41(3) of the Meat Industry Act 1964-69, I present the thirty-ninth annual report of the Australian Meat Board for the year ended 30 June 1974.

page 1659

AUSTRALIAN WOOL CORPORATION

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
KingsfordSmithSpecial Minister of State · ALP

– Pursuant to section 90 of the Wool Industry Act 1972-73 I present for the information of honourable members the interim report of the Australian Wool Corporation for the period 1 July 1973 to 30 June 1974. Due to the limited number of copies available at this time I have arranged for reference copies of this report to be placed in the Parliamentary Library.

page 1659

POSTMASTER-GENERAL’S DEPARTMENT

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
KingsfordSmithSpecial Minister of State · ALP

– Pursuant to section 96(L) of the Post and Telegraph Act 1901-1973 I present for the information of honourable members the annual report of the PostmasterGeneral’s Department for the year ended 30 June 1974. This year, for the first time, the report includes a statistical supplement which in previous years has been issued under separate cover.

page 1660

CITIES COMMISSION

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

– For the information of honourable members I present Occasional Paper No. 1 by the Cities Commission entitled ‘Overseas Experts ‘ Reports 1 973 ‘.

page 1660

PATHOLOGY SERVICES

Dr EVERINGHAM:
Minister for Health · Capricornia · ALP

– For the information of honourable members I present a report prepared by the Hospital and Health Services Commission entitled ‘A proposal for a Scheme to Accredit Pathology Services in Australia ‘.

page 1660

HOSPITALS AND HEALTH SERVICES COMMISSION

Dr EVERINGHAM:
Minister for Health · Capricornia · ALP

– Pursuant to section 32 of the Hospitals and Health Services Commission Act 1973 I present for the information of honourable members the Hospitals and Health Services Commission first annual report 1973-74.

page 1660

HOSPITALS

Dr EVERINGHAM:
Minister for Health · Capricornia · ALP

– For the information of honourable members I present a report on hospitals in Australia prepared by the Hospitals and Health Services Commission. Because of the limited number of copies available at this time I have arranged for reference copies of this report to be placed in the Parliamentary Library.

page 1660

AUSTRALIAN BROADCASTING CONROL BOARD

Mr MORRISON:
Minister for Science · St George · ALP

– Pursuant to section 28 (3) of the Broadcasting and Television Act I present for the information of honourable members the 26th annual report and financial statement of the Australian Broadcasting Control Board for the year ended 30 June 1974 together with the report of the Auditor-General as to those statements.

page 1660

EDUCATION

Mr BEAZLEY:
Minister for Education · Fremantle · ALP

– I table a statement of Government programs in education. I seek leave to incorporate them in Hansard.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Is leave granted?

Mr Killen:

– No, I regret that leave is not granted.

page 1660

DEPARTMENT OF TOURISM AND RECREATION

Mr STEWART:
Minister for Tourism and Recreation · Lang · ALP

– For the information of honourable members I present a report of activities of the Department of Tourism and Recreation to 30 June 1974.

page 1660

NATIONAL FITNESS

Mr STEWART:
Minister for Tourism and Recreation · Lang · ALP

– Pursuant to section 6 of the Commonwealth National Fitness Act 1941 I present for the information of honourable members a report entitled ‘National Fitness in Australia, July 1973-June 1974’.

page 1660

EXPORT PAYMENTS INSURANCE CORPORATION

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

– Pursuant to section 32 of the Export Payments Insurance Corporation Act 1956-1973 I present for the information of honourable members the Export Payments Insurance Corporation annual report for 1974.

page 1660

ASSENT TO BILLS

Assent to the following Bills reported: National Roads Bill 1974. Roads Grants Bill 1974.

page 1660

PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS

Mr McMAHON:
Lowe

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

Mr SPEAKER:

– Does the right honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr McMAHON:

– Yes. In the House of Representatives on Thursday 19 September 1974 the Minister for Transport, Mr Charles Jones, said:

I deny most emphatically that I have been involved in anything improper. I have not been involved in anything like, for example, Jetair. The honourable member for Wannon was a Minister of the Cabinet that was involved in that stinking, rotten episode, called Jetair. He was a Minister of the Government which -

I say it to you, Mr Speaker, that no member of the McMahon Cabinet was ever involved either directly or indirectly in the negotiations for the purchase of DC3 aircraft from Jetair Australia Ltd. The negotiations were initiated and carried out entirely by Government officials. Later the Minister for Transport went on to say:

Mr Speaker, I will endeavour to keep to the points to which you have referred. But, you know, Alexander Barton and Jetair Billy McMahon- and all that crowd who are going to speak on this- the honourable member for Wannon and the honourable member for Gippsland (Mr Nixon) talk about anything that is putrid and rotten; you still stink from the smell of Jetair.

Referring to myself and any possibility of association with Mr Barton, in the House of Representatives on 12 October 1 972 1 said:

Until a Department Minute was submitted to me by the Permanent Head of the Department of Foreign Affairs I had never heard of the company, Jetair Australia Ltd. I did not know what kind of business it carried on. I had no knowledge whatsoever of the Bartons and I had never had any commercial transactions with them. If they had passed me in the street I would not know who they were.

This matter, as you will remember, Sir, was exhaustively debated in this House during the latter part of 1972. The House will remember that on 17 October 1972, as reported in Hansard at page 2625, in answer to a question I said that on 22 February I received a minute from the late Sir Kenneth Bailey, a very distinguished civil service and special adviser to the Department of Foreign Affairs, in these words:

In the event the Department of Supply has taken the necessary action to make the proceedings regular I would not think any element now remains either of illegality or administrative illegality. This however is a matter on which, if necessary, the Attorney-General’s Department would advise.

I went on to say that I had been informed that Sir Kenneth had discussed the matter with the Attorney-General’s Department and that subsequently the Auditor-General’s Office took the matter up with the Department of External Affairs. A reply was received from the Department of External Affairs and no further action was taken by the Auditor-General. That, Sir, is the answer. I will not engage in any scurrilous comments about the conduct of Mr Charlie Jones.

Mr CHARLES JONES:
Minister for Transport · Newcastle · ALP

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

Mr SPEAKER:

-Does the Minister claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr CHARLES JONES:

-Yes. At the time of the dispute in this Parliament in 1972 on Jetair Australia Ltd everyone knew that the then Government paid too much for those aircraft from Jetair and we all know that Alexander Barton is a good friend of the Liberal and Country Parties.

Mr MacKellar:

– You are getting worse, Charlie.

Mr CHARLES JONES:

-It is a fact of life and you fellows know it.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The Minister will resume his seat.

page 1661

ECONOMIC POSITION OF AUSTRALIA’S PRIMARY PRODUCERS

Discussion of Matter of Public Importance

Mr SPEAKER:

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

The Government’s failure to concern itself with the deteriorating economic position of Australia’s primary producers.

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 SINCLAIR:
New England

– During question time this morning my colleague the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt) asked a question of the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) relating to a meeting that was conducted in Moree about 10 days ago, a meeting which was one of a series of public demonstrations of the alarm right throughout Australia at the degree to which circumstances of Australian Primary producers have deteriorated as a result of the policies of this Labor Government. They have deteriorated in 2 ways- by direct financial action through the course of both the 1973-74 Budget and the Budget brought down a week ago, and because of inaction in areas where there is an acute need for Government assistance in recognition of problems of the rural producer.

Even in spite of the circumstances of change in our society our rural industries still contribute in excess of 50 per cent of this nation’s export earnings. It is true that the percentage of people involved directly in agriculture has reduced significantly over the last 20 years. But the volume of production and the contribution of that sector is still absolutely critical to the survival of this nation. Unfortunately, this Government seems consistently to have pursued a vendetta which has been reflected not only in the political result of the last Federal election on 18 May but also in the degree to which there is feeling of gloom and despair right throughout rural Australia. It is a feeling which unfortunately is also manifest through the questions of such members of this place as the Labor member for Hunter (Mr James) who brought out the degree to which the Labor Party is prepared to divide Australia into several parts. The honourable member for

Hunter apparently seeks to identify the people from the country as peasants who do not really deserve to be helped by the Government. He seeks to include in this the rural producers in his own electorate in such a way as to suggest that they are .something less than full and equal members of this community of ours. Tragically it is not only those who count for little weight in this Parliament, such as the honourable member for Hunter, but also men like the Prime Minister who echo such sentiments. It is absolutely deplorable that in this day and age, with economic conditions declining as they are, the Government just fiddles away while the country burns and the city is about to go with it.

According to preliminary figures released the other day by the Bureau of Agricultural Economics, this year the gross value of rural production is Australia is expected to decline by about 12 per cent. If we take the figures included in the Budget last week, we find that at the same time costs will increase by approximately 22.S per cent. At any rate, wages will increase by 22.5 per cent and perhaps we could say that costs will at the very minimum increase by about 20 per cent. So the returns to primary producers in Australia this year can be seen to have fallen from something like $4,000m overall last year to something like $ 1,500m this year. When that figure is divided by the number of persons involved in agriculture, when we take into account all of those many rural communities which are completely dependent on servicing agriculture, when we acknowledge the degree to which every housewife and every consumer in Australia depends on the foodstuffs and the fibre produced by Australia’s farms in order to maintain the standard of living to which we have become accustomed to expect, and when we take into account the degree to which the farm community and primary industries are major demand elements within our community, the consequences of these statistics are alarming. But the Government does nothing.

The Government came into office with a great fanfare. It appointed the Coombs Committee, which was a committee of inquiry into ways by which unnecessary allocations of public money might be curtailed. But as a result of the Coombs recommendations something like $360m in actual net loss to the rural community was deducted by measures introduced in the 1973-74 Budget. Of course, it was not only the Coombs report which resulted in this situation. It is not so many months ago that a Green Paper on agriculture was released by the Government with a great fanfare. Here was a document analysing rural policy- a document which would enable all those in the community to consider how the farming community and rural industry could best be assisted. Even the honourable member for Macarthur (Mr Kerin), who sits opposite me at the table, made a statement in my own electorate extolling the merits of this Paper. So did all of us; we all extolled it because we thought that at least the Government might recognise the contribution of agriculture- might recognise that the divisive tactics of the honourable member of Hunter, the Prime Minister and others of their ilk should at least be countered by what one would hope would be the rational and reasoned arguments that would emanate from a consideration of that Green Paper. But no. Last week the Budget was brought down and not one of those positive recommendations made by the committee which drew up the Green Paper was either canvassed or implemented. What about those statements made even by the Minister for Agriculture (Senator Wriedt). Prior to the May 18 election he got up and very bravely and boldly said: ‘We will re-introduce those taxation concessions on soil conservation and water conservation’. What poppycock! Where are they.

Mr Anthony:

-The year 2000.

Mr SINCLAIR:

– They will be here in the year 2000, if perhaps there are any farmers left in the Australian community by the year 2000. Not only is this Government quite intent on ignoring by positive neglect the rural producers and the rural community and all of those communities which depend on them but also it is also hellbent on destroying the residual profitability which exists for those on the land and in the primary sector. It is true that there are some people within the primary sector who are still able to make money But when it came into office this Government said: ‘We believe in the family farmer. We think that in Australia our agriculture is best advanced by ensuring the continuation of the owner operator- the man who owns his own bit of dirt, the man who uses his own hands and works on his own property. He is the man we are going to help to survive. ‘

I see the honourable member for Wilmot (Mr Duthie) is in the House. He represents Tasmanian farmers, or at least some of them. I do not know for how long they will continue to support him. He would know the degree to which Tasmania has existed on the basis of the family farmer. Yet he and his few colleagues from country electorates on the other side of this chamber are parties to policies deliberately designed to destroy that family farmer. The only farmer who can survive under this Government is the big corporation. Yet the Government suggests that it is trying to preserve a system of agriculture in which the family farmer has a chance to maintain a viable operation. That is complete nonsense. Indeed, the economic policies of the Labor Government have been designed towards the aggregation of holdings, designed to build up the number of corporate farmers, designed to build the size of individual operations to the point where the family farmer himself is less and less able to retain any sort of viability. If this situation continues the circumstance of migration of the rural community to the city will be very markedly increased, and as it increases we are going to have large tracts of internal Australia which will be just desert.

When this Government came into office the Prime Minister, at a very memorable meeting at Gippsland, made this statement when talking to a group of farmers: ‘You have never had it so good’. How those words echo around the rural community today. How those 5,000 people, or whatever the number was, who attended the meeting at Moree sensed that sort of action or inaction from the Prime Minister and his Government! There is today within every sector of the Australian countryside a growing feeling of unrest. Farm leaders are trying to hold back the degree to which individual farmers seek to resort to violence. We in Australia are a fairly peaceful lot, and for farmers of all people- they are perhaps the most conservative element within the Australian community- to talk of resorting to violence surely must demonstrate to the people who sit on the government front bench in this place that there is something wrong in the bush.

Dr Forbes:

– There is nobody here; that is how concerned they are.

Mr SINCLAIR:

-But to demonstrate their concern, as my colleague the honourable member for Barker says, the only representative of the ministry here is the Treasurer (Mr Crean). He is the Treasurer who produced a Budget of which even the pundits outside are inclined to say: ‘He must really have had very little contribution to make’. I am delighted that the Minister for Transport (Mr Charles Jones) has now joined us. The Minister for Transport and the Treasurer are two of those who are deliberately destroying the Australian countryside.

The product of the Government’s policy is to create within Australia a group of rural peasants. If the Government thinks that all this is too much, let me draw on 3 specific areas in which things are crook. The headline of one newapaper reads: ‘Wool Slumps to 250c a kilo’. ‘Crisis looms for Beef Breeders’. There looms the headline of another newapaper. There is talk of not being able to meet our expected wheat production. The figures which were produced a few weeks ago, it is said, are excessive. Even when we get to the point of producing goods we have the trouble of delivering them. There is a lack of fuel in most parts of northern New South Wales and in Queensland. The railways are unable to provide railway trucks to cart grain from internal silos down to the waterfront. When you get the grain or the commodity to the waterfront the employees of one or another board or statutory authority are on strike. At Newcastle 40 men were responsible for delaying the payment to Australian wheatgrowers of the last pool payment for the 1972-73 pool period. This payment has already been announced by the Chairman of the Australian Wheat Board. The action of those 40 men is symbolic of how this Government has ignored the countryside run to waste. There are three major primary industries in which we see circumstances of crisis. It is of interest today to note that the Minister for Northern Development (Dr Patterson) is not in the House. He is not in the House because he has apparently gone to London to try to negotiate a sugar agreement with the United Kingdom Government. On 7 September a great deal was made of the negotiation of a sale to Malaysia of 1.65 million tonnes of sugar. This followed the sale of some significance of one million tons of sugar to South Korea. We read also that there is a probable contract of sale of sugar to Japan of some 600,000 tons. All these are traditional markets. If the Minister for Northern Development, in Britain in order to help the Labor Government there win its impending election, enters into a contractual arrangement with the British Government under which the price of sugar will be less than the Malaysian price- a rumour about which the sugar trade is most concerned- this will not be in Australia’s interest. If so, again we will see another one of the ways by which this Government is intent on driving the nail into the primary industry coffin.

Mr Deputy Speaker, there is no basis upon which any Australian can have any confidence in the measures of this Government to assist the people in the rural community. The beef industry throughout the world is in a period of surplus production. Costs are rising and markets are dwindling. One would hope that when the Minister for Northern Development in his discussions in the United Kingdom is talking about primary industry he remembers that circumstance and perhaps advocates some purchases of beef by the United Kingdom to try to alleviate the hard pressed position of the beef industry in Australia. But this matter of public importance is raised not for sake of one particular industry but for the sake of Australia itself. There is a position developing in this country which, unless it is shortly brought to a halt, is going to lead to the total destruction of the Australian economy. Never before have things been more critical across a broader range of products than they are today. It is not simply by inaction, but by the direct action of this Government in its financial mismanagement that this state of affairs has come about. I call on the Government to take urgent steps to alleviate the position before the haystack collapses around it.

Mr KERIN:
Macarthur

-The prophets of doom got up early this morning, Mr Deputy Speaker. The architects of divide and rule have been at their drawing boards again. We have heard a lot of rhetoric, we have heard a lot of extravagant language, we have heard a lot of figures that are not factual. We have heard the rhetoric about the family farms and we have heard the rhetoric about the bogey of the corporations, when it was the Leader of the Country Party some years back who said about the smaller farmers that 30,000 must go. We are going to turn the country into a desert. We are going to turn all the farmers into peasants. We are even responsible for the weather and the amount of plantings the wheat farmers have engaged in. A few nights ago I congratulated a Country Party member in this House for his responsible attitude to the meeting at Moree and for the way he was privately urging upon the farmers some sort of restraint and some sort of realistic attitude. Leaders of some primary industry organisations themselves -

Mr Sinclair:

– A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I do not like to interrupt the honourable member, but I would draw his attention to the standing order which requires a member to speak from his place.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Berinson:
PERTH, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

-It is open to the honourable member to speak from the table if that is with the agreement of the Minister.

Mr KERIN:

– I abide by your ruling, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Mr DALY:
GRAYNDLER, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– It is a childish point.

Mr Sinclair:

– No, it is not. You have a Minister capable of talking on primary industry. That is what it is all about.

Mr KERIN:

– Some Country Party members have been taking a responsible attitude to this. I would also point out that leaders of some primary industry organisations are taking a very responsible attitude with respect to urgings for a farmers’ strike. It is quite true that many farmers are not happy with Government policies but this unhappiness is now being whipped up into fear. Today’s motion is neither responsible nor constructive because it is intended only to promote fear. What positive actions do the movers propose other than to indulge in rhetoric, very familiar rhetoric? The only positive thing that was said was in their illusions to the soil, fodder and water conservation concessions. These were worth something like $30m. Do they want the argument both ways? Are they saying that our export market outlook is bad, therefore we should encourage more production by way of production incentives? Or are they saying that farmers should have more income supplements? If so, in what way and in what industries?

In 1971-72 it was estimated that the value of Government assistance to farmers was some $3,000 per head. What sort of equity was achieved at that time? What sort of benefits flowed from that? The Opposition has not quantified the previous measure of assistance it gave. I will concede that there is unrest in farming areas. I will concede that perhaps the Government does not understand some of the feelings of this socioeconomic group of people in our community. The farmers understand that the government of this country has changed, but I am afraid that they still do not understand the reasons for change and the fact that priorities are different. It is simply a question of political fact that for 23 years some 43 to 5 1 per cent of the voting population of this country did not have the Government of their choice. I have only to refer to my own electorate, where we have 46,000 people without a hospital. Some people who get to hospital eventually are dead on arrival in the ambulance. There are high schools in other parts of my electorate where 2 high schools are jammed into one and we now have the ridiculous situation where for 3 yean one high school has been jammed into another. We have roads where the traffic travels at 0.8 miles an hour.

The Country Party is a sectional party and it promulgates very effectively the interests of those it represents, but when it tries to interpret our policies as sectional I think it fails to understand the priorities this Government is articulating and the reasons for those priorities. This failure to understand is the reason why the government of this country changed. I simply do not believe that anything constructive can result from this urgency motion by the generation of fear or distortion of facts, nor will anything be achieved by members of the Country Party attempting to foment a rural revolution. There is unrest in the country, due as much to strikes as to any other factor. Strikes particularly affect the rural sector, and the Government well appreciates this. If there is no dieseline some irrigation equipment cannot operate. The strike at the Grain Elevators Board particularly affected the wheat industry. Costs in the rural sector have risen by 16 per cent but these cost rises are affecting all sectors in the economy equally. There is nothing particularly significant about this, and this is one of the Government’s main problems, together with inflation.

There is a danger in trying to promote fear; there is a danger in interpreting the present situation beyond the simple maximisation of one interest group. It could be said that some people in the rural community are only willing to uphold the concept of democratic government when it produces the results they desire. There was a rural decline in farm incomes in the late 1960s and early 1970s. What did the Opposition do then? Did it attempt to do anything about the dairying industry during the 1960s when it had impeccable advice that it was essential to do so? What did it do for the wheat industry besides put quotas on? What tariffs were ever cut in the interests of our export earners? In all cases the answer of the Opposition, which was in government in those times, was: ‘We will not act unless the industry organisations are agreed. ‘ One act of the Government that has affected the rural sector is revaluation and, in terms of general economic management, this was essential. Some $ 1,900m of hot money flowed into the country and this flow has been one of the main factors causing our present inflation. Other things have added to it. We did cut tariffs as some compensation, but what happened in 1973 was that the world speculators, the international factors acting in all economies, rushed from currencies into commodities. Rural incomes last year rose dramatically for a peak of one year. The net rural income last year was estimated to be something like $2,993m whereas in the previous year it was $ 1,158m. It has been calculated that export income will be only marginally lower for 1974-75 than the record in 1973-74. If we look at exports of rural origin and their value, in 1971-72 the value was $2,425m, last year it was $3,536m and in the coming year it is estimated to be only slightly below that. There are 2 industries in trouble- wool and beef. By its actions in providing $150m the Government has not shown disregard for the wool industry. The government, by its actions to hold the wool market at 250c for 2 1 clean micron wool, has shown a great regard for the needs of the wool market.

Mr Street:

– Does the honourable member think that is an adequate price?

Mr KERIN:

– I think it is an adequate price in view of the conditions at present. We have the situation at present where the beef industry has been particularly hard hit by 3 export markets. The future of the beef industry is dependent upon speculation in 3 economies- the economies of the United States of America, Japan and the European Economic Community. There is little more than speculation that could be said about this industry in terms of forecasting its future. Even Colonel McArthur of the Australian Meat Board has said that the main problems of the beef industry are due to political factors. Let us look at some of the evidence given before the Joint Committee on Prices a little over one year ago. The industry itself could not anticipate just what was going to happen in the future. Mr R. S. Wilson, Chairman of the Australian Cattle Council and a representative of the Australian Woolgrowers and Graziers Council, said in answer to a question about the submission which had been put before the Committee:

No, Mr Chairman, we have not changed our opinion at all. In fact we are stronger in our thought that increased production is the answer to the problem.

But even with beef the figures will only return to something like the figures of 2 years ago. We are all hopeful that meat exports will again pick up early in the new year. But for the Government suddenly to come in with some plan that will help the beef industry out of trouble instantly because 3 markets have collapsed is simply beyond reality. What do the members of the Australian Country Party or the Opposition propose or want for the beef industry? They have not said anything. Are we to buy the beef? Are we to subsidise the price? Are we to control the productionor would that be socialism? The situation that we are facing with respect to primary industries presents a very complex picture. Counter to the figures of the Deputy Leader of the Australian Country Party (Mr Sinclair), I have more accurate figures which point to the situation being slightly worse than he said in respect of one matter. If we were to look at the trends in Australian rural production and exports as shown by figures provided by the Bureau of Agricultural Economics we would find that the main feature of the estimates is a decline of some 17 per cent in the gross value of rural production to $5,436m and a rise of 6 per cent in the value of rural exports to $3,763m. It has been estimated that farm costs rose by over 16 per cent in 1973-74. A similar increase- not 22 per cent- is expected to take place this year. Those 2 trends together will certainly reduce the net farm income.

But there are complications with respect to the wheat industry. Whereas the prices will be higher, the production will be lower. Despite what the Opposition says the situation is not all gloomy. Let us have a look at the national market guide in the ‘Land’ of Thursday, 5 September. An article on the front page of the market analysis under the heading ‘Dairy outlook is promising ‘reads:

The dairy industry faces continued strong demand for all its products next year. And unlike the meat and wool industries, Australian production is unlikely to fill overseas requirements.

Butter, cheese, skim milk powder, and the whole range of dairy products are continuing to be strongly sought after on world markets. Prices are remaining at high levels, with skim milk powder particularly meeting solid inquiry.

Let us have a look at the sugar industry. An article appearing under the heading ‘Sugar prices at peak’ reads:

Fears of a world sugar shortage gathered momentum this week, pushing prices on world markets to record peaks. In London, the London Daily Sugar Price reached a record of 360 Pounds sterling a long ton under the impact of forecasts of a world shortfallLondon sugar dealers forecast that the shortages are likely to continue well into next year -

And so it goes on. Let us have a look at the grains situation. Despite what the Deputy Leader of the Australian Country Party has said the Government is not responsible for the area planted or the weather. Production is expected to go up to 8, 100,000 tonnes in 1974-7 5 from the production of 5,380,000 tonnes in the current year. The value for 1974-75 has been estimated at $870m compared with the $550m for the year just passed. If we were to have a look at the coarse grains, sorghum and oilseeds industries we would find that all the market prospects are quite good.

As I have said, when industries have been in trouble the Government has shown an interest and also a willingness to act. The Government is determined to act where possible not in an ad hoc way but in a most rational manner. As a member of the Australian Labor Party whose electorate is partially rural I must emphasise that what I have to say in Dapto, where I receive 75 per cent of the vote, also has to be heard 20 miles away in Kangaroo Valley, where I receive 23 per cent of the vote. There is a need for the people of

Australia to ensure that the protection does not result from political deals or pure political lobbying and pork barrelling. I believe that the resources of the leaders of farm organisations and the Country Party would be more usefully employed in promoting a higher level of economic literacy among the farming community than in blowing against the winds of political and economic reality or in propagandising for the return of a certain and golden age which never did exist. The Whitlam Government is opposed to ad hockery and wishes to act justly with respect to the rural sector and to accord it no special favours over any other sector of the economy. Those are the reasons why it set up the Industries Assistance Commission to give assistance and measures of protection to all industries, primary and secondary, on some rational basis. That is the reason why the Minister for Agriculture (Senator Wriedt), who is a member of another place, set up the Rural Forum and the National Rural Advisory Council. That is the reason why the Government has brought in a Green Paper, which will be the first step towards the getting of some overall national rural policy. Despite what the Deputy Leader of the Australian Country Party has said, the Green Paper was not a series of recommendations but a series of guidelines. The contents of the Green Paper will not be a series of recommendations until they become a White Paper.

Our approach has been based on the interests of the whole rural sector and not just the people who live on farms. Perhaps the Government needs to state again and again that it does appreciate the role of primary industry, which provides 10 per cent of the total product of the country and in excess of 50 per cent of the export income with its 7 per cent of the population. In turn- if we need to state this again and again to give assurance- primary industry needs to realise what the national economic goals are. By and large they have been set for a long time. They are economic growth and industrialisation, the main purpose of which is to get away from excessive dependence on agriculture, and to promote full employment. Those goals have been set for a long time. They are not goals that were set by this Government. In facing this reality of national goals and in facing some true appreciation of their role in the whole approach of national policy formation, the rural sector, the rural organisations and their party representatives have, I believe, 3 options. They can change the long standing goals that governments of their own political persuasion upheld; they can accept the goals but attempt to attach some special virtue to one particular form of production; or they can accept the goals and the economic reality and take what comes in the light of the position in the market place but ensure at all times that the farming community gets economic justice. That is what the Government is about and that is why I reject the motion.

Mr STREET:
Corangamite

– It is no reflection upon the honourable member for Macarthur (Mr Kerin) or the honourable member for Eden-Monaro (Mr Whan), who I understand is to follow me in this debate, to say that it is a disgrace that the Government has not been able to find a Minister who is able or willing to speak on this matter of public importance. It is very significant that today we have seen a spectacle which I have never seen before in this House. We have seen the spectacle of a back bench member of Parliament leading for the Government on a matter of public importance because there just is not a Minister who is competent to defend the Government. In fact, as far as I know neither of the honourable members who will speak for the Government in this debate has ever even earned his living off the land.

The words of this motion are most important because they demonstrate at the same time the Government’s ignorance and its incompetence. It is almost unbelievable that a motion like this should need to be moved in an Australian Parliament. Australia as a nation is more dependent than most on export earnings. The Australian domestic economy is more dependent than most on primary industry. The fact that the Government has failed to appreciate this situation shows that it is quite out of touch with reality. Let us look firstly at the export earnings situation. Never has a government been as fortunate as the present Labor Government was when it came to power. Australia’s balance of payments were in a sound position. The wool and meat industries were heading for bumper years. Wheat prices were at record levels.

All those factors enabled the Labor Government to engage in huge increases in Government spending. But it forgot- or more likely it never realised-that the years 1972 and 1973 were just a breathing space for most primary producers and country businessmen. Virtually every part of Australia was seriously affected by drought between 1965 and 1971- some parts by the worst drought in the history of settlement. Wool growers were experiencing the lowest prices since the great depression. In 1972-73 farmers were just starting to make some impression on the crippling financial burden that they had incurred during those earlier years and country businessmen were just starting to pick up after the financial drought caused by the weather drought and the rural recession. This was the situation when Labor came to power. But then what happened? Displaying a frightening ignorance of the problems and realities of primary industry the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam ), in his famous quote, asserted that farmers ‘had never had it so good’. He and his Government then deliberately set about making absolutely sure that the primary producer would pay the price for having had a couple of good years.

The honourable member for Macarthur said that the Government was opposed to ad hocery. I remind him that his Government, without any inquiry by the very body which it established for the purpose- the Industries Assistance Commissiondestroyed just about every incentive the farmer had to increase his production and just about every measure designed to take account of the peculiar difficulties under which farmers have to operate. Worse than that, because of its total inability to understand primary industry the Government has put at risk Australia’s ability to withstand drought and national disaster and years of work by farmers on soil conservation. How can any government, every a Labor government, have been so plainly stupid? This is the crux of the situation today- the reason why the Opposition has introduced this matter of public importance. The Government plainly has failed to concern itself with the economic position of our primary producers, but the day of reckoning must come and for the Government it may not be far away.

Wool prices are no longer at high levels. In fact, taking into account the astronomical rises in costs since this Government came to power, it is doubtful whether the price guaranteed today is any better than the disastrously low prices of a few years ago. As someone has just said, it is possibly lower. Meat has fallen by over 50 per cent. Net farm income- this is the only figure in which the farmer is interested- will probably be down by 50 per cent this year compared with last year. Yet the Prime Minister says that farmers have ‘never had it so good’. How many honourable members opposite, how many Ministers, would like to suffer a 50 per cent reduction in their purchasing power in one year? How many wage and salary earners would accept such a situation? The President of the Australian Labor Party and President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions and Ministers of this Government are asking unions for restraint in exorbitant wage demands. One does not have to ask farmers whether they favour restraints in their income. They have restraints without asking for them and restraints to an extent which no other section of the community has had to suffer. There is an apt quotation which applies to the present position. I hope every supporter of the Government will take note of it. It is:

Realities are boring but they have a habit of catching up with politicians.

As a result of this Government’s incompetence and its total failure to concern itself with the deteriorating position of Australia ‘s primary producers, our international reserves are going down the drain- and going down fast.

Whether Government supporters like it or not- their previous track record suggests that they do not like it- this Government will have to face reality. The reality is that the Government’s policies are not only sending Australian farmers broke, they are also sending Australia broke. The greatest contribution that any government can make to Australian industry is to provide competent and responsible financial management of the national economy, yet this Government has given up any attempt to tackle inflation. What else can be said about a government which brings in a Budget which assumes a rate of inflation of over 20 per cent? Which increases Government spending by 32 per cent when every sensible person in the community knows that restraint in Government spending is a must if we are to get ourselves out of the mess we are now in?

Having managed to reduce a healthy prosperous economy to chaos in less than 2 years, this Government is unwilling or unable- probably both- to take the necessary measures to get some sanity back into the economy. Guess who is being called upon to bear the main burden of this incompetence? There are no prizes for guessing right, not even any prizes for getting it right first time. The answer, of course, is the people who have ‘never had it so good ‘, the people at the end of the line, the people who cannot pass on rises in costs and who have to sell their produce at what the world is prepared to pay for it- in other words, the exporter, particularly the exporter of primary products who still supplies more than half our overseas earnings.

If there had been any last hope that the Government would finally come to its senses and show some appreciation of the role of primary industry in the national economy, that hope was shattered by the Budget. It contained nothing about a farm income reserve scheme long advocated, I remind the House, by the Opposition and, in fact, supported by the Government’s own committee in its Green Paper on rural policy. It contains nothing about a long term credit facility specifically geared to the problems of primary production, again a plank in the Opposition’s rural policy. But there is something in the Budget- a capital gains tax to be levied on top of probate and estate duties. To farmers beset by sky-rocketting costs and falling prices for their products that may be the last straw. This incompetent Government has given up any pretence at trying to overcome the economic chaos it has created. This capital gains tax finally demonstrates that the Government is determined to put so heavy a burden on the private operator that he will give up the unequal struggle and get out. That is the Government’s objective because the independent operator, working for himself and his family, is the greatest obstacle this Government faces in achieving its socialist objectives. This is why a sturdily independent Australian electorate will throw the Government out at the next election.

Mr WHAN:
Monaro · Eden

-First there is one myth that needs to be laid. It was mentioned by the honourable member for Corangamite (Mr Street). The actual situation is that both the honourable member for Macarthur (Mr Kerin) and I have worked on farms, not that this really matters. I probably enjoyed more moments of concentration under a cow than the honourable member for Corangamite has ever done. As for the honourable member for Macarthur, he was a practising farmer until 4 years ago. The fact remains that we have both had practical experience. Herein lies the great difficulty under which members of the Opposition labour. Practical experience must be blended with a sensible and rational approach to the problems of the rural community. It is no longer good enough to know the geography of the 4 teats of a cow and come here to represent the dairying industry. One needs a little more profound knowledge than this particular piece of information. However let us not dwell on the shortcomings so manifest in the Opposition; rather let us consider the record that this Government has established in the short time it has been in office.

We have had the fearmongers in the Australian Country Party tramping around the countryside generating great opposition to a government which has given more to the rural community in terms of money than any previous government. Let us examine the facts of life. Outlays on rural industries, without the major social advancements this Government is making in the present Budget for 1974-75, total $487.6m compared with $329.5m in the last Budget the previous Government brought down. In other words this Government is giving more than $150m more or half as much again as was spent by the previous Government on the agricultural sector. The net assistance, after we receive the taxes that are paid by the agricultural sector, is $309.2m compared with $283.9m in the previous Government’s last Budget. After taking into account outlays and receipts this represents an increase of $ 15.4m.

Mr Hewson:

– That is not a true figure.

Mr WHAN:

– We hear the words “That is not a true figure’ from people who are more familiar with the udder of a cow than with the facts of the situation. All the honourable member needs to do to confirm what I have said is to extract the relevant figures from the Budget and make his own comparisons. The Government proposes to pay $ 1 5.4m more to the agricultural industries of Australia in this Budget than the previous Government did in its last Budget. Let us examine some of the other things the Government has done for the agricultural sector. For the first time we have placed a floor price plan in the wool market. What has the industry said about this? Mr Von Bibra, announcing the fact that the industry had reached agreement with the Government, said that this agreement represented a milestone in the history of the wool industry. He added:

After very many years of dissension and debate within the industry and with governments we now have a commercially viable marketing proposal which can overcome the crippling uncertainty that has been evident in recent times in the wool market.

What was the attitude of the Leader of the Country Party (Mr Anthony) when this proposal was put earlier? On 1 5 November 1970 he said:

I repeat what I have said on earlier occasions: The scheme is not intended to force or defy the wool market, but to test it and to get the best and most realistic price the market can pay.

I am afraid those growers who believe wool users can be forced- in this day of ready availability of cheaper though perhaps inferior textile substitutes- to pay a certain price for wool are not facing up to the realities of the situation.

With those words he dismissed the proposition that we should have a fixed reserve price in the wool industry. We heard the honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair) quoting a newspaper headline condemning the Government. It was to the effect that the price of wool had slumped to 250c a kilo. It would have slumped way below that if this Government had not put a support in the market. What I am saying is really grating on honourable members opposite.

We have done something for the agricultural industry, and we are starting to reveal the facade of lies that honourable members opposite are putting up before the agricultural sector.

Let us look at some more steps taken by the Government. It has provided for a first advance payment to wheat growers. We dealt with this matter recently. It has also provided for an increase in credit facilities for the Australian Wheat Board so that it can now make advances even on the second payment. The Government has introduced a dairy adjustment scheme involving the expenditure of $28m. It has established an animal health laboratory, which the previous Government rejected. An amount of $5 6m will be spent on this laboratory to protect the livestock industry of this country from exotic diseases such as foot and mouth disease. The Government has set aside $ 1 1.6m for an isolated children’s allowance. Here comes the real rub. If ever a government has done anything for the rural communities in social terms, it is this Government. It has acted after years of complete neglect by the previous Government. Honourable members opposite are laughing. They are the people who would not give an isolated children’s grant. They are more concerned about being farmers than they are about being fathers. Out of the $21m given to local government in New South Wales by the Grants Commission, $1 lm or over 50 per cent went to the rural communities. Of the increased grant of $1,1 20m for roads, 58 per cent will be spent in rural areas, compared with 49 per cent provided by the previous Government under the Commonwealth aid roads scheme.

Mr Lusher:

– Peanuts.

Mr WHAN:

– ‘Peanuts’, we hear from the gallery beside me. ‘Peanuts and lollies,’ cried the boy upstairs. The honourable member says that $ 1,120m is peanuts. What was the $800m that the previous Government gave to the States for road construction in the 3 years before 1972?

Mr DALY:
GRAYNDLER, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Chicken feed.

Mr WHAN:

– It was chicken feed, indeed. They are not even peanuts, because peanuts have a market price. Grants of up to $2 5 m are to be made for unemployment relief. Most of this money will go to the rural sector.

Mr Lusher:

– That is because of unemployment.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Berinson)Order! The honourable member for Hume has been continually interjecting. He will cease.

Mr Hewson:

– He is being provoked.

Mr WHAN:

– He is being provoked by the facts. The point is that honourable members opposite cannot stand the truth. The Government has provided a national disaster relief fund of $44.7m, and funds for the national estate. An incredible amount of money is being spend on education in the rural sectors. This was demonstrated for the benefit of the Leader of the Australian Country Party (Mr Anthony) in my own electorate in Bega recently where he had complaints that the New South Wales Department of Education was wasting the money that the Government had given it for education. Education is certainly a matter of primary concern in rural areas and it has been given a completely new boost by this Government. In this Budget, technical education, which is of such profound importance for the rural sector of the community, will be getting the biggest injection of funds it has ever had.

I turn now to one of the great and difficult problems in the country- poverty. What government has ever really faced up to this crucial and terrible problem of poverty in the country? When we took office, poverty in the rural areas was higher than it had ever been and certainly higher than in any other sector of our society. We now have various measures that are necessary to alleviate this poverty to some extent. The Government is providing aged people’s homes and higher pensions which the Government promised will be raised to 25 per cent of average weekly income.

We hear the honourable member for New England complaining about a lack of railway trucks. What hypocrisy this is. Why are the States short of railway trucks? It is because the previous Government did nothing in regard to the matter. What have we done? In the Budget we have made allowance for 500 railway trucks to be leased to the States this year and for 800 railway trucks to be leased to the States next year. Such an allowance is a tangible demonstration of our concern for what was a serious shortage of railway rolling stock when we took office. But honourable members opposite say that we are doing nothing for the country. The Minister for Northern Development (Dr Patterson) is in the United Kingdom to protect the sugar industry. Where was the Leader of the Country Party when the crucial European economic negotiations were taking place? Australia should have been represented. What about the statement made by the Leader of the Country Party in 1 97 1 at a symposium on national rural policy? He said:

From what some people tell me, they would see this as a mythical topic -

That is, rural policy- because they say we haven’t got a national rural policy. I suppose I could state some kind of generalised policy, but it wouldn’t mean much unless we looked at it in the context of particular rural industries.

We heard the honourable member for New England condemning us for the Green Paper. Time has caught up with the honourable member for New England because during the elections he called it an act of vandalism which was being suppressed until after the election. That is when he condemned it; now he shouts its glory. What contradictions we see in these people who do not really bother to sit down and consider in a rational way the problems of the people they are supposed to represent in the rural countryside.

Mr Deputy Speaker:

– The discussion is concluded.

page 1670

REHABILITATION CENTRE, TOWNSVILLE, QUEENSLAND

Reference to Public Works Committee

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

– I move:

The proposal is for the establishment of a regional rehabilitation centre to cater for 25 residental cases and up to 40 day attendants from the North Queensland area. The centre will provide the following facilities: administration, amenities, medical centre, occupational therapy, vocational counselling, physiotherapy, central change block, residential patients, residential staff quarters, services area, and an open recreation area. Construction will use steel portal frames on reinforced concrete slabs, with steel stud framed walls. External lining will be asbestos cement sheeting to walls and steel deck roofing. The buildings will be partly air conditioned and partly mechanically ventilated.

Windows will be aluminium framed with timber shutters for cyclone protection. Internal finishes will suit the requirements of the particular areas. Car parking will be provided and the site will be landscaped to suit the surrounding environment. The estimated cost of the proposed work is $2.3m at June 1974 prices. I table plans for the proposed work.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 1671

LIQUEFIED GAS (ROAD VEHICLE USE) TAX BILL 1974

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 17 September (vide page 1426), on motion by Dr J. F. Cairns:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr DALY:
Leader of the House · Grayndler · ALP

– May I have the indulgence of the House to raise a point of procedure on this legislation. Before the debate is resumed on this Bill I would suggest that it may suit the convenience of the House to have a general debate on this Bill and the Liquefied Gas (Road Vehicle Use) Tax Collection Bill as they are related measures. Separate questions will of course be put on each of the Bills at the conclusion of the debate. I suggest therefore, Mr Deputy Speaker, that you permit the subject matter of both Bills to be discussed in this debate.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Berinson:

-Is it the wish of the House to have a general debate of this nature? There being no objection, I will allow that course to be followed.

Mr ADERMANN:
Fisher

-We are dealing today with 2 Bills relating to liquid petroleum gas. One is a tax Bill and the other is a tax collection Bill. On 17 September the Minister for Overseas Trade (Dr J. F. Cairns) pointed out that the legislation imposes a tax on liquefied gas for the propelling of road vehicles. This tax was foreshadowed in the Budget Speech delivered earlier that night. The excise does not affect in any way the bulk of liquefied petroleum gas used by the community for domestic and industrial heating, cooking and various other purposesalthough I believe that the use of this product for that purpose is something which belongs in history as it is totally unprocurable at this time. There is an extreme shortage in the supply of that type of liquefied petroleum gas.

This gas usually comes in the form of propane or butane, or a mixture of both. It is liquefied by compression. It is usually a by-product of one of 2 processes. When the Treasurer (Mr Crean) spoke last Tuesday of the way in which the tax was to be graded he referred to the costliness of the distribution of liquefied petroleum gas. As the Treasurer rightly pointed out, the cost of this product is incurred in its storage and distribution. It is a by-product of the refining process of crude oil. It is also a by-product of the process of refining natural gas. The cost factors which the Treasurer and the Minister for Overseas Trade mentioned last Tuesday night are related to distribution. The high cost of establishing supply and distribution facilities were referred to. This is why the rate of tax payable with respect to liquefied gas will be increased by only SO per cent of any future increase that may occur in the excise on petrol.

One of the cost factors is the cost of transport. We know that transport costs are absolutely soaring and that this is the result largely of 2 proposals. The first is the increased excise on petrol products. Whenever any additional excise revenue is required in the form of an indirect tax, one of the favourite targets for such a measure is petroleum products as well as tobacco, among other things. Since the Labor Government was elected in 1972 the excise on petroleum products has been increased twice. The other factor- and one on which we have protested very bitterly- is the removal of the equalisation subsidy scheme, introduced by a Liberal-Country Party government, which kept down the price of petrol, particularly in country areas, by relating that price to city prices. It followed the reasonable principle that petrol prices in the country should be within 5c a gallon of the price at ports. I believe- I repeat my earlier assertion- that the removal of the subsidy was a retrograde step. We are seeing the effects of that action in western Queensland where petrol is selling at $1 a gallon. Such action results in transport costs becoming fearsomely high. No matter what excise is imposed on these products, transport costs are added. By the time the petroleum products leave the ports and the refineries in our capital cities, quite alarming costs are carried to purchasers in our more distant areas.

At the moment, liquid petroleum gas does enjoy a price advantage over all other forms of petroleum in Australia. Reports on this aspect conflict, but I do believe that liquid petroleum gas is regarded as at least as efficient as petrol and other products used at present. This gas is being increasingly used in many other countries. I believe that in Australia the Commonwealth Government has a number of cars in its car pool in Melbourne which are run on liquid petroleum gas and that the performance, efficiency and cost of this move is being assessed. So, this is a product in which Australia is most interested indeed.

One big advantage of liquid petroleum gas is that it causes very little, if any, air pollution. This is an important factor. One of the major worries about the level of pollution, which is increasing in Australia as it is in every other country, is the pollutant effect resulting from the use of motor vehicles. As our highways and our cities become more and more crowded with motor vehicles, the acuteness of this problem will increase. The use of liquid petroleum gas has the advantage that it is non-pollutant; it does not contribute to this pollution which is an increasing worry. Therefore, the wisdom of discouraging too greatly the use of liquid petroleum gas for propelling motor vehicles comes into question. The problem is a vexing one because of the advantage of and the contribution made by the use of liquid petroleum gas for this purpose. Perhaps we ought to watch what level of discouragement of the use of this gas results from the new excise charge.

I hope also that the introduction of this excise on petroleum gas does not introduce a whole rosy new field by which revenue may be raised. I am delighted that the recent Budget did not include yet another increase in the excise on petrol. Such action would have just about crippled a number of country industries and country areas, if that has not already been done. Another way of raising excise duty- that is, through liquefied petroleum gas- has been discovered. I hope that this new avenue will not mean that this excise will be used in future as a revenue producer in the taxation field.

I trust that the figures which I read in the 1973 report of the Bureau of Transport Economics are somewhere near the mark when they state that Australia’s reserves of liquid petroleum gas as at October 1973 were 1,133 million barrels. Most of those reserves came from gas reservoirs but some were also from reserviors. The 2 main fields are the Dampier sub-basin and off-shore Gippsland. Those figures represent the gas directly recoverable from oil and gas reserves discovered up to that time. At usage then assessed and at the rate of extraction then assessed, the comment is made that this represented approximately 80 years supply.

At present, the level of market demands for major petroleum products determines the volume of natural gas production and the composition of refinery output. The quantity of liquid petroleum gas produced as a bi-product of the operations of which I have spoken is variable. It is not subject, therefore, to direct control. We have had export surpluses. If it cannot be exported and it cannot be held in bulk storage, I imagine that the only alternative would be to pump the excess back into the natural reservoirs. A cost of recovery would be involved, and it would be passed on to the consumer.

Motor vehicles can be adapted to use liquid petroleum gas. Indeed, liquid petroleum gas can replace both super and standard grades of petrol, possibly with comparable efficiency, as I said. The Minister for Overseas Trade may comment on this aspect: I believe that the report from which I quoted stated that the cost of conversion of a vehicle to liquefied petroleum gas operation ranges from $400 to $600. It reported that the use of liquid petroleum gas has another advantage; it gives a very long engine life. The report spoke of 20 years.

Earlier this year- I mention these figures for a purpose which I will develop later- the retail price of liquefied petroleum gas a gallon was reported in one journal as being approximately 2 lc in Melbourne, 22c in Adelaide and 31c in Sydney. The transport costs in delivering this product, as I noted before, add appreciably to its retail cost. We know that the special bulk tanks which are required for storage of this gas are extremely expensive. This was stated rather indirectly in the speech by the Minister for Overseas Trade in introducing this measure. I think that is what he had in mind when he talked about the cost of establishing supply and distribution.

The cost advantage which is held by liquid petroleum gas over motor spirit and diesel fuel results almost entirely from the absence of excise duty on the sale of liquefied petroleum gas. Now an excise duty is to apply to this gas. A comparison of wholesale prices in 1973 shows that liquid petroleum gas, before excise, was actually marginally more expensive than premium grade petrol and substantially dearer than standard grade petrol and distillate. Perhaps greater domestic consumption might assist to reduce the price of liquid petroleum gas, at least before the excise is added.

We have been advised that about 14 per cent of motor vehicles in Australia conceivably could be converted to use liquid petroleum gas. I do not know how efficient this type of propulsion is. But trucks and transports seem to be very heavily pollutant vehicles and if the efficiency of liquid petroleum gas is nearly comparable to that of the present fuels some encouragement or assistance could be given to the conversion of these vehicles to run on liquid petroleum gas. In this way we could strike a very good blow for anti-pollution in Australia.

I am worried about that section of the Bill which deals with the liability for and collection of tax. I am very concerned because I think that what is set out in the Bill in this respect is totally impractical and clumsy. I cannot see how on earth the proposal contained in the Bill can work without making every person who wants to use liquid petroleum gas in his vehicle a form filler. Before coming to this place I was practising as a public accountant and I know about the forms that had to be filled out by people on the land. I am not blaming this Government for all of them. I am not saying that the forms are unnecessary. But the number of forms required to be filled out are mounting and mounting. Much of my work as a public accountant was concerned with people who had to fill out periodic forms and returns. In many respects this was a sickening process. Therefore I am very alarmed about the way in which the Bill proposes to collect the tax. Clause 6 of the Bill states:

Tax payable in respect of the use of liquefied gas used for the purpose of propelling a road vehicle is payable by the person who was the owner of the liquefied gas immediately before it was so used.

I take the clause to mean that the person who puts the liquefied gas in his car and uses it is the person liable to pay the tax. Clause 7 states:

  1. 1 ) Where, in any month, liquefied gas is used for the purpose of propelling a road vehicle, the person who is liable to pay the tax m respect of the use of that liquefied gas -

And that seems to be the motorist- shall, within 28 days after the close of the month or within such further period as the Comptroller, in special circumstances, allows, furnish to a Collector, in accordance with a form, and in a manner, determined by the Comptroller, a return relating to that use of the liquefied gas.

  1. A person shall not furnish a return that is false or misleading in material particular.

Penalty: $1,000.

To me the proposal is absolutely clumsy and impractical. As I have said, I am alarmed at this section of the Bill. I do not think that what the Bill proposes in this respect will encourage people to convert their cars to the use of liquid petroleum gas. I know that this will be a difficult tax to collect. I concede that. I have thought about the collection of the tax and I think that responsibility for paying the tax should be in the hands of the distributor. I think that the distributor should be required to make the necessary returns.

Mention can be made of the tax on distillate. When primary producers purchased distillate from a supplier they filled in a form on which they stated their exemption number and specified that the fuel was to be used for primary production purposes and they received an exemption from the tax. The procedure in this case is somewhat reversed. The bulk of liquid petroleum gas in common use- once again, if one can get it- is contained in bottles for domestic use and does not come within the ambit of this legislation. Therefore we are talking about a small proportion of liquid petroleum gas which will be affected by the Bill. I do not think many motorists will be happy or enthusiastic about having to sit down every 28 days to make out their returns, especially when they know that if they do not fill in a return or if the return is false or misleading- intentionally or otherwise- they will be confronted with what is quite a massive penalty of $ 1 ,000. 1 think that this sort of penalty could be applied to companies and distributors. But it seems to me to be a pretty vicious tax to impose on a motorist.

I know that this is a Budget Bill. Therefore we on the Opposition side have to look at it responsibly in considering what amendments we might want to make. I have tried to point out that the legislation before us is a stupid and clumsy way of doing things. I think that the onus is on the wrong person and in the wrong place. The Opposition is accused of obstruction whenever it points out the deficiencies. The Bill before us is another example of what has happened so often in the life of this Government where ill thought out legislation, such as this, has been introduced into the House. On occasions we have even had examples of sloppy drafting. Often a good Bill has been the result of Opposition amendments which have finally been accepted by the Government. I do not think that we ought to write the Bills for the Government. So I hope that the Minister will give us some assurance that he will have a look at the matters to which I have drawn attention and that he will devise some other way of collecting this levy and not make the motorist or the user responsible. I think that those people who are competent, and have the staff and can understand these things, should be the people whose responsibility it is to pay the levy and furnish the forms. As I have pointed out, I think that this section of the Bill is clumsy and inequitable. I think that this fault should be looked at.

I think that liquid petroleum gas should be used to a greater extent for the propulsion of motor vehicles from the point of view not only of reducing pollution but also as an alternative fuel to petrol which has become so dear and which has been hamstrung with transport cost difficulties. In vast areas of Queensland, particularly in areas in which primary producers are trying to harvest or plant their crops, petrol and distillate is not available. Many areas do not have the fuel to run school buses. Some industry has been brought to a standstill because of the complete lack of fuel in Queensland and in northern New South Wales. This matter was covered very effectively and properly the other day.

It is not the Opposition’s intention to spend a great deal of time delaying, obstructing or opposing this Bill. I think that I have made the point that I wanted to put forward. I am glad to see that the Government has shown some restraint in the Bill in regard to the rate at which the tax on liquid petroleum gas will rise. It has decided that the rate of tax payable on liquefied gas used in motor vehicles will be increased by only SO per cent of any increases of petrol excise that may occur in that period. Might I express the fervent hope that any increase in petrol excise in any period will be minimal or non-existent. I again appeal to the Minister to have a look at Part II of the Bill which deals with liability for and collection of tax. Clauses 6, 7, 8 and 9 are covered in this section of the Bill. I ask the Minister to have a look at the clumsiness of the procedure by which the tax is to be collected and to see whether something which is more just, fair and equitable can be worked out. This section of the Bill alarms me. I criticise it very strongly and firmly. But in other respects we will not offer opposition or obstruct the Bill in any way.

Mr WENTWORTH:
Mackellar

– I think that this is a bad Utile Bill. It is bad because it will have the effect of preventing the conversion of road vehicles to liquefied petroleum gas. I think also that it is not a Bill of tremendous significance, although it may have more significance than would appear at first sight. There are 2 reasons why we should see that progressively road vehicles are converted from petrol to liquefied petroleum gas, particularly in the capital cities. The first, a minor reason perhaps, is that by so doing we would reduce our present dependence upon imported fuel. I think that is a minor reason because there are other uses for any LPG which we produce, most of which is being exported mainly to Japan. The major reason is that the Bill is a blow against the antipollution campaign. It is an outrage on the environment. This is particularly true of the capital cities.

One of the great troubles about the use of motors in capital cities, in large congregations of population, is the possible smog and pollution that they cause. Tins can be devastating as it has been, for example, in Los Angeles on the Californian coast of the United States. It could be bad in Sydney and I think in Melbourne also. Perhaps pollution has not yet reached devastating proportions, but it is something which gives concern and which inevitably is associated with the internal combustion engine. In the future I hope that more and more of our transport in the cities will be performed by something other than the private car powered by an internal combustion engine. Perhaps a greater shift to public transport would be desirable. A greater shift towards electric vehicles would be desirable. The shift towards electric vehicles is not, in practical terms, available at present. The technology is here for some, but not for all, vehicles to be converted.

If we convert from petrol to LPG we can use our existing vehicles. The conversion is a comparatively minor matter with perhaps something of the order of $400 being required. But the existing vehicle can be used and the existing type of vehicle can be used. There are small penalties. In particular there is the loss in a car of some of the boot space by reason of the larger tanks that have to be installed, although I think that probably with good design we can get over at least some or all of that trouble.

Mr James:

– What country is leading in this?

Mr WENTWORTH:

– I am unable to answer my honourable friend. Perhaps he will tell us later in the debate.

Mr James:

– I was not being rude. I was asking what country is leading in this.

Mr WENTWORTH:

– Frankly I do not know. I only know the way in which we should go. I am glad the honourable member is interested. I think it is constructive to take an interest in what is going on elsewhere, but I am primarily interested in what we should do in Australia. What we should do in Australia is to encourage the conversion of city used vehicles particularly, because it is in the cities that the control of pollution is important. We should encourage the conversion of petrol driven vehicles to use liquefied petroleum gas. This Bill discourages that. That is why it is a bad little Bill.

It is said, perhaps, that the revenue is needed. The existing revenue is not needed because the existing use of LPG for vehicles is minimal and not enough to affect the position. If we are talking of future revenue through the expansion of the use of LPG in vehicles the Bill is bad because it is reducing the possibility of that conversion. I think this is a serious matter. If we have to forego revenue that is a proper price- it is a very small price in terms of dollars- to pay for the improvement of the environment and for the improvement of living conditions in our cities and centres of population where the car exhaust is the main contributor towards atmospheric pollution. I think all honourable members will be familiar with the material that was put out by our own Bureau of Transport Economics last April, tables 7, 8 and 9 of which set out exhaust emissions. One can see the tremendous decrease in exhaust pollution if LPG rather than petrol is used. Perhaps I am unfair in selecting this example from the Bureau’s own figures, but a

Chevrolet using petrol will produce an index figure of 39.6 for carbon monoxide. That figure falls to 2.9 when LPG is used- a most significant decrease. I admit that I have chosen from the table a rather dramatic figure, but in general one can say that by using LPG we can probably reduce atmospheric pollution by a factor of two or three, and that is important.

Mr James:

– Could it be used in aircraft?

Mr WENTWORTH:

– I am not in a position to say. I do not think so, but I am not in a position to turn my mind to that. Aircraft are not terribly important for the cities. They travel over larger areas and longer distances. What we want to get at is the car which is polluting in the city itself. It is polluting down at ground level where the emission is most likely to affect human beings.

If we are serious about improving the environment we should be thinking in terms of encouraging in every way the conversion to LPG of petrol driven vehicles, particularly in the capital cities. I think the Government has been a little weak, perhaps, in giving way here to Treasury advice. I remember that when I was a Minister in a previous government the Treasury brought forward a proposal for the Budget that we should introduce similar measures. The Liberal-Country Party Government rejected that proposal, as it should have. It would have given more revenue but we really believed in preserving the environment. Consequently we acted in the way we did and did not adopt the Treasury proposal for this rather regressive and undesirable tax. One of the worst features of this Bill is that referred to by the honourable member for Fisher (Mr Adermann) the method of collection. In the Committee stage I shall move an amendment which is directed to curing that particular defect in the Bill. The amendment has been circulated and I think it is now on the table of the House for people to see.

Sitting suspended from 1 to 2.1S p.m.

Mr WENTWORTH:

-Before the luncheon recess I was pointing out that it was entirely desirable that we should encourage the conversion of city motor cars to the use of LPG for the purpose of avoiding or minimising pollution. Of course this is particularly important for vehicles like taxis which do a large mileage in the cities. These Bills that are before lis discourage that conversion and as such they are a blow at all the aspirations of the environmentalists and those who believe that the conditions of life in the cities should be improved.

The amount of money to be raised by these Bills is not in itself so important. The tax to be imposed is 2 cents per litre. As honourable members will remember there are 492 litres to one gallon. The tax itself is not big. But what is a real deterrent to conversion is the method of collection. I draw the attention of the House particularly to the provisions of clauses 6 and 7 of the Liquefied Gas (Road Vehicle Use) Tax Collection Bill. Under these clauses- it is almost incredible- the Government is proposing that every owner of a vehicle which uses LPG should have to put in a monthly return of the amount that he has used. Now I ask you, what would a car owner whose car runs on petrol think if he had to put in to the Government a monthly return every month of how much petrol he had used during that month? He would have to take a dipping of his tank at the start of the month and a dipping of his tank at the end of the month and tot up how much he bought at every garage. The thing is incredible. But this is what the Government is asking the man who has converted to LPG to do. Just look at the provisions of clauses 6 and 7 of the Bill. If he does not do this, if he furnishes ‘a return that is false or misleading in any material particular’, he is liable to a fine of $ 1 ,000. This is not something to be sneezed at.

Perhaps the Government has inserted this provision in the Bill inadvertently or by mistake. I am willing to give the Government the credit of believing that it has acted not through malice but simply through incompetence. Embedded in this legislation is a clause which makes it almost impossible for the ordinary man who owns a vehicle in the city to convert to LPG. I do not know whether this is the purpose of the Bill. I do not think it is. I do not think the Government knew what it was doing. It has simply included in the Bill this quite unworkable provision. I ask anybody who is thinking of converting to LPG whether it is worth going to this trouble in order to avoid this proposed penalty of $1,000. Really, one would have thought that the Government, which professes to be environmentally minded, would have avoided putting this kind of thing into a Bill.

There is an alternative. I shall propose an amendment to the House which will get over this bad feature of the Bill. This is a matter which will be dealt with in Committee and I shall speak to it in detail in Committee. My proposal is in essence this: That in place of paying this tax on the LPG used motorists should have the option, if they want to, of paying annually an amount of, say $30 tax in advance for the vehicle for the year. This amount is based on the average use of a vehicle of 5,000 or 6,000 miles a year. If you calculate the LPG required, remembering that there are approximately 4Vi litres to the gallon and the tax on a litre is to be 2c, the tax comes to a little under $30. So this provides for the average vehicle to pay an amount that is just about a line ball; it neither reduces nor increases the tax liability. But it will be said, with some justice: What about the people who use their vehicles a lot? Will they not get out of the tax? Yes, I hope they will.

It is the owners who use their vehicles a lot in the city whom one wants to help, particularly taxi drivers. One would hope that taxis, which are one of the main polluters in the city, would be able to convert to LPG and find it economical to do so under this kind of arrangement. If a taxi converts to LPG it will lose some of its boot space. I am afraid this might be inevitable. I hope it will not be, but I am afraid that the LPG tank will take up a fair bit of the boot. I hope we will have a look at that problem. But one should encourage people like taxi drivers in the city to convert to the use of LPG and one should give a financial incentive to do so.

The Government is spending large amounts of money on the environment, and rightly so. We approve this; we applaud it. But the dollar lost in forgoing a little revenue on LPG which a taxi might use would be very much more productive in terms of improving on the environment than the average dollar that the Government is spending under this heading. As I have said, when we get to the Committee stage I shall move my amendment. I hope it will commend itself to the Government. It is something which will not really much affect revenue one way or the other but I think that it will remove from the Bill the obnoxious effect of clauses 6 and 7 which in their present form virtually make it impracticable for most people to convert their vehicles from petrol to LPG. Again, from the point of view of the environmentalist this is what we want to encourage in the centre of the cities where the motor car exhaust emissions are one of the main sources of atmospheric pollution.

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

-in reply- The Liquefied Gas (Road Vehicle Use) Tax Bill and the Liquefied Gas (Road Vehicle Use) Tax Collection Bill are not difficult Bills so it has not taken long to debate them. There are one or two points I think that have to be made at the conclusion of this debate. The honourable member for Fisher (Mr Adermann) suggested that the Government had twice increased petrol excise. This is not so. The Government increased petrol excise once- in the August 1973 Budget. He referred also to the Government being aware of the high cost of establishing supply and distribution facilities for liquefied gas. The cost of transport of LPG reflects mainly the cost of the pressure vehicles that have to be used in the transport of LPG. That is the main cost problem at present. The cost of converting a car which uses petrol to a car which uses LPG is the other main cost standing in the way of a shift to the use of LPG. They are very considerable costs.

The formula relationship between the tax on petrol and the tax on LPG, which is present in this legislation, is a ratio which the Government thinks puts the 2 products in their proper perspective. The tax on petrol is 22.3c and the tax on LPG is 9.09c. Whether one is concerned with the prevention of pollution, the conservation of resources, or any other matter of this kind, some kind of relationship between the two has to be established. It is not necessarily a relationship in which the tax on petrol goes up and up while there is no tax at all on LPG. It is as desirable to conserve the resources from which petrol comes as it is desirable to preserve LPG. The important thing is the ratio between the 2 products, and a nil ratio to a rising petrol tax is not necessarily the best position, particularly when a very high proportion of fuel for the greater number of motor vehicles in the country comes from petrol, and it will have to come from petrol for a long time ahead because of the cost of transport of LPG and the cost of conversion to LPG.

The important thing here is that everybody knows that a tax on LPG is likely. This was proposed by a previous government and it withdrew from that position. I am not sure why it did so. The industry knew that a tax on LPG was likely and the industry wanted to know what the future would be. So in order to allow planning for the future in what is a very expensive industryit will remain a very expensive industry for a very long time- the Government has said that this tax will be imposed and will not be increased for 5 years. There will therefore be a 5-year period in which the industry can be certain as to the amount of tax. While it was zero, and partly because of what the previous Government did, nobody could be certain about what the tax would be. I point out to the honourable member for Fisher that for a long time the most expansion that will occur in the use of LPG will be in city areas because of transport costs and other costs of this kind.

The honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Wentworth) suggested that the Government should promote the use of LPG in city cars in order to reduce pollution. We would all like to see less pollution, but I think there is a practical view to be taken here. I have said that according to the advice we have the use of LPG will increase slowly because of the cost of transport and the cost of conversion. Motorists will not readily convert to LPG provided they can get petrol at a cost which is comparable with the present cost. We recognise that emissions from petrol consuming motor vehicles will be reduced at a fairly rapid rate. A program has been undertaken in this regard which will bring down the level of motor vehicle emissions fairly significantly. They will be brought down fairly significantly at what is believed to be a relatively lower cost than the cost of converting to LPG a private motor vehicle fleet in the city, either as it exists or in new cars. The alternative is to convert cars at a cost of $300 to $ 1 , 000 per car and install hundreds of garages with pressure facilities to sell gas. This would be a very costly and long term process. Do not imagine that we should say: Let us move into this area in order to deal with pollution’. The more practical thing to say is: Let us deal with motor cars that will be using petrol for a long time if we want to deal with pollution’. I think the idea put forward by the honourable member for Mackellar looks logical enough, provided one does not appreciate the significance of the cost factors in moving to LPG and the time that it is likely to take. The amendment to be moved by the honourable member for Mackellar is not acceptable to the Government. The Opposition has suggested that the method of the collection of the tax is clumsy. This conclusion, no doubt, comes from a comparison with the way in which the tax on petrol is collected. But do not forget that petrol comes from suppliers that are relatively few in number and is sold to consumers that are very large in number, whereas in the case of LPG only about 5 per cent that is used is used by private car owners; 90 per cent of it or more is used by fleet owners. There will be relatively few users of LPG, and it is these people who will be taxed. To apply the same system of tax collection as is applied to the motorists using petrol would be clumsy and unmanageable. Opposition speakers have decided that the proposed system of tax collection is clumsy because they have not recognised the circumstances of the distribution and use of LPG as compared with the circumstances of the distribution and use of petrol. It is a fact that there will be real savings for those users who have converted because of the distances that they are able to travel. Conversion of motor vehicles to LPG will be much more feasible for the commercial user than for the private motorist because he will be able to spread the $300 or $1,000 which is the cost of conversion. So it is likely that there will be much more development of commercial use than of private use in the cities. The amendment circulated would limit tax liability to 1 , 500 litres of gas per vehicle. That volume of gas would get a delivery truck less than 5,000 miles in the city, and such a truck would travel as much as 60,000 miles a year. So if we adopt the amendment we would be taxing people on 5,000 miles out of the 60,000 miles that they might happen to travel. Again this seems quite an unrealistic approach to what is actually happening. If it is the Opposition’s intention not to penalise private motorists by requiring them to send monthly cheques for small amounts, then I do not think they give the Minister for Customs and Excise (Senator Murphy) and the Comptroller-General of Customs and Excise much credit. The honourable member for Mackellar knows that the Minister does not work out the details of these things and the way in which they are applied. They are worked out by officials who have a practical knowledge of these matters. When the honourable member says something about the Government not knowing the facts, what he is really saying is that the officials do not know the facts. I think the honourable member knows that because he has been a Minister himself and he knows how the system works. On a lighter note, when the honourable member said that this is a bad little Bill I thought he may have been talking about himself. But, no, I do not think it is bad when the practical factors involved are considered. I do not intend to delay the House any longer. I think that the points made by Opposition speakers should be taken into account, particularly as they are related to the future use of both petrol and LPG in relation to the conservation of resources and in relation to pollution.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

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

page 1677

LIQUEFIED GAS (ROAD VEHICLE USE) TAX COLLECTION BILL 1974

Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 17 September (vide page 1426), on motion by Dr J. F. Cairns:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

Clauses 1 to 5-by leave- taken together, and agreed to.

Clause 6 (Persons liable to pay tax).

Mr WENTWORTH:
Mackellar

-I want to take this opportunity of pointing out to the Committee the impact of clause 6 so that what I say on clause 7 and on my proposed new clause 7a will be understandable. Clause 6 reads:

Tax payable in respect of the use of liquefied gas used for the purpose of propelling a road vehicle is payable by the person who was the owner of the liquefied gas immediately before it was so used.

That clause means that the person who is the owner of the gas in the tank of the vehicle which uses it is liable for the tax. That is what the clause says, and the impact of it will become more apparent when we speak on clause 7 in a moment. I just wanted to draw the attention of the Committee to the impact and meaning of clause 6.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 7 (Returns).

Mr WENTWORTH:
Mackellar

– Clause 7 reads: 7. (1) Where, in any month, liquefied gas is used for the purpose of propelling a road vehicle, the person who is liable to pay the tax in respect of the use of that liquefied gas- that is, the person in whose tank it is- shall, within 28 days after the close of the month or within such further period as the Comptroller, in special circumstances, allows, furnish to a Collector, in accordance with a form, and in a manner, determined by the Comptroller, a return relating to that use of the liquefied gas.

  1. a person shall not furnish a return that is false or misleading in a material particular.

Penalty: $1,000.

Clause 7 is a clumsy clause which I think invalidates all the purposes of the Government in bringing this Bill down. I must agree with the Minister for Overseas Trade (Dr J. F. Cairns) that it would not be possible to apply to liquefied gas the same manner of excise collection as is applied in relation to petrol. I have never said that it was possible, and I think the Minister was rather raising up a bogey in order to knock it down when he made the suggestion that any such thought was in my mind or indeed in the mind of any member of the Opposition. The Opposition does not believe that it is possible to collect excise on liquefied gas for road use in the same way as one collects excise on petrol, but it does not follow that because this is so we should adopt this rather clumsy expedient which the Government has put forward. What the Government is saying, in point of fact- and there is really no discretion with the collector in this regard because special circumstances are not the same as a general amnesty- is that the collector has to have a monthly return. The monthly return has to be in accordance with a form and the form has to specify how much liquefied gas was used on the road during that time. There is no way for the owner who is doing this on a monthly basis to find this out except by keeping a detailed account of what he has put into his tank, looking at what is in his tank at the start of the month and what is in his tank at the end of the month.

So what the Government is providing in this Bill in so many words is administratively ridiculous. It is no good for the Minister to say that I am simply saying that the officials who drew up the Bill are inefficient. I am not concerned with who drew up the Bill; I am concerned with what is in the Bill. It is no use for the Minister to hide behind his officials in this way and say it is their fault and not his, as he was doing a moment ago. Forget who drew up this Bill. The Government is responsible for it and the Government has brought it into the Parliament, and I say it is adminstratively ridiculous. The effect of this is going to be to stop or slow down the conversion to LPG. The Minister was perfectly right a moment ago when he said that it would be only a slow conversion, that there were costs involved. Of course there are costs involved, and of course it will be a slow conversion, but that is a reason for endeavouring to speed it up, not a reason for endeavouring to slow it down. I think he does the Opposition a little less credit when he fails to appreciate that it was we who said at the start that it was the city that was important as far a pollution was concerned. It is really only in the city that these delivery points for liquefied petroleum gas are likely to be developed.

The Minister is quite right when he says the transport costs are big, but he is quite wrong when he says that there have to be hundreds of delivery points in the city. For example, with a taxi fleet- and the taxi fleets would be the ones to be looked at particularly- there would have to be only a few distribution points. Because the owner of a vehicle is dependent on distribution points he will not convert to LPG if there is not a distribution point handy. That means that the conversion is going to be confined more or less to the city, for the time being at any rate. I regard the matter of conversion to LPG as a transition stage only. I hope that in 20 or 30 years, perhaps less, we will be talking, at least for the cities, in terms of electric vehicles which are entirely pollution free. But that time is not yet, and for the present we have got to rely on the conversion in the cities, for those cars which use the centre of the city so much, to a form of propulsion which does not give the same amount of pollution as the petrol engine does now. With existing technologyand I believe this is only a transitional phase- that means going to LPG. If we were to provide only that taxis and buses were to convert to LPG we would be reducing significantly the pollution occurring in the centres of the cities. Unhappily, we are not going to do away entirely with the pollution caused by automobile exhausts in the centre of our cities. But at least we should take sensible measures to reduce it.

I think that the Minister for Overseas Trade lost the point entirely when he said: ‘This will help the vehicles used on long distance runs to pay something less than they would have to pay if the full excise applied’. That is true enough. But is it not a small price to pay for improving the environment and for reducing atmospheric pollution in the cities? Of course it is. The Government quite rightly- I praise the Government for it- is saying that it is spending money on reducing pollution and improving the environment. I am all for that. But the amount of revenue it would forgo by letting a vehicle refrain from paying the amount it otherwise would have to pay in excise above the $30 I have suggested would be more than made up by the saving in the amount it is spending on measures to improve the environment. The Government is being quite stupid in this regard. I have said how I worked out the figure of $30. That figure in itself is not sacrosanct; it is the principle that is sacrosanct. If there has to be a method of collection it should be one which does not impose on the motorist who converts to LPG the same kind of penalty as is involved in the Bill. If the Government wants to up the amount to $50 that is fair enough with me, but for heaven ‘s sake it should not let the Bill go through the Parliament in its present form because if that were to happen it would be the death knell to conversion to LPG. Surely we do not want that to happen as atmospheric pollution from automobile exhausts is a real problem in our inner cities and our great concentrations of populations.

Mr ADERMANN:
Fisher

-I am wondering whether the Minister for Overseas Trade would be prepared to answer one question when he is replying to the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Wentworth). If he were to do so it would save time. In speaking to clause 7 the Minister may have missed the point that I did recognise that there was a difference between petrol, distillate and LPG in relation to the small user group. The Minister said that there was some discretion or that the way in which the officers administered the legislation was going to be important. I gathered the impression that he meant that perhaps we might get away from the system of lodging monthly returns. The question I would like to ask of him relates to clause 7 and the reference to what is to happen 28 days after the close of a month. The only variation is to be ‘in special circumstances’. Respectfully I ask: Does that give any discretion to the Comptrollerto the Department of Customs and Excise- to allow any leeway in that respect? Does it not lay down that there is something mandatory about the returns being submitted every 28 days? Can we get away from the requirement to submit monthly returns? The Minister understood the point that was made that this was something we wanted to avoid and that this was something that we were concerned about.

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

– There are 2 discretions- one in clause 7 and one in clause 8. The first one is in relation to the Comptroller who is required to collect the tax on a monthly return basis. I have pointed out that this is the standard practice throughout the community in relation to sales tax. There are many thousands of payers of sales tax who have to furnish monthly returns. It has been accepted as being a desirable practice over many years that these things not be allowed to run on and that the period for which the return is made should be relatively short. That has been the long standing practice. There is a discretion here.

Mr Graham:

– It is the businessman who puts in such a return, but in this case it is the purchaser, is it not?

Dr J F CAIRNS:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– It is the purchaser in this case.

Mr Graham:

– But not in the other case to which the Minister referred.

Dr J F CAIRNS:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

-No. But a businessman has no less trouble in that respect. In fact, he might have a good deal more. I do not know whether the honourable member for North Sydney was present in the chamber when I pointed out that the users of 95 per cent of the LPG used are small in number and that they use a great deal. The economics of the situation are such that only long run commercial users can afford to spread the overheads of the conversion. That is where the situation is at the moment. So we are dealing predominantly with a relatively small number of people. I should think that the special circumstances would be reasonably applied and that where normal use is going on monthly returns would be required. But if there is any departure from that normality I should think that the Comptroller would apply the legislation quite liberally. It is the intention of the collection that it be maintained on a monthly basis. Clause 8 reads: a person liable to pay tax in respect of the use of liquefied gas shall pay the tax within the period within which he is required under section 7 to furnish a return with respect to that use or within such further period as the Comptroller, in special circumstances, allows.

Mr Adermann:

– It was not the tax actually.

Dr J F CAIRNS:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

-There is a discretion in both cases. Where normal use of the gas is the case the monthly period will be expected to be applied. But where there is something that is not normal I am quite sure that the legislation will be applied with reasonable liberality. I think that what the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Wentworth) has just said in relation to the amendment was covered in his remarks in the debate on the motion for the second reading of the Bill. I do not think there is anything further that I should add at this stage.

Mr WENTWORTH:
Mackellar

-I thank the Minister for Overseas Trade (Dr J. F. Cairns) for his remarks, but I do not think that he has helped the argument terribly much. I wish firstly to look at the details of clause 7 and of clause 8, which has not yet been before us for consideration but which the Minister mentioned. There are, as he said, 2 discretions given to the Comptroller.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr Scholes:
CORIO, VICTORIA

-Order! I suggest to the honourable member for Mackellar that he deal only with clause 7 and that he wait until the Committee is considering clause 8 before he deals with it.

Mr WENTWORTH:

– I simply say that the Minister mentioned clause 8 earlier and that I am taking up only what he said and answering him. According to clause 7 the Comptroller has a discretion, but only to extend the period within which the monthly return must be furnished. Let us have a look at it. Clause 7 begins with the words ‘Where, in any month’. It is in respect of any use within that month that within 28 days or within some further period as the Comptroller, in special circumstances, allows that a return has to be furnished. So under the drafting of clause 7 of the Bill which we are now considering- no regulations can be made which do not conform with the drafting of the Bill- the Comptroller has a discretion only to extend the period within which the monthly return has to be furnished. He has no discretion to dispense with the furnishing of a monthly return. That is a part of the bad drafting of the Bill. I do not think it is what the Minister intended because it was not what was implied in the Minister’s speech. He does not seem to have read carefully the fine print in his own Bill.

The Minister is perfectly right when he talks about monthly returns with respect to sales tax but my friend the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Graham) was right on the point in his interjection when he said that sales tax was paid by a businessman and not by a private owner. There is another point: Sales tax is compulsorily payable but conversion from the use of petrol to liquefied petroleum gas is not compulsory. The businessman has no option about whether he will pay sales tax but the owner of a vehicle which is run on petrol has an option as to whether he will convert to the use of LPG. We want him to exercise that option. We want to encourage him to do so. This clause, as it has been drawn, does not encourage him to do so; it discourages him because he will say to himself: ‘If I make this conversion I will have to fill in all these damn forms every month and I will be up for all sorts of paper work so the game is not worth the candle’. I appreciate that one cannot apply the petrol excise principles. If there were no other solution perhaps the Government’s solution would have to be accepted, but there is another solution- the solution I put forward in my proposed amendment. I have not yet formally moved my amendment. Will you advise me, Mr Chairman, whether I should formally move it now or wait until we have disposed of this clause?

The CHAIRMAN:

– The honourable member should move his amendment after we have disposed of this clause.

Mr WENTWORTH:

– I will do so.

Clause agreed to.

Proposed new clause 7a.

Mr WENTWORTH:
Mackellar

-I move:

That the following new clause be inserted in the Bill: 7a. when any person who is liable to pay tax under this Act has paid an amount of 30 dollars by way of tax in advance and has nominated a vehicle in respect of such payment, then, for the remainder of the financial year during which such advance payment has been made, he shall be exempt from obligation for further tax or return in relation to the use of liquefied gas in such vehicle.

This is a carefully drawn clause which confines the concession always to one vehicle. It is not suggested that under this clause the owner of a fleet of vehicles should get away with the payment of $30 for his whole fleet. However, in my view, $30 a vehicle is a fair thing. If the Government does not think $30 is a fair thing let it suggest $50 or some other sum it considers desirable. It will be no skin off my nose if it wishes to do that, but for heaven’s sake let us have some amendment which does not erect, as this Bill erects, a formidable administrative barrier to discourage people from converting their vehicles from petrol to liquid petroleum gas.

I suggest that this is of particular import when one considers the owners of vehicles which travel large mileages in central city areas. These are the people we should encourage to convert their vehicles to the use of LPG because it is in the city centres where there is a heavy vehicle population with a heavy population of people breathing vehicles emissions. It is in city areas that we want to convert to the use of LPG. We should encourage such conversion in this decade or so as a transitional period to the future use of electric driven vehicles, which, I am sure, will eventually come but which will not take over a major role as yet. I believe that even with present technology our inner city buses should be electric but one cannot hope with present technology to get a major conversion to electric private vehicles or even to electric taxis. For this reason I suggest a flat rate of payment, whether it be $30, $40, $50 or whatever figure the Government suggests to satisfy the insatiable requirements of the Treasury. Let the Government suggest a figure it considers fair and which allows for some administrative simplicity.

Under the Bill as drawn by the Government, the owner of every vehicle- it might be even worse than that because the user of every vehicle is the person who is liable to pay the tax if he owns the gas in its tank at the time- has to make a return. No discretion at all resides with the comptroller which will save a person from making that monthly return. The Comptroller can only extend the time in which a person can submit the return. As the Minister said, under clause 8-1 make this passing reference to clause 8 in the same way as the Minister did- all that the Comptroller can do is to extend the time for payment. He cannot waive the payment or do anything like that because such provision is not made in the Bill and it would be contrary to the Bill if he were to do so. I suggest that the Government swallow its pride for once and accept a very reasonable amendment which does not strike at revenue; it really leaves the total revenue virtually unaffected. It may even increase it, but it is only a few dollars one way or the other. But this is not a question of dollars; it is a question of the administrative impediments in this Bill. Whether the Government means it- I give it the credit of not meaning it- these administrative impediments will seriously retard the already slow conversion of inner city vehicles from petrol drive to LPG drive.

The Government has pretentions about being environmentally minded. No real money is involved in this amendment. No inequity is involved. Why cannot the Government swallow its pride for once and accept a reasonable amendment? If it wants to put up the ante from the $30 I suggest- this has been worked out on what the average vehicle owner would pay under the Government’s proposal- let it do so, but whatever it does do not let us have the Bill in its present form. An alternative is available. Why does the Government not avail itself of it instead of doing what it is doing now- presenting us with a BUI which by its administrative complexity is effectively retarding what we should all want, namely, the quicker conversion of petrol-driven vehicles in the inner city areas to LPG. I give the Government credit for not meaning what it has done.

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

– The honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Wentworth) often speaks in this place with a condescending self righteousness that I find is never of assistance to him in getting his point across. The discretion about which he has been talking with respect to clause 7 is a discretion that the Comptroller-General will exercise wisely. The Comptroller-General is a responsible public servant who is accustomed to exercising discretions of this sort, especially in the collection of taxes like the diesel taxes. The honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Wentworth) misreads the discretion altogether. The Comptroller-General must receive a return for each month’s usage, but he has a discretion to ask, for example, that returns be lodged together, say, only twice or four times a year. Returns for January, February and March may be lodged simultaneously in April and so on for the next quarter. Perhaps the honourable member for Mackellar does not know it, but that is a common practice.

The words ‘special circumstances’ are specially directed at small users. Small use in itself would be a special circumstance. If the few motorists who are using liquefied petroleum gas at present are using small quantities each month, that situation would constitute special circumstances to allow the period for lodging returns to be extended. I point out that the discretion can be applied in 2 ways. Returns for a number of months may be submitted together at one time or the period in which small users shall submit a return may be extended. That is how ‘special circumstances’ would be interpreted in practice. The last point about the honourable member’s amendment is the one I mentioned in referring to his amendment. If there is to be a tax on LPG we cannot accept an amendment which cuts down the number of miles on which tax may be levied for the LPG used by the average commercial user from 60,000 miles to about 5,000 miles. In other words, the honourable member wants us to tax about 8 per cent of the average use of LPG. That would make a farce of the legislation. You either have the tax or you do not have it.

Mr WENTWORTH:
Mackellar

– I hesitate to correct the Minister for Overseas Trade (Dr J. F. Cairns) on points of law, but really what he has said to the Committee today is not only misleading, but is also, I am afraid, totally wrong. I am quite aware of the practice of the Comptroller-General in certain circumstances to have monthly returns deferred and submitted in a bunch of three or four or six. But this does not get away from the difficulty that they have to be monthly returns. The Minister is absolutely wrong when he says that ‘special circumstances’ might be interpreted so as to enable the small user to put in one return every 6 months or so, if I correctly recall what he said. This is not so under the drafting of the Bill. Under the Bill as drafted, the Comptroller has no such discretion. If this is what the Minister means, the Bill is wrongly drafted and the drafting should be corrected while we have time to do it.

I refer to clause 7 ( 1 ). I think the Minister was perhaps a Utile out of order in rehashing a clause which we have already passed, but I will answer him only in relation to the matters which he himself has brought up. Clause 7(1) states that where, in any month, the tax falls due there shall be a form submitted within 28 days after the close of that month or within such further period as the Comptroller, in special circumstances, allows. Under the BUI as drafted, the Comptroller has no discretion to dispense with monthly forms. He can, it is true, in special circumstances say that monthly forms can be submitted in a block, but he has no discretion- the Minister is quite wrong in law- to say a small user need only put in one return every 6 months or so. I differ a little from the Minister in respect of the meaning of the phase ‘in special circumstances’. Most of the users Will be small users. The Minister reckoned that special circumstances apply to perhaps 75 per cent or 80 per cent of the taxpayers and that ordinary circumstances apply to the other 20 per cent also. That is not my way of reading an Act of Parliament

The Minister should really be more precise in matters of law. He probably had not had time to read the fine print of this Bill until he came into the House. I know he is busy; he has many other concerns in and out of this Parliament. I do not blame him for not having had time to read the fine print but I blame him for standing up in this Parliament and saying things which are, in point of fact, untrue. His interpretation of the law in respect of the small user- Hansard will show what he said- is wrong. That is all that can be said about the Minister’s interpretation. He is just plain wrong.

I have to repeat what I said earlier because the Minister has repeated himself in this regard. I do not object to the fact that the big user in the town will get a little bit of extra concession for converting to LPG because it is the big user in the town who, if he is using petrol, is the big polluter. What we should be concerned with now above everything else is doing something effective which will as quickly as possible reduce atmospheric pollution in our main city streets. I have seen readings referring to George Street, Castlereagh Street and Pitt Street in Sydney, and I have no doubt that similar readings could be taken in Little Collins Street in Melbourne, which show that the atmospheric pollution between the high rise buildings due to the exhaust emissions of motor cars- particularly carbon monoxide- is rising to danger levels. Every person who uses the centre of the city, whether he be a business man, a shopper or a passer throughthis means all the people of Sydney from time to time- has to be concerned with the use of LPG in place of petrol. With the use of LPG, the amount of carbon monoxide emitted by a vehicle using those streets may be divided by a factor up to ten. If some extra concession is given to the heavy users of these streets to convert to LPG, we will get so much more relief so much more quickly.

Let the Government drop some of its pretence about being so environmentally minded. When something practical can be done about a matter which affects the environment, aU the Government does is wring its hands and say: ‘Look, we might be losing a few dollars to the Treasury’. Now count up the dollars, how much is the loss going to be? It is negligible. I ask the Government just to do its sums, do a little bit of arithmetic and it will see that the loss to the Treasury about which it is talking will be quite miniscule compared with the money it is spending, and in many cases spending very rightly, on improving the environment. Here is something on which the good faith of the Government on the environmentalist issue is in question. Will the Government agree with the amendment, or will it stick to its really restrictive administrative arrangements which are in this Bill and which, if implemented, will infernally slow down the conversion of inner city vehicles using petrol to the use of LPG. I know we are not going to get every vehicle converted overnight. I know that what the Federal Government can do is strictly limited. But because it is strictly limited is all the more reason for doing what can be done and doing it quickly. The good faith of the Government on the issue of the environment is now in question. Or is its pride and its vanity, in trying to push everything and by steamrolling this measure through this House, greater than its concern for the environment? Well, the Government will decide this matter and the Government will tell the country one way or the other in a moment.

Proposed new clause negatived.

Remainder of Bill- by leave- taken as a whole.

Mr ADERMANN:
FISHER, QUEENSLAND · CP; NCP from May 1975; NPA from Oct. 1982

-The Minister may not be able to answer this question at this stage. I point out that the cost of petrol is a tax deduction item for business purposes. The price paid at the bowser for petrol is the price of that petrol for taxation deduction purposes. The cost of the petrol plus the excise on it is paid in the one transaction. If the use of liquefied petroleum gas was a tax deduction for business purposes the price for the product would be paid at the distribution point while the excise would be paid to the Comptroller of Customs. I assume that the 2 payments would be lumped together as the total cost of that business tax deduction item. The payment is made in respect of the cost of the product and the separate tax on that product, as is the case with petrol. I hope that a different principle would not be applied to the use of this fuel.

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

-No, the answer is that the principle would not be different. The tax deduction would be the cost of the gas plus the excise charge paid. The 2 payments would be treated in the same way as the purchase of petrol is regarded.

Remainder of Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Third Reading

Bill (on motion by Dr J. F. Cairns)- by leave- read a third time.

page 1683

SEWERAGE AGREEMENTS BILL 1974

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 17 September (vide page 1273), on motion by Mr Uren:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr HODGES:
Petrie

– I rise to support this Bill, but I do so with certain reservations. This Bill provides a total of $7.95m. This amount is supplementary to what was provided in the Sewerage Agreements Act 1973. Following the passage of this Bill, the total amount provided through this legislation will be $37.95m. Queensland sought $2m through this legislation. Victoria asked for $3.95m. Western Australia sought $3m. As I see it, the Bill has 3 main aspects, each of which is most important. The first is the health of our nation. I think everyone will agree that the provision of sewerage services is extremely important today. The second aspect is the pollution of the environment. This pollution is continuing in some areas in varying degrees. The third feature concerns local authorities which must carry out these sewerage works and the methods that are adopted in funding those works to be carried out.

I wish to direct my comments mainly to the position in Queensland. The Queensland Government over many years has provided a subsidy of 40 per cent for all sewerage undertakings. Some 8 years or 10 years ago this subsidy was 50 per cent, but it was reduced to 40 per cent. The $lm provided in this Bill for Queensland will go towards the cost of the Brisbane City Council treatment works at Luggage Point. In common with the $3. 1 m provided in the 1973 legislation, this sum is not a grant. I emphasise this point. The money is repayable over 40 years at the long term bond rate which, I understand, is 8.5 per cent.

The Queensland Government has been much criticised and maligned by this Government. As recently as a few days ago it was so criticised and maligned by the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) as it has been by a number of other ministers. The Queensland Government has provided this 40 per cent non-repayable subsidy to local authorities for many years. This meant that only 60 per cent of funds received had to be re-paid over 40 years. One might well ask how well off are local authorities in Queensland which accept these repayable sums of money. The word ‘grant’ should always be qualified when it is used by this Government. It should state whether a grant is non-repayable or repayable as the latter is almost invariably the case with this Government.

The Australian people have been hoodwinked long enough by the term ‘grant’. When local authorities are worse off- they are in this casebecause no subsidy is applicable the people are worse off too because the rates which they must pay reflect the fact that no subsidy is involved in financing these works and that the whole of the money is to be repaid. In Queensland in handling this special Federal money for sewerage purposes, the proportion of the total costs of the works to be met by taxpayers with the loss of the subsidy of 40 per cent is almost doubled. This charge can go on almost ad infinitum as the life of a sewerage scheme is considered to be about 40 years. If we take into consideration that there are operating costs involved as well, we find that the ratepayer is paying for the cost of these services ad infinitum to local authorities. Do not let us run away with the idea that the Labor Government is playing Santa Claus in the terms of this agreement. Let me make it abundantly clear that this scheme will cost the taxpayer- in this case the ratepayers- more money.

One might ask: Is Queensland being penalised? Queensland sought $2m; it is to receive $lm only. We have heard the Minister for Urban and Regional Development (Mr Uren) say that Queensland asked for $2m but is to receive Sim only. I did not hear from the Minister any explanation of this matter. Perhaps he will enlighten us a little later. Is Queensland in actual fact being penalised? There has been a great deal of talk in recent times that Queensland is to get a raw deal because it is not co-operating with this Federal Government and because our Premier, Mr Bjelke-Petersen, quite rightly resists the intrusions of this socialist Government into the State sphere.

Mr Bryant:
Mr HODGES:

-Well, this is correct. If this Government is going to be vindictive towards the State of Queensland, there will be a backlash, not only from Queensland but from all of the Australian people.

Mr Lamb:

– That is garbage, not sewerage.

Mr HODGES:

– Well, you know all about sewerage on that side of the House. Let me remind honourable members on the Government side that Queenslanders are made of good stuff. They have a lot of intestinal fortitude and they do not give up their rights and privileges easily. Why should they?

Mr Bryant:

– How do they come to vote for Joh then?

Mr HODGES:

-Well, the results show the facts in Queensland. We have a good Premier and Deputy Premier of probably the best State Government in Australia. The point was proved in the election on 18 May when the Australian Labor Party was overwhelmed in that State. So, why should Queensland be disadvantaged in respect of this legislation? The Commonwealth Government is in my opinion only a collecting house for the States. Is Queensland not entitled to receive a fair go? We had an impassioned call by the Prime Minister in the course of the election held on 18 May: ‘Give me a fair go’. That is what he said to the people. Of more recent times he said: ‘Give us a fair go; we have to control inflation’. I say to the Government, if Queensland is in any way disadvantaged the people of South Australia. Tasmania, Western Australia, New South Wales and Victoria will also say: ‘We want a fair go for Queensland’. Who knows, it might be one of those other States which needs assistance in the future.

I believe that a lot of favouritism has been shown to the suburban areas of New South Wales and Victoria, particularly Sydney and Melbourne. But in the local government elections last Saturday the people of New South Wales showed their disapproval of Labor in no uncertain terms. In spite of the favouritism that the Government has shown towards these areas in its giant vote catching action, the people have rejected it. The Prime Minister in his 1 972 policy speech stated:

A Labor Government would immediately ask the principal water and sewerage authorities what Commonwealth grants in the present financial year would enable them to embark promptly and economically on an uninterrupted program to provide services to all the premises in their areas in 1978.

For subsequent financial years, the Commonwealth Grants Commission will investigate and recommend the size of Commonwealth grants required to see the program through.

These promises have been dishonoured because once again the Prime Minister of this country has misled the people. He has misled the State governments and local government because these are not non-repayable grants.

I remember only too well the Prime Ministerhe was then the Leader of the Oppositioncoming into my electorate in the city of Redcliffe prior to the 1972 election, and he had done his homework, I might assure members of the House.

Mr McVeigh:

– He will not come back now that you are the member.

Mr HODGES:

– No, he would not be game to come back now. But on that occasion he knew all the phrases. He had them all off pat. He had done his homework. He is a good salesman. But I can tell honourable members and the people of Australia that like any salesman he will sell you something once and he might get away with it a second time. But I ask them to have a look at his personal ratings in recent times and also the ratings of his Government. Let him go back to the people and just see what they will do to him next time. The Prime Minister said that local government would get a new deal. He said that there would be no fear about this. He said that Commonwealth grants would be made to local government. He had that wonderful air of persuasion about him. His silver tongue deceived thousands in local government as it has deceived hundreds of thousands in Australia generally. Local government is still waiting for these massive non-repayable grants. All we are getting are loans.

Mr Bryant:

– What about the $56m provided by the Grants Commission?

Mr HODGES:

– We will talk about the Grants Commission. I concede to you that for the first time since 1933 the Grants Commission considered local government. But $56.3m is a drop in the bucket compared with the thousands of millions of dollars that local government requires. If we divide this amount by the over 900 local authorities in Australia we find that on an average they would receive $55,000 each. Only about 92 per cent of them were paid something anyway. The City of the Gold Coast, which is in the electorate of the honourable member for McPherson (Mr Eric Robinson)- do not ask me whether this situation has arisen for political or other reasons- has received nothing. The Redland Shire Council which is in the electorate of the honourable member for Bowman (Mr Keogh) -

Mr Lamb:

– Well, read the report.

Mr HODGES:

-Do not worry, I have read the report. I have read it in more detail than you have, my friend. So we find that many of these local authorities have missed out. How do members on the Government side explain this? Is it their wish that we all be brought to the one level? Is that the answer which they will give to me?

I want to get back to the subject of the Bill and say that it puzzles me why the long term bond rate is applying? We are just taking money off the people. We are taking further money off the ratepayers of the community who in many instances cannot afford to pay this level of rates. Let us look at the sewerage backlog in Queensland. The Brisbane statistical district is approximately 5 per cent unsewered. The City of Townsville is approximately 5 per cent unsewered. The City of the Gold Coast is 73 per cent unsewered. The figures that I am giving of course relate to cities which have a population in excess of 60,000. Let us not be disillusioned by the case of the City of Brisbane which is 95 per cent sewered. It is true that this area has reticulation mains, pumping stations, rising mains and the like. But where is the treatment works that serves 450,000 people or 60 per cent of the population? Raw sewage from 450,000 people runs into the mouth of the Brisbane River at Luggage Point. An average daily flow of almost 20 million gallons of raw sewage is released at this point. Sewage from only 300,000 people or 40 per cent of the people is treated. The primary treatment plant that will be required by the Brisbane City Council- and I emphasise that it is only a primary treatment plant- was estimated in 1972 to cost $12m. It is now estimated to cost, because of the inflation that this Government has allowed to run rampant, over $ 1 4m. I believe that some arrangement has been made with Alderman Clem Jones, the Lord Mayor of Brisbane- you know, the gentleman who was to knock the honourable member for Griffith (Mr Donald Cameron) out of the ring and perhaps take a portfolio, perhaps that of the Minister for Urban and Regional Development- in this regard. The estimated cost of the full treatment works that eventually will be provided in Brisbane is about $20m to $25 m.

The Queensland Water Quality Control Council requires very high standards, something like 20 parts per million of BOD, or bio-chemical oxygen demand as it is called, for effluent that finds its way into the bays and streams near the coast. In inland rivers and lakes we get down to a level as low as 10 parts per million and in some cases even as low as 5 parts per million of BOD. But the point I want to emphasise is that many existing treatment plants are inadequate. We cannot allow pollution to issue into our streams and bays at its present rate. Therefore we have to augment a number of our existing treatment works.

I would like to deal briefly with the city of Redcliffe which is in my electorate. This city which has a population of 40,000 is 96 per cent sewered. It also has an unsatisfactory BOD rate at the moment- something like 50 parts per million. However, an augmentation is being carried out at the treatment works costing in the vicinity of $ 1.4m. This will bring the BOD rate down to an acceptable level of 20 parts per million. The situation is different in the Pine Rivers Shire which has a population of 42,000 people and which is an extremely rapidly expanding urban area on the northern boundary of the city of Brisbane. At the moment only 13 per cent of the population is enjoying sewerage. This represents a total of 1,550 tenements out of 12,000.

The costs of supplying sewerage have escalated. Footage costs supplied to me recently by the Brisbane City Council indicate that for 6-inch sewers, which is the main dimension laid in quantity, the cost 18 months ago averaged $7 a foot. The cost today is $ 10 a foot which is a 43 per cent increase. The Gold Coast City Council will require about $48.5m to complete its scheme with treatment works on South Stradbroke Island or about $45m if it constructs ocean outfalls along the coast areas. So even at the rate of $3.5m yearly it will take the Gold Coast City Council 12 to 15 years to complete its sewerage scheme.

I want to touch briefly on the pollution angle because thousands of our creeks, rivers, inlets and beaches are being polluted to varying degrees. To take a prime example, as I mentioned earlier, the Brisbane River averages 20 million gallons flow of raw sewage daily. This outflow pollutes the mouth of the Brisbane River which is like a giant sewer. The surrounding areas of Moreton Bay also suffer. A report in the ‘Brisbane Courier Mail’ of 19 September was headed: ‘Faint Fish Taint From Brisbane River’. The article states:

One of the areas where the ‘ kerosene ‘ taint of some mullet emanated was Luggage Point, scientists have found.

State Primary Industries Department Animal Research Institute chemist (Mr D. Moy) said yesterday that studies had shown the taint in sea mullet came from the Brisbane River area. He said Luggage Point was the main known area where fish picked up kerosene-like hydrocarbons responsible for great losses of mullet

A report in Australian Fisheries, a monthly magazine published by the Australian Agriculture Department’s Fisheries Division, said: ‘The kerosene-like hydrocarbons isolated from sewage effluent discharging into the Luggage Point area indicate that this is a source of the hydrocarbons in adjacent water and sediments.’

Mr Moy said Brisbane City Council efforts to improve the effluent would improve the situation considerably.

He said the sewage probably was not the main source of contamination.

So we must look to the preservation and improvement of our environment. It must be protected from man-made highly undesirable problems that we create with raw sewage and low grade treated effluent. I return now to the Prime Minister’s plan by which he endeavoured to hoodwink the people of this country. He said that by 1978 he hoped that the major areas of this country, the cities, would be sewered. This is less than 4 years from now. This sounded very attractive to the people. Queensland would probably require something like $200m to complete the necessary sewerage works. This would be carried out with the normal programs where the State government and loan funds are used and, of course, the special repayable grants or loans, which is what they are, which we are debating here today.

I remind the Government that in 1973-74 $4.1m was provided for Queensland. That rate will have to be increased considerably if this backlog is to be overtaken. The Budget this year contains $105m for expenditure on sewerage works for the whole of Australia and states that the provincial cities in the population range of 20,000 to 60,000 will be covered and considered. In 1973 more than $800m was required for communities of 60,000 people or more. Good heavens, it would be well in excess, I would say, of $ 1,000m if all communities were taken into account. I urge the Government to provide funds -total non-repayable grants- to local governments. It is the ability of the people to repay this money that concerns me greatly. I know many of them are stretched to their limit now and we want non-repayable grants made in the future. It may be that some consideration could be given to this work which is more important than, perhaps, some areas of social welfare that have been undertaken by this Government.

Mr MATHEWS:
Casey

-Let me sketch in the parameters of this sewerage problem. The number of houses unsewered at present is 161,000 in New South Wales, 140,000 in Victoria, 102,000 in Western Australia, 74,000 in Queensland, 14,000 in South Australia and 3,000 in Tasmania. Those figures are for the capital cities- and major urban centres- of the States concerned. If we consider the matter in terms of percentages the position is 16.3 per cent in New South Wales, 16.2 per cent in Victoria, 19.2 per cent in Queensland, 5.1 per cent in South Australia, 4.6 per cent in Tasmania and 39.6 per cent in Western Australia. In the past year, 1973-74, the Australian Government set out to do something about this problem by building 79 reticulation projects, 35 main, sub-main and carrier sewers, 6 pumping stations and 10 treatment plants. Total payments to the States in that year were $27.9m. We are moving today to step up that allocation even further.

The problem of unsewered properties in this country is one which goes back before the Second World War. It was viciously exacerbated in the years following the Second World War and most particularly in the years of Australia’s urban explosion from 1950 through to the present The national program for coping with the deficiencies for which I have given statistics is a program which dates back, in fact, only to the early months of 1973. Then the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) acted very promptly, to follow up the election undertaking to which reference has been made by the honourable member for Petrie (Mr Hodges). He wrote in January to the State Premiers asking them what moneys would be of advantage to them and what moneys would they immediately use on making a start at overtaking the enormous sewerage backlog- the enormous backlog in an essential service. One would have thought from what the honourable member for Petrie had to say to the House this afternoon that this was not the case. One would have thought that the problem had arisen during the last 20 months and the solution had preceded it under wise and far-seeing administration during the 23 years which preceded the election of the present Government.

Mr Hodges:

– We had our priorities.

Mr MATHEWS:

– The honourable gentleman says that he had his priorities. No doubt his Government did have its priorities; sewerage was very clearly not among those priorities. Sewerage and the problems of pollution, over which the honourable member waxed eloquent this afternoon, are still not among the honourable gentleman’s priorities. It is a fact- eager though the honourable gentleman may be to create another impression- that throughout those 23 years the national government contributed not a single cent towards the urban services of this country. The deficiencies in sewerage, the enormous backlog in this service, provided only a single example of the shortcomings, the backlog in all the services upon which the existence of civilised urban communities depends.

The same things that can be said for sewerage can be said for water reticulation, road construction and public transport development. In every area on which the maintenance of a proper quality of life depends in urban areas the expenditure of the 23 years of Liberal-Country Party administration was deficient. That shows through clearly in the current state of all our capital cities major regional centres. I am not one who would advocate or support any section of the Australian community missing out on the advantages which that section of the community requires from the national government and which only the national government can provide. When some honourable members opposite complain- as they do frequently, and most recently this morning- about the withdrawal of support to which they have long been accustomed, I cannot help thinking how they sat mute throughout 23 years while great disadvantaged areas of outer suburbia in this country were growing up.

Mr Hodges:

– The people are paying for it.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Drury:
RYAN, QUEENSLAND

-Order! I must point out that all interjections are out of order.

Mr MATHEWS:

-The honourable member has a memorable capacity for cliches. The people are indeed paying for it. The question is: Are the people to get value for their money? This Government is determined that the taxes which are paid in State capitals and regional centres will be reflected for the first time in the services provided for those areas. This is a new development. It is a new initiative. In presenting this year’s Budget papers, the Government presented among them for the first time as a separate statement a considered urban budget. That signifies the importance that this Government attaches to the welfare of urban areas, not just the urban areas of the State capitals but also those regional centres which are the heart of rural Australia and which support and are supported by the countryside. These areas, too, are receiving our support.

For the first time urban services in those areas are being underwritten by the national Government. Something of the direct burden which has hitherto rested on the shoulders of the ratepayers in those areas is being relieved. The honourable gentleman made the extraordinary statement that the Prime Minister had dishonoured his promise to provide assistance for local government. Yet I was able to demonstrate to the honourable gentleman- and he at that stage had the grace to admit that I was right- that $56m had been made available to local government in this country, not repayable grants, but in nonrepayable, interest free grants. They had been made available by the Australian Government on the recommendation of the Grants Commission.

Mr Hodges:

– Will the Prime Minister give us that assurance next time?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! I remind the honourable member for Petrie that I have already asked him not to interject. He has already spoken in this debate. All interjections are out of order.

Mr MATHEWS:

-The honourable gentleman’s colleagues, and I think perhaps the honourable gentleman as well, were before the Grants Commission brought down its report noted to say that the Government would never do anything for local government, that its promises to local government would not be honoured. Now that the promise has been honoured they go on singing the same old song. It is an extraordinary performance. It is a great demonstration of the capacity of the human mind to call black white and white black- a capacity for which the honourable member for Boothby (Mr McLeay), who will follow me in this debate, is well known. Of course the Australian Government has not only made non-repayable, interestfree grants available to local government free of strings on the recommendation of the Grants Commission; it will be contributing very heavily to municipalities through the establishment of the Area Improvements Scheme which was announced in the recent Budget. Thirteen areas are to participate in the area improvements scheme and nearly $ 15m is to be allocated to them on a project basis. I commend to the attention of the honourable member for Petrie the urban budget which has been presented by the Minister for Urban and Regional Development (Mr Uren), the first Minister for Urban and Regional Development ever to serve in an Aus.tralian Cabinet. I commend the attention of the honourable member for Petrie to that budget which sets out the way in which this Government is honouring its undertakings to urban areas- the magnificent thrust forward which is being made in the interests of all the people of urban Australia

The honourable gentleman made some play on the use of the word ‘grants ‘ in the Prime Minister’s 1972 election policy speech. You would have thought, Mr Deputy Speaker, that the use of section 96 for the purposes of making grants to the States was a discovery of the present Government. It was not, Sir. You would be well aware, having participated in the debates in this House over many years, of the use that was made of section 96 in every year from 1963 on and you would be aware too that the grants made under section 96 can be non-repayable and noninterest bearing but that equally they can be repayable and bearing interest and that they were made in that form by the honourable gentleman’s Party over many years of office in

Australia. Let those who criticise come to debate in this House with clean hands.

The problem that is presented to our country by the long failure of the national Government to invest adequately in urban affairs is one of truly national proportions. While some of the least desirable by-products of this failure may be aesthetic in their nature, there are 2 areas which are of very real national concern. The honourable gentleman from Petrie, to his credit, touched on the matter of pollution. I can assure the honourable gentleman that pollution arising from deficiencies in the sewerage system are not confined to Brisbane nor, I guess, are they most serious in that city. Our Tasmanian colleagues would be able to tell the honourable gentleman something about the problems in that State. My own electorate is traversed by the River Yarra. It is not safe to drink the water of that river at any point above Warrandyte or to swim in it at any point above Templestowe.

Mr Lamb:

– One can almost walk on it lower down.

Mr MATHEWS:

-And at lower points in the river, I am reminded by my colleague the honourable member for La Trobe, one can just about walk on it without any of the divine attributes sometimes claimed by the honourable member for Bendigo (Mr Bourchier). The state of Port Phillip Bay, carefully monitored by the Victorian Government under constant prompting from conservation organisations, shows the effect of the pollution which characterises every one of the streams flowing into that bay. In every one of the streams flowing into Port Phillip Bay the level of bacterial pollution, the level of E.coli reflecting faecal contamination, exceeds the levels laid down by any and every health organisation the world around. The state of the bay, one of Melbourne’s great recreational resources, reflects this fact. The beaches on which I swam as a child and which many honourable members of this House would have visited as children are unfit for the use of the present generation of children because of this problem that was allowed to fester throughout the postwar era.

The second aspect of this problem- a related aspect- is the aspect of health. Of course, this national Parliament has a responsibility for health in its national manifestations. Successive Ministers for Health cannot but have noted with concern the rising incidence in urban areas of those diseases which are primarily associated with faecal contamination, with the failure to provide proper sewerage arrangements. The incidence of gastroenteritis and hepatitis has mounted each successive year, and there is a direct correlation between the incidence of disease and the percentage of homes unsewered. The honourable member for Petrie mentioned that it would be 12 to 15 years at the rate of progress established last year by the Government before the Gold Coast Council scheme for sewerage could be completed. But I am interested to see it is clear on returns from the States that without Australian Government assistance the backlog of unserviced population in 1982-83 would be 1,426,062 Australians, or 15 per cent of them in all, compared with 1,654,000 or 17 per cent in 1974. That would be the position if the present Government had not come to office. That is the position which we are out to overtake.

The honourable gentleman’s predecessors in this place, when they sat on this side of the Parliament, regularly ridiculed honourable members of my Party for suggesting that Australia’s urban problems could not be overcome until the national Government became involved. I remember when a leading member of this Government, then in Opposition, cited figures of the sort to which I have just referredfigures provided by the statistician and authenticated by the Treasurer- the then Treasurer, the then honourable member for Wentworth, who is no longer with us, accused him of talking like a small-time mayor. It is a sad commentary on the values of that gentleman and those who sniggered with him at the wit of the remark because, as the figures which I gave a moment ago indicate, there is no capacity on the part of State governments, on the part of their instrumentalities, such as the Melbourne and Metropolitan Board of Works- saddled as it is with the necessity to pay out more than half of its revenue in debt servicing charges- or on the part of local government to overtake the enormous sewerage backlog which has been allowed to accumulate. The States themselves acknowledge that it cannot be done without Australian Government help. Not only did honourable members opposite never in 23 years lift a finger to do anything about the problem, not only did they rubbish members on this side of the House who proposed that they should lift a finger, but they have not in any subsequent policy speech promised to do anything about the problem. It is true, as the honourable member for Petrie said, that they have forgotten nothing. But like the Bourbons, they have learnt nothing.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Drury:

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

Mr McLEAY:
Boothby

-The Sewerage Agreements Bill 1974, according to the second reading speech of the Minister for Urban and Regional Development (Mr Uren), is designed to provide extra funds for sewerage backlog programs in Victoria, Queensland and Western Australia. At the outset I would like to say that a word has been left out there. The speech should have read that the Bill is designed to provide extra loan funds, because there is no way in the world that anyone could ever consider that these moneys are by way of grant. The States are to be assisted in a sense, I suppose we could say, by supplementary legislation to the legislation passed last year. The assistance is to be in relatively small amounts. Victoria is to be assisted by the provision of $3.95m, Queensland by $lm- I wonder whether the Minister in his reply might tell us why Queensland’s application for $2m has been reduced to $lm, as was pointed out by the honourable member for Petrie (Mr Hodges)- and Western Australia by $3m.

The Opposition does not oppose the legislation although we express quite serious concern about some aspects of it and some aspects of its philosophy. At the outset I would like to ask for leave of the House to incorporate in Hansard one of the agreements set out in the Bill. If the Minister will pay some attention, I would point out that I am in no way seeking to take a rise out of anybody. I simply want to have one of these agreements incorporated in Hansard, and I would prefer it to be the one dealing with the Queensland Government. I formally seek leave to do that.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Drury:

-Is leave granted?

Mr Uren:

– No, leave is not granted. There is a procedure of courtesy under which the honourable member should seek to have things incorporated in Hansard. He should show what he proposes to incorporate to the Minister in charge of the legislation prior to commencing has speech.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-The Minister is quite right. There is a formula for dealing with these things.

Mr McLEAY:

– I realise that. I do not think the Minister graduated from his courtesy course with first class honours, anyway. We will have to get by without having the agreement incorporated. Therefore I commence by asking the Minister a few questions. Firstly, why has there been such a delay between the time that the legislation was canvassed, which I guess would have been back in February or March, and the present time, which is the end of September? This matter appeared on the notice paper during the last sitting of the Parliament in July and should easily have been disposed of by now. What we are concerned about is what appears to be a total lack of consultation with the States and certainly a total lack of consideration for the States. How does the Government expect the States to proceed? Here we have an agreement which we are not allowed to see in Hansard which states that the work must commence by 1 July. It is now 24 September and the agreement has not even been passed because it has to be ratified by this Parliament

So my first question of the Minister concerns the delay and the lack of consideration for the State governments. How does the Federal Government expect the States to proceed when no agreement has been ratified? What happens, for example, in relation to contractors and people digging trenches? Should the State governments dismiss them? Should they dismiss people on wages or should they look for some sort of temporary finance. I think that is our first concern. Also, it is no good the Government saying that it does not wish to direct the States as to the way in which they shall spend the money. In fact, I was very interested but not impressed to listen to the honourable member for Casey (Mr Mathews) who said- I think I quote him fairlyafter talking about the 23 years of conservative government and how little we did -

Mr Mathews:

– Do you deny it?

Mr McLEAY:

-I Will deal with that in a moment. I think the honourable member should sit in his correct place if he is going to help me to make my speech. He said that taxes gathered in State capitals and regions will now be spent in these areas. That is what the honourable member for Casey said in bis contribution to the debate, and I think that is part of the philosophy that goes right through aU of these negotiations.

Mr Bourchier:

– Is it not terrible? We do not have a Minister at the table.

Mr McLEAY:

– This is really becoming something of a habit now. I have not been here aU that long, but the chamber being left without one Minister in charge and a very insignificant backbencher sitting at the table is something that I never saw until the Labor Government came to office. What would happen if I stood on my head or did a Highland fling or something equally dramatic? Who would take care of the proceedings in the House? It is quite improper that there should be no Minister at the table. This is the second time it has happened today.

Mr James:

– It is your fault; you are clearing the House.

Mr McLEAY:

– I take up that point. The House was cleared by the honourable member for Casey who preceded me in the debate. There are more honourable members here now than before, for which I am grateful. The philosophy of the Federal Government as it is now is to take over all of the powers, or most of them, of the States. That is what the honourable member for Casey (Mr Mathews) is really saying, that for 23 years the State governments have been running their own business and now the Federal Labor Party is in government it will move in and take over those responsibilities and decide where the money will be spent. That is a very strong warning to the people who live in the smaller States. God help them if the federal system collapses.

Mr MATHEWS:
CASEY, VICTORIA · ALP

– The honourable gentleman does not want the funds allocated.

Mr McLEAY:

– I will deal with that in a moment.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Drury:

-Order! The honourable member has already spoken in the debate.

Mr McLEAY:

– The point is that in this agreement there is evidence- and that is why I wanted the Queensland agreement included in Hansardthat even in this area of sewerage the present Federal Government has taken away the priorities from the Queensland Government and the other governments relating to where they will spend the money on sewerage. In the agreement it states that the money will be spent in Brisbane and the Gold Coast. I am not necessarily being critical of where the money is spent, but it is not the Queensland Government that is deciding where it is spent, it is this Government.

Mr Cohen:

– They had discussions, you know.

Mr McLEAY:

– Discussions! I take up that interjection too, because that in fact is not so. I have spoken to a member of one of the State governments as recently as yesterday, and there has not been a single discussion about the amounts allocated in the Budget, which we will be debating this week. There was very little discussion in respect of this and the previous agreement. This Government is heU-bent on taking away from the States their right to decide where sewerage money will be spent. What the Government is really saying to the people who live in the States is that it will decide which of those people will have sewerage and which of them will not. That is the antithesis of what we believe in. I see we do have a Minister back at the table, and I am very grateful.

The second point about which the Opposition is concerned is that arrogant, really almost insulting, way that the Government has treated the States. I mention this because it was brought up by the honourable member for Casey. In his second reading speech, referring on this occasion to Melbourne’s problems with stormwater drainage, the Minister said that most metropolitan streams in Australia record levels of E. COl which are completely unacceptable to this Government Unfortunately the Minister for Urban and Regional Development (Mr Uren) is not here, but perhaps the Minister for the Capital Territory could ask him: Do you think that your Government is the only government that is concerned about pollution levels?

Mr Bryant:

– No, we are not the only ones concerned, but we are the only ones who will do anything about it.

Mr McLEAY:

– Do you have some monopoly of concern, and no other governments are concerned? This is what you are saying.

Mr Bryant:

– The South Australian and Tasmanian Governments.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Drury:

-Order! I ask the honourable member to direct his remarks to the Chair and then we might avoid this crossfire over the table.

Mr McLEAY:

– I would prefer to do that; it is a much more acceptable procedure. In our view, this is unnecessarily insulting to other governments and it is also insulting to the next Federal Government, which I have no doubt will come from this side of the House. It is also insulting to the Lord Mayor and members of the Brisbane City Council. That Council has been in office, Labor dominated, since the year dot. So it is not very smart to think that the Government is rubbishing only Liberal and Country Party governments. This sort of remark also rubbishes the Labor governments, one in Tasmania, one in South Australia and, in effect, the Brisbane City Council.

Before I leave the Minister’s second reading speech- and there is not very much in it to which I want to refer- there is one quite serious inaccuracy at the point where he was talking about the national sewerage program- giving expression to the Government’s own private concern, of course- providing that all new land subdivisions should be given adequate sewerage treatment facilities. To bring the Minister up to date, in Victoria at any rate the developers are responsible for all headworks in all new subdivisions and, as I understand it, have been so responsible since last December.

Mr Uren:

– Why do you not use the correct terms in relation to headworks and sewerage?

Mr McLEAY:

-Unfortunately the Minister wishes now to give me a lecture on sematics, for which I have not got time.

Mr Uren:

– Why do you not do your homework?

Mr McLEAY:

– I have done my homework.

Mr Uren:

– No developer pays for headworks. They are done by the sewerage authorities.

Mr McLEAY:

– You had better go back to Victoria and have a look.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! There are too many interjections on both sides of the House.

Mr McLEAY:

– We should have a look now at how much these State governments have doneand this is not over the last 23 years- because most of what the Minister has done and certainly all that the member for Casey has done has been to denigrate past State governments, not past Federal governments. We recognise the difference between Commonwealth and State constitutional responsibilities and honourable members opposite do not. I want to place on record how much the New South Wales Government, for example, has done, and I will quote from the annual report of the Metropolitan Water Sewerage and Drainage Board for the year ended 30 June 1973. The figure for capital works in New South Wales alone is $569m. This Government, in the Bill we are talking about now, as well as the amount that is appropriated in the Budget, has decided there will be only $ 132m for the whole lot. In Queensland this year they are spending $50m and I think it is proper for some of us to defend the State governments and their authorities. To quote briefly from the report of the Sydney authority, the declared area of operations totals some 4,000 square miles. It includes not only the whole of the metropolitan area of Sydney but also a number of outlying cities, municipalities and shires, as well as the South Coast areas embraced by the city of Wollongong and the municipalities of Shellharbour and Kiama. The Board’s 19 separate sewerage systems include over 7,000 miles of sewers. No one can say that it has not done some work since it has been in office. I draw the attention of the House to the amount which the New South Wales State Government will be spending on sewerage works this year, financed from its own resources. This is indicated on page 1 of the report as being $86m. The report makes the point that 5 years ago the annual expenditure was only $26m. If honourable members read through the report they will see that attention is also drawn to the fact that the New South Wales Government is spending as much this year as it did last year and is actually getting much less work for it, because of inflation. I think we can say that inflation is at least Government induced. There is no time to go through the report of the Melbourne and Metropolitan Board of Works, but I would point out that at the end of April this year there were 155,000 unsewered houses and vacant lots in the metropolitan area in Melbourne. At the present rate of progress it will take 15 years to catch up on the backlog, even if not one other dwelling is connected. The area serviced by the Board in Melbourne covers 187,500 hectares and some 600,000 homes. In this financial year it will have spent $60m from its own resources. Probably the most significant aspect of the report appears on page 1 9. The report says:

And the Board is forced into the position of being a big borrower. A measure of the money it must raise can be gauged from the fact that in the 1973-74 financial year its capital works expenditure exceeded $1 14m, an increase of some $28m over the previous year.

This is the important point, and I trust the Minister will respond. The report continues:

In spite of this increase, the rate of inflation means that the Board is, in fact, now paying more money for no more work than it carried out in 1972-73, a prime example of how inflation eats into the value of available funds.

So, no matter what pious thoughts the honourable member for Casey and other honourable members on the other side of the House have, the sewerage problem will become greater until the Government reduces the rate of inflation and puts some value back into the dollar. In its report the Victorian authority makes the point also that it will require $ 1,000m to catch up the backlog The Minister made the same point in answering a question asked of him by one of my colleagues oh 18 September, except that he said that $ 1,000m would be required for all the urban areas. I believe that that is a quite serious miscalculation. Talking of broken promises, which is something to which we are becoming conditioned in this country, I would like to make reference also to the pre-election speech of the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam). There is a serious broken promise in it in respect of sewerage. The Prime Minister said:

A Labor Government will immediately ask the principal water and sewerage authorities what Commonwealth grants in the present financial year would enable them to embark promptly and economically . . .

There is no doubt that in the minds of the Australian people- I think this point was made by one of my colleagues- the Prime Minister was holding out to them the promise that a Labor Government would actually make grants available to the States free of interest to assist them to overcome the backlog. We all know from the Bill currently before us that the States will in fact be paying the long term bond rate and that this will mean an increase in the State debt. The money has cost the Commonwealth virtually nothing but it is lending it back to the States at the long term bond rate. In doing so it is increasing the State debts. I think that the State debt in Victoria is 58c in every dollar. That is the interest Victoria has to pay back before it spends any money. I could be quoting from the Minister’s second reading speech in saying that, but that is a fact anyway. It means that more than half of every dollar raised goes back to the Federal Government by way of interest. That represents a high cost to the consumer. I would like to have had the time to quote what is said in certain reports about the increased cost to the consumers, who are the ratepayers. If rates are increased sharply it adds to inflation and everybody is penalised. The penalty imposed- I object very much to the expression used to describe them- upon the person who receives unearned income is particularly harsh. Such a person, who probably cost the country nothing during his working life, because he was thrifty during his working life and invested a few dollars has to pay an extra tax on top of his income.

Mr Ruddock:

– Thrift is a dirty word.

Mr McLEAY:

– Yes, thrift is a dirty word.

Mr Hodges:

– So is profit.

Mr McLEAY:

– Profit has always been a dirty word with this socialist party, but to impose a penalty on thrift is in my view completely unforgiveable and is something for which the Government has no mandate. The Government talks about having a mandate. We believe that the Government should advance the money interestfree or at least advance it at a very low rate of interest, as is done in Queensland. Being a Queenslander you would know, Mr Deputy Speaker, that the State Government in Queensland advances 40 per cent of the capital expenditure to the local councils and that they raise the rest by way of loan. I noticed today that in reply to a well prepared Dorothy Dix question the Minister for Urban and Regional Development indicated that something along those lines would be the formula for the grants which will be coming up for debate in the next few weeks. We of the Opposition will applaud anything which will reduce the State debt. We make the point that sewerage is not a business undertaking and that it can be treated almost in isolation. It is not like the provision of electricity and gas. There is no sale of the end product.

Mr Cohen:

– What did you do about sewerage when you were in Government?

Mr McLEAY:

– If the honourable member for Robertson had been in the chamber earlier and had listened to what was said he would know what the Opposition’s views are about the subject. We take the view that the Government is substituting itself as a lending authority. It misrepresents itself as being a great benefactor. It has won a lot of votes for itself in this way. We say that the Government is not delivering the goods it promised to deliver. All it is doing is taking unto itself more and more power because it has control of the purse.

I wish to deal now with a point made by the honourable member for Casey, who apparently has become suddenly disinterested. We take the view that the governments of the larger and wealthier States- I come from one of the smaller States- should not be blamed constantly for the conditions that are caused largely by the disadvantages that they suffer under the federal system. If, for example, the States of New South Wales and Victoria were able to spend all the money that they raised within their boundaries they would have the best roads, the best sewers and the best hospitals in the world. But the federal system does not operate in that way. In fact, in a sense it could be said that those States are subsidising the smaller States. It is quite significant that within 12 months of a Labor administration taking over in South Australia, which is the State from which I come, it became a mendicant State. It has been very badly managed.

If the philosophy put forward by the honourable member for Casey and the Minister for Urban and Regional Development were carried through it would be a mendicant State permanently because what they are really saying is that the smaller States will spend the money that they can raise and nothing else within their own boundaries. If it had not been for the federal system, which gives advantages to people who live in the State from which I come and the other smaller States, we would be still travelling around in horse drawn vehicles on unmade dirt roads and we would be still living in two-room bluestone cottages with wooden plank privies down at the bottom of the garden. That I think highlights more than anything else the difference between us in philosophy. The smaller States, especially the 2 small Labor governed States, should beware if this philosophy is carried right through in all areas. For that reason I would like to record very briefly what the Opposition’s philosophy is as set out in a publication called ‘The Way Ahead’, which was produced just before the last election, which sets out LiberalCountry Party policies which will be expanded and improved as time goes on and which will be put to the people when an opportunity occurs before the next election.

Mr Martin:

-When is that?

Mr McLEAY:

– That will depend upon Caucus fights and the actions of the Prime Minister. The Liberal-Country Party’s platform on urban improvement and regional development reads:

The Liberal and Country Parties do not believe there can be uniform or nationally imposed solutions to urban and regional problems.

That is the difference between us. The Government thinks there can be. Sir, you would know that most of the houses where you live are made of wood and that most of the houses where I live are made of brick. The whole of Australia cannot be treated as being the same sort of country. The platform continues:

For this reason, we will uphold the clearly different roles of the Federal, State and Local Governments in the development of our urban policies. We believe that the present approach concentrates scarce skills in Canberra. We believe it duplicates functions which properly belong at the State and local levels. Our support will take the form of co-operation, not competition, with the States. As we have seen in the debate on this legislation today, there is confrontation with the States.

The key role of the State Governments in identifying urban problems, setting urban priorities and establishing urban amenities needs to be recognised. The States are the proper level of Government to co-ordinate intra-state transport, land release, regional planning and to plan regional facilities. These functions already fall within the responsibility of the State governments.

What we are saying is that the Federal Government should be supporting the States, not trying to take powers away from them. We support this legislation just as we would support any legislation to improve conditions in the cities but we make the point .that it is no good lending money at high interest rates to the States. They can borrow money themselves anyway. The only way to help them is by making money available by way of grants. The Government promised to do this but it has broken its promise. Despite these factors, we support this legislation.

Mr BENNETT:
Swan

-I rise to speak on the Sewerage Agreements Bill 1974 which will appropriate additional funds for sewerage backlog works in Victoria, Queensland and, more importantly to me, in Western Australia. It provides for Western Australia a further $3m in addition to the $3.8m already granted under the principal agreement for works commenced by 1 July 1974. The previous speaker, the honourable member for Boothby (Mr McLeay), made incredible allegations about the discussions with the States. In fact the Australian Government has accepted the States’ recommendations on this matter and has given the States all they have asked for; so it is incredible that the previous speaker should not be aware of this fact. He is probably aware that in his own electorate of Boothby $450,000 was provided under the last agreement. I mention this fact in case he was not aware.

The honourable member referred to the total inability of the States to finance sewerage schemes without national government assistance. In that respect I agree with him. For the constituents of my electorate of Swan the sewerage work undertaken initially by the then Tonkin State Labor Government with funds provided by the Australian Labor Government represented something more than connection to a sewer system. It meant freedom from pollution of the often high water table in the region, particularly in the Canning area. The ability to undertake proposals to develop an area, although only 6 miles from the heart of Perth, was affected because of building restrictions which prevented such development to its full potential. The lack of sewerage facilities was the main barrier. It is sad to say that this neglect had been perpetuated by State and Federal governments over many years until the coming of a Labor Administration in 1972 when State and Federal governments began to work together. I hasten to add that this is in no way a reflection on local government which recognised the need for sewerage.

This matter has been the subject of constant public debate. There have been many calls for action which have been ignored. Is it any wonder that $3m was required to be spent on sewerage works in the Swan electorate in 1972-73? I am most grateful for such expenditure. I hope that the program initially undertaken by the State Labor Administration will be continued by the existing State Government whose leaders have, on occasion, expressed a desire not to allocate funds in this area. In fact, they are on record as indicating a preference for developers to be able to use package treatment plants and not to be compelled to have mainline sewers provided. It is hoped that the proper overall plan already undertaken will be continued despite the expressed reluctance of leaders of the present Western Australian Government.

Sewerage works are labour intensive and will assist to provide employment for workers in the industry, for suppliers of material to the industry and for workers in other supply areas. The extra $3m will provide for local employment opportunities and for a better standard of living for local residents. It will offer redevelopment opportunities in high water table areas thus doing away with the horrors of septic tank use which is causing pollution to underground water in the porous sandstone below the Perth area. It should be remembered that underground water already provides a significant portion of Perth’s water supply and is likely to become a more significant source of drinking water for that city in the future. It is therefore imperative that the possibility of pollution to this water by sewage be removed.

In the suburb of Koongamia in my electorate, because of the hills and the composition of the clay base soil, State Housing Commission homes are not as yet connected to a sewerage system although pipe headworks are available. Household reticulation has not taken place. The result was that during last winter there was an overflow of septic tanks and leach drains into the storm water system and into the fresh water upper reaches of the Helena and Swan rivers. This was a disgraceful state of affairs. In fact, the State member for the area, Mr Jack Skidmore, drew my attention to one family whose carport and general area was flooded by refuse and who had to suffer the resultant stench. It is to be hoped that his approaches to the State authority will help hasten the overcoming of this problem. For the first time money for the necessary environmental works has been provided to the Western Australian authorities by a national government. The completion date for all sewerage works in the metropolitan areas is 1 982-83.

Western Australians have commented to me that they are amazed at critical statements of the national Government by those in Opposition- by those who had taken no steps to offer a solution to the problems themselves. Today Opposition supporters speak only critically, which amazes me. People have made the point that when the proposed program reaches such areas as Geraldton and Kalgoorlie and other regional towns with populations exceeding 20,000 in Western Australia, the existing State Government will not indicate from whom the funds and planning will come. This is one of the major reasons why I think the State Government needs to be directed where to spend the funds. The Australian Labor Government planned these reticulation schemes initially and it will fund these initial projects but the Western Australian Government will continue to denigrate that effort. I am forced to agree with my constituents views on this aspect.

In 1973-74 some $27.9m was paid out in repayable advances to all States. This sum contributed to the provision of some 79 reticulation projects, to 35 main, sub-main and carrier sewers, to 6 pumping stations and to 10 treatment plants. It must have been a record year but, quite frankly, who knows about it? Where has this been reported in the Press? Further expansion has been limited because of manpower availability and the need not to cause inflationary pressures by creating excess demands in the material supply field. Obviously there has been lack of forward planning for the production of supplies in some States. Although they can perhaps be excused for a lack of forward planning, it is unusual to see such consistent planning for the future by a national government with such a massive availability of funds for a specific purpose.

This Bill ensures that existing programs will be maintained at peak level. It ensures that in my area the Perth Metropolitan Water Board will be able immediately to undertake mainline works in the Cannington, Queens Park and other areas. In fact, without this assistance it would have to cut back its works program with a consequent reduction in contract staff because I have been given to understand that the State does not have the funds to finance these works. The proposed expenditure will enable a reduction of the 102,000 unsewered homes in Western Australia Another important aspect is that it will help to overcome continuing pollution of our water reserves and waterways, including the Helena, Canning and Swan rivers. As time progresses we hope to see a better co-ordinated national approach to Australia ‘s water resources so that they can be utilised in the most effective way.

This Bill is only part of a new and more responsible approach to urban affairs. It represents an appreciation of the need to provide a better environment for urban dwellers. We must bear in mind that this has been achieved only since December 1972, a year and a half ago. If one looks to the possibilities for the future in respect of what can be achieved in the urban environment by a national government under a responsible Minister, such as we now have, and one bears in mind the assistance given to local government through the Grants Commission and through the many other subsidy schemes now operating, and one sees other programs take shape and come to fruition eliminating problems associated with urban life- programs related to transport, health and social amenities- one realises the delays which have adversely affected progress in these matters. I refer to the delay of legislation in another place. We hope that this legislation will not be blocked in that House, because no doubt we have suffered some delays due to the double dissolution. It is hoped that these benefits will not be denied to the States due to any delay in what should be the States ‘ House. All the 3 States that will benefit specially under the legislation have commenced work. Any delay would be a tragedy.

It should be noted that in 1974-75 $95m will be made available to the States- $88m for the larger cities, $5m for smaller centres and $2m for support activities. The amount being provided for 1974-75 sewerage works will be a mixture of non-repayable grants and loans at the long term bond rate. In numerical terms the sewerage backlog can be expressed at 537,300 dwellings or 17 per cent of the total number of houses in towns of 20,000 persons or over. So one can see the need for the urgency of having this Bill put to the other House and carried. I only hope that this happens. I support the Bill.

Mr RUDDOCK:
Parramatta

-I rise to restore, I hope, some sanity to this debate. We have heard some comments from the honourable member for Swan (Mr Bennett) and the honourable member for Casey (Mr Mathews), both of whom have said that members of the Opposition are not really concerned about matters relating to the environment, meeting the problems of urban communities and solving the problems related to sewering metropolitan areas, regional areas and so on. I beg to say that there would not be anybody within the precincts of this Parliament who would not be concerned about sewerage and the needs for homes to be sewered, the health of the community and all the other matters that have been raised by each of the members from the Government side who have spoken before me. I would hasten to say that, even reading the speech of the Minister for Urban and Regional Development (Mr Uren), one would find little to disagree with in terms of the statements he makes about the nature of the problem. But what one disagrees with are the solutions that are offered by the Government, the approach that the Government takes to deal with the problem which we all acknowledge exists, and the methods it uses to deal with that problem.

I am an unavowed federalist. I would have thought that members of the Government might well have thought of returning to that position themselves after last Saturday. I am sure the Minister read the ‘Canberra Times’ this morning, and I should not have to draw his attention that the local government elections took place in New South Wales last weekend. It may well be that with a change of council in Parramatta I will know more of what is going on in the Minister’s Department than I have known in the past. The problem is- it has been demonstrated in Parramatta and in other areas around Sydney- that the sins of one political party in office are often visited upon other parties in office. The Government blurs distinctions between local government, State governments and the Federal Government and the responsibilties that each of them has. Labor representatives in Sydney have been visited with the mistakes of this Government, which has obviously failed to deal with the important problems that are facing us today. We no longer talk about defence and foreign affairs in this place. We no longer think about the problems of the economy. In many ways we are becoming bogged down in dealing with problems of the nature of that which we are discussing now. I am not trying to say that these things are unimportant, because they are important. They are important to the people.

In my community, I am familiar with the areas that are not sewered, the pollution of the Parramatta River and so on. I can talk as glibly as others about the problems that are quite evident in my areas, but clearly what is needed is funds. We are talking about the terms on which those funds are made available. I believe that this Government should absolve itself of responsibility for how funds are spent and say to the State government or the local government authorities that have the constitional responsibilities for these problems: ‘Here is the money. You spend it’. There may well be- I will refer to this matter a little later- particular areas in which a national government can assume a direct responsibility in limited way.

I believe that the Government has failed to deal with the real problems that are facing the nation. We are dealing with many other matters which ought to be put into their right perspective. But as we have to discuss them on an occasion like this, I would like to make a number of observations particularly on the comments of the honourable member for Casey because he implied that some areas in communities like Sydney and Melbourne were not sewered because of the shortcomings of past Federal administrations of a different political persuasion. Clearly if one looks at the solutions now being offered by this Government one can see the same sort of shortcomings emerging. If one looks at inflation as an issue in relation to the cost of the authorities that have to build sewerage works it is quite clear that their costs are rising. They are not able as efficiently or as well to build the works with the amount of funds available to them in the past. That situation exists simply because the Government has failed to control inflation.

There is an ancillary effect to this. Because of the high cost of raising money today, an authority like the Metropolitan Water Sewerage and Drainage Board in Sydney, which would previously have expected to raise some $100m to enable it to carry out its own program of sewerage in Sydney, finds that it will probably have a substantial shortfall this year in the money that it expects to raise. If there is a shortfall in loan moneys because of the high cost of obtaining money on our community today, have we an undertaking from the Minister to underwrite the loans that are normally raised by such organisations as the Metropolitan Water, Sewerage and Drainage Board, the Melbourne and Metropolitan Board of Works themselves? If there are shortfalls of $30m or $40m because of the high cost of raising money to enable these efficient organisations to meet their own programs, will this Government step in and underwrite loans that the organisations would have raised themselves were it not for the parlous economic state which we are in? I ask him whether he will, when he has an opportunity to reply later, give some attention to that because amounts being allocated under this Bill will seem pretty small if the major constructing authorities are not able themselves to raise the money that they need to meet the programs to which they are already committed. It is not much good transferring the obligation from one authority to this Government and saying ‘Look, we are good fellows; we are giving you X millions of dollars, as we are doing in this Bill, or $30m as we have given you before ‘, if the authorities do not have the funds available to them which they had in the past.

We as members of the Opposition, are supporting this Bill and the allocation of funds, not because we believe it is the best way, but simply because it is the solution that the Government is offering. We believe there are better ways of solving the problem and I put it to the Government that the best way of doing so is to make available the money to the States and the local authorities, and to allow them to set their own priorities and to spend the money as they see it should be spent. They are the people who are best able to judge how it ought to be spent. Even though we say there is a better way to do this, it does not stop us from looking at the performance of the Government in relation to the promises which it has made.

I draw the attention of the Minister for Urban and Regional Development once more, as I did on the last occasion when I spoke on this legislation in December of last year, to the promise that the Labor Party made in its 1972 policy speech on the matter of sewerage. The policy speech states:

A Labor government will immediately ask the principal water and sewerage authorities what Commonwealth grants in the present financial year would enable them to embark promptly and economically on an uninterrupted program to provide services to all the premises in their areas by 1 978.

We are well on the way to that time. This was a promise on which the Government was originally elected. Yet, in answer to a question asked by the honourable member for Perth (Mr Berinson), the Minister for Urban and Regional Development ran away from that promise when he said:

We will try to meet the target date of 1 978 set by the Prime Minister but the State authorities have agreed -

I think he might have asked them whether it would be possible for them to do it when he made such a promise: . . . that probably it will take until 1980 or the early 1980s to achieve our aim because of pressure on resources, both men and material.

I am not saying that is not a real problem; I acknowledge that it is. Yet this Government came to office on the promise that it would achieve what it proposed by 1978. It ran away from that promise almost immediately it came to office. The Minister for Urban and Regional Development, who is sitting at the table, was the one who announced that it would not be possible to meet that undertaking.

In the principal Act and in this Bill it is made clear that although the Commonwealth is lending the money to the States under this agreement, it is not borrowing that money and paying high rates of interest for it. I draw the attention of honourable members to clause 6 of the Bill that we are considering. This clause states that the Government is entitled to appropriate that money out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund. Clause 9 provides: … the Treasurer may authorise the payment to that Fund, out of the Loan Fund . . .

The Bill provides that in fact the money can be raised by loan. But the Government can swap the procedure around if it wants to; it seeks that sort of flexibility. So, this money will be coming from taxpayers’ funds. Yet the State authorities must pay interest to the Commonwealth for it.

In answer to a question asked in this place today the Minister for Urban and Regional Development told us of the magnitude of the debts that these authorities responsible for the provision of sewerage services have already. He told us that some $70m would be made available next year, again as loans. But to deal with criticisms of the type that I have made today and out of a grudging respect, I suppose, for the points which we have made in debates such as this about the need to make the grants as originally promised, he said that there will be a token grant of 30 per cent which is less than half of what local authorities are required to borrow by way of loan funds, even next year. This great program we heard announced in answer to a Dorothy Dix question this morning.

New South Wales receives no money under this agreement. I interpret the reason to be that the New South Wales Government, the Metropolitan Water Sewerage and Drainage Board and the Hunter District Drainage Board each budgeted correctly, set out a program, and kept within the obligation that each assumed to spend the moneys that were available. The Minister, I note, indicates in his second reading speech that the Government had carefully assessed the impact of these programs on manpower and material resources and that most of the work had already been completed and therefore would involve no significant pressure on resources. Quite clearly from the speech it becomes apparent that the moneys that are being made available are to make up the excess of expenditure over and above the grants originally made to each of the other States. So, we are not seeing any additional moneys in fact being made available to provide additional sewerage works through these grants proposed by the legislation.

We hear a great deal at the moment about unemployment. I understand that the Government is suffering some anguish about this matter although I do not know, if I raise this issue, how the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) would treat me or whether my comments might be seen as -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Martin:
BANKS, NEW SOUTH WALES

-If the honourable member raises the issue too much, the Deputy Speaker can bring him to order as this debate is restricted to the ambit of the Bill.

Mr RUDDOCK:

– I will restrict my remarks to the Bill. Honourable members no doubt will appreciate the point I was making. Employment is important. Yet it is quite clear that, in this very important area where a great deal of work could be done and made available for the purpose of employing people, no additional moneys are being provided through this method of funding to employ the additional persons who are out of work in New South Wales or in any of the other States that have been mentioned. I put it to honourable members that the Government could well consider funding additional sewerage works and other expenditures in this area as a method of employing many of the people who are out of work in various places throughout Australia.

My speech must progress fairly quickly, as my time is rather limited, to a question that I placed on the notice paper. I think it is a very important question. The Minister may care to give attention to it in considering the comments made during the debate. I put this question on notice on 16 July this year. It is the same as a question which was on the notice paper prior to the dissolution of the Parliament earlier this year. I have asked the Minister for Urban and Regional Development:

  1. What is the total sum allocated to each State pursuant to the Sewerage Agreements Act 1 973?
  2. What are the names of the relevant authorities within each State that have received grants, and what part of the grant mentioned in answer to part 1 was received by these authorities?
  3. Have the moneys allocated been collected by the relevant authorities and spent?
  4. If so, what works have been completed or subsequently commenced by the authorities detailed in answer to part 2 and, in particular, what sums have been allocated to each project and spent, and in what Federal Electoral Divisions were these works carried out or commenced?

I make the observation that it appears that some of the information that I have been seeking for some months from the Minister appears to have been made available to at least one honourable member who participated in this debate earlier today. I refer to the honourable member for Casey (Mr Mathews) who was able to allude in some detail to the manner in which moneys made available through the previous agreement were spent. I regard this as a most serious matter and one to which the Minister ought to address himself when he replies later in this debate.

As I understand it, the Gold Coast City Council was offered moneys under the previous agreement- the amount was $750,000- on the same basis as other authorities had accepted funds. That City Council accepted some $200,000 on those terms. It needs approximately $48. 5m to complete its proposed sewerage scheme. A need certainly exists for these moneys. Yet this responsible authority believes that it would not be responsible if, for its part, it were to accept money made available on these terms. I think this is a matter which ought to be considered and it would be worth while for honourable members to know and to have received by answer, as I should have to a question on notice, particulars of those authorities which have had money offered to them but which have not accepted it because of the nature of the unreasonable terms which the Government has sought to impose.

I want to deal with one other matter. When I spoke previously on the principal Bill I drew attention to the importance of a proposed scheme to pump sewage from Sydney over the mountains. Under this scheme sewage would be pumped from those suburbs that have been developed very close to the mountains. This would eliminate the need to pump the sewage from these areas to the seaside and there is a prospect of its being used for farming and agricultural purposes. I observe from an article in the ‘National Times’ that a gentleman by the name of Sutton has a similar program in mind for the Gosford and Wyong districts. I believe that if this Government wants to embark upon any sort of national program it ought to be looking at the area of fundamental research as it has done in relation to urban road research planning and urban transport research planning. There is a need for fundamental research in this area that the responsible authorities have been unable to undertake.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr MartinOrder! The honourable member’s time has expired.

Mr LAMB:
La Trobe

-In a recent publication issued by the Melbourne and Metropolitan Board of Works there was a brief description of Melbourne’s urgent need for a comprehensive and all-covering sewerage system. It went to great lengths to describe the large stagnant cesspools, stinking mud and a foulsmelling river. That was an historic piece which described a period 120 years ago when Melbourne was barely a decade old. Those cesspools, that foul-smelling river and stinking mud were in the central business district as we know it now. The problems are no less serious now but I excuse the Board of Works for perhaps being charged with tending to hyperbole with that description today. Still we have polluted creeks and rivers and still we have foul-smelling subsoil in areas where soil trying to cope with septic tank effluent is unable to cope. In 1892 the Board of Works was finally formed and the first sod turned for its project to get work under way. That Board has carried out fine work over many years but it has never caught up with the backlog, and that is what this Government is attempting to do with this Bill and its national sewerage program.

This Government has a commitment to change that picture- to change the picture from stagnant pools to sweet-smelling creeks, from a stagnant program to a program carried out with celerity. We are committed to reverse the trend resulting from decades of neglect. We acted as soon as we entered Government in 1972. We have acted since then in full co-operation with State governments. The Sewerage Agreements Bill 1974 appropriates additional funds for the sewerage backlog works in Victoria, Queensland and Western Australia that were commenced during 1974. This is no centralist, socialist plot. It is no centralist, socialist plan as the honourable members for Petrie (Mr Hodges) and Boothby (Mr McLeay) would have us believe. Let us look at the facts. Let us look at the recent history.

As with most initiatives in his portfolio, the Minister for Urban and Regional Development (Mr Uren) has sought and obtained full cooperation in most areas which he has developed in regard to the improvement of quality of life in outer urban areas and growth areas. We have accepted, for instance, those areas identified by the States themselves- those areas with the greatest need to obtain sewerage for their populations. These areas have been selected on the basis of need. They are the areas which have the greatest number of unserviced properties. They are made up mainly of fringe areas and growth centres.

The honourable member for Parramatta (Mr Ruddock) talked loosely about the results of the recent local government elections in New South Wales. However, what he said had little relevance to the debate today. Let me turn to some rather more relevant and more appropriate information for his interest. Whenever I confer with local government bodies in my area the most common compliment and observation from the representatives of 6 municipalities in an area covering over 1,000 square miles is that they have seldom been met before by a representative of the Federal Parliament. They are thankful for the increased funds that flow for area improvement programs, for regionalisation and community programs and for the host of increased funds that come through the Minister’s Department, but they are even more impressed by the increased relationships and conference that they are now able to obtain with their Federal members. This attitude has resulted from a change in government. These comments come unsolicited and, I might add, from conservative dominated councils.

It is certain that the States have been unable to cope with the increase in population and the consequent demands that outstrip facilities, particularly sewerage facilities which are the subject of this Bill. One and half million people who live in houses and flats in major cities are not connected to adequate sewerage reticulation services. These houses and flats have been mostly built during the last 20 years. A total of 100,000 people are without any sewerage at all in smaller cities of between 20,000 and 60,000 people. The Government is to supply more money and more funds to those areas covered by the Melbourne and Metropolitan Board of Works and to the fringe areas under the control of the State Rivers and Water Supply Commission. What this Bill does in effect is to get under way quickly the national sewerage program.

In 1973-74 $30m was allocated to the States, as I said, on a needs basis or what might be called an urgency basis. Victoria, Queensland and Western Australia gained extra financial assistance during the year. This Bill seeks the approval for that total backlog sum of $3 8m. Soon we will see a change in the terms of the grants. The Opposition tried to make great capital out of its semantic argument about what is meant by grants. I do not wish to persevere with the argument or delay the business of the House on that score but I want to point out that $95m will be available in 1974-75. This amount is made up of $88m for the larger cities, $5m for smaller centres and $2m for support activities to which some speakers have referred. The grants will be a mixture; the mix will be of non-repayable grants and loans at the long term bond rate of interest.

Without a national sewerage program we could never overcome this backlog. Without this financial assistance and without the initiatives of the Australian Government, the States alone cannot cope. Already 1 7 per cent of the population are without sewerage services. The estimation of the State authorities is that given their present facilities and funding, the population without sewerage in 1982-83 would still be 15 per cent. At this rate of a 2 per cent increase in every decade we will be well into the 21st century before we catch up with the backlog. We are committed to overcoming that backlog within the decade.

A national sewerage program is needed to overcome the deficiencies of the lack of sewerage. The main emphasis in the national sewerage program in overcoming the backlog through Australian Government assistance will be for the upgrading of trunk mains, head works and treatment works. The main objective here obviously is to protect the environment at outfall points. I think that most honourable members are aware of the deficiencies in sewerage provision. They know that these deficiencies contribute not only to pollution but also to many other urban problems. I want to concentrate mainly on the integration of sewerage services with other urban services. We have heard honourable members speak of the biological survey counts and the sampling that has been done in various waterways. The Environment Protection Authority of Victoria, for instance, found that there were E.coli counts exceeding 200 milligrams to 100 millilitres in the bathing beaches of Port Phillip Bay. Anyone, like myself, who has lived under conditions of the ‘nightsoil’ approach will be well aware of the problems that that system brings.

I mention also the difficulties that are encountered in such mountainous areas as the Blue Mountains, the Lofty Ranges and, in my own electorate, the Dandenongs. There, through the lack of adequate sewerage and unsuitable soils for the treatment of septic effluent, we find that the creeks and waterways are extremely polluted. The River Yarra is jeopardising the health of those who live downstream because of the amount of pollution that is carried from waste products and sullage. I understand that the Department of Urban and Regional Development is continuing surveys in this important area and is estimating the relative incidence of disease and other complaints in sewered and unsewered areas. Sewerage services must be provided in a comprehensive and co-ordinated way. The Department quite rightly has placed emphasis on the integration of sewerage provision with city development strategies. Obviously the sewerage facilities should be provided ahead of population in growth areas. Many States are now grappling with the problem. Victoria is to pass legislation that will require all new subdivisions and all new developments to provide sewerage. It should be imperative that in water catchment areas no further development takes place until sewerage is provided.

Let me detail to the House the problems of providing sewerage in the Dandenong Ranges. It will illustrate well how the provision of sewerage cannot be seen in isolation, but only as part of an overall urban and regional development plan. Honourable members will be well aware that the Dandenong Ranges are about 30 kilometres to the east of Melbourne and cover a large area. It is now undergoing extreme pressures of urbanisation. With an almost exponential rate of growth we find that in the area of the Dandenong Ranges the population during the decade 1961 to 1971 has grown from 31,000 to 51,000. It is estimated that there will be a population of 70,000 people by 1976. It is not only people who will be moving into the Dandenong Ranges; there will be also the services which have to be provided for the people. The pollution of creeks in the Dandenongs is due almost entirely to effluent from septic tanks. This promotes the growth of algae and can change a once clear stream into one with slime and obnoxious odours.

A study by the Environment Protection Authority shows that the major cause of pollution is the discharge from houses. The area under survey was polluted by the discharge of sullage and septic tank effluent from domestic properties. The western part of the Dandenongs forms part of the catchment of the polluted Dandenong Creek. This also includes unsewered residential areas, such as the Upper Ferntree Gully to Belgrave area and the northern slopes of the ranges. Urbanisation causes another important change in the natural condition of creeks. This is the change in peak flow and total run-off of water which creeks must handle. With every extra house that is built an extra area of ground is also covered.This means that the water collected on roofs, footpaths and driveways is channelled into the main drains. The total run-off in urban areas has increased up to tenfold because of this. In a typical Melbourne suburb with one-fifth acre blocks the average percentage of impervious area- roofs, roads and paving which I mentioned- is roughly 40 per cent of the total area, while with half acre blocks the impervious area is reduced to about 20 per cent of the total area. I mention this because we cannot separate the provision of sewerage services from the overall question of urban planning, including the size of blocks in areas which are hard to provide with sewerage services. These services must be seen as an integrated whole.

The situation in the Dandenongs is grave enough already, but current town planning schemes allow a large increase in the number of houses in the Dandenongs. If the trends continue, in less than 20 years the number of houses in the Dandenongs will have trebled and impossible demand will be placed upon natural waterways. These trends cannot be allowed to continue. One solution would be to provide trunk sewerage faculties. This is many years away. But what can we do to overcome the backlog in towns like Monbulk which have populations of 2,500 to 3,000 so that we can stop immediately the pollution of the waterways and later, perhaps, connect them to the trunk sewerage? Another more feasible solution is the provision of local treatment.

The Melbourne and Metropolitan Board of Works has drawn up plans for several package treatment works for the main residential area of Monbulk, certain areas in Ferntree Gully and for densely populated areas of the other municipality of Knox. The Lillydale Sewerage Authority has drawn up plans for a package plant to service 2,500 people in the township of Monbulk. As I said, the population will be 5,000 within 20 years. The cost of this scheme will be just under $600,000 and will involve a house connection cost of $625. The treatment will be extended to aeration of the effluent, followed by sedimentation and chlorination. I should like to see those programs included in the backlog program. If we can provide sewerage to the settled areas we can later on connect them to the main trunk sewerage system. But we have a paradox here. If we provide services in the Dandenongs and if we provide sewerage facilities of a fullscale nature, it is only natural that the people who are seeking the full services of the quality of urban life will gravitate to the Dandenongs and we will see over- urbanisation to the consequent damage of the unique character of that area. I cannot stress too much the need to see the national sewerage program as part of an overall development for urban and regional development.

I should like to see as part of every sewerage program which involves Commonwealth Government money an environmental impact statement. It is part of our policy that any program financed partly or in whole by Australian Government funds should provide such an impact statement. I believe, for instance, that in the Dandenong Ranges an overall development plan should be adopted. We should sewer the main towns and then we should demand that adequate septic systems be provided elsewhere. We should limit further residential development. As well as the Government’s requiring environmental impact statements as a condition of funding sewerage programs, I should like to see innovative investigations carried out by the Department of Urban and Regional Development or the sewerage authorities on other aspects. Older cultures than ours are disgusted at our habit of clearing our noses and carrying the discharge around in our pockets wrapped up carefully in a handkerchief. Their policy is to eliminate the discharge and to dispose of it immediately. These same advanced cultures see the system of the disposal of sewage that we have adopted as a waste of a valuable resource.

I must compliment the honourable member for Parramatta (Mr Ruddock) for raising the possibility of using this valuable resource for fertilisation. He suggested that perhaps it could be piped over the Blue Mountains. I do not, in commending him for his suggestion, substantiate the feasibility of the engineering projects. The older cultures of this world certainly show us a thing or two when they employ their sewage resources as a fertiliser. Some of their farms produce excellent crops, assisted only by treated sewage as a fertiliser. I should also like to see the innovation of the use of package or modular treatment plants. Where large estates and large developments have taken place there could be a great advance in overcoming the backlog if the national sewerage program could convince the sewerage authorities that they should supply on a rotating rental basis large treatment plants to municipalities. The estates then could be sewered and later joined up to the trunk sewers. The plants could be removed and turned back to the rental centre for another development. Another area for investigation which would be profitable would be to discover why there is a great difference in the charges by the Board of Works and perhaps a sewerage authority for providing sewerage to a municipality.

I draw as an example information I received that showed that, to sewer a large site on different sides of a street dividing a municipality, the Springvale Sewerage Authority was able to provide comparable sewerage facilities for half the cost of that requested by the Metropolitan Board of Works.

Once again I excuse myself for not being an expert on engineering matters, but it is hard to imagine that differences in soils, rocks, trenching and the size of pipes would be sufficient to explain the doubling of a quotation for the provision of services by the Board of Works.

It is incredible that the other side of the House has decided to support this Bill while it has constantly decried the efforts of the Minister and the achievements of his Department. Honourable members opposite talk much about inflation. The only thing inflated has been their full blown speeches and their bloated words. Procrastination and interruption are the greatest inflationary factors in raising the cost of overcoming the sewerage backlog. It must be a smooth and continuous program carried out urgently and quickly. I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr McVEIGH:
Darling Downs

-The Australian Country Party supports the speakers from the Liberal Party-the honourable member for Boothby (Mr McLeay), the honourable member for Petrie (Mr Hodges), and the honourable member for Parramatta (Mr Ruddock) in their acceptance of this legislation on behalf of the Opposition. We believe it is a most acceptable concept provided justice is done to all sections of the community. But in supporting the legislation we reserve our right to offer a few comments in an endeavour to update the process, to clarify the thinking and in some instances to ask for an explanation.

I want to comment on the rather startling statement made by the previous speaker, the honourable member for La Trobe (Mr Lamb), at the end of what we might describe in a benevolent mood as a series of diatribes when he said: ‘It is incredible that the Opposition is going to support this particular Bill.’ It ill behoves any member of the national Parliament to come here with a closed mind and an open mouth when we are debating Bills of such serious national importance. We on this side of the House cannot and will not accept the proposition that the vast reservoir of knowledge reposes in the people who sit on the other side of the House -temporarily as my friend the honourable member for Boothby said in his enlightened remarks- and that nothing whatsoever was done about a national sewerage scheme prior to 2 December 1972. This mass monotone of self righteousness, to many of us, leaves nothing but a sour odour. I think it was remarkable to listen to the speeches of the Government as compared with the speeches from the Opposition, to note that the Government supporters approached this question as an individual life belt to save their sinking electoral appeal in the large cities whereas the honourable members from this side of the House approached it more or less on the basis of a collective raft and thought of the people who live in the isolated areas of the Commonwealth and in areas other than the large cities.

I think it is rather pertinent at this stage to have recorded in Hansard to support the arguments by the honourable members for Petrie, Parramatta and Boothby that 57.92 per cent of the Australian people live in urban centres with populations of more than 500,000; 6.58 per cent live in centres with populations of from 75 ,000 to 500,000; 2.52 per cent live in centres with populations of from 50,000 to 75,000; 4.9 per cent live in centres with populations of from 20,000 to 50,000; and 4.21 per cent live in centres with populations of from 10,000 to 20,000. Therefore, in our support of the Bill we want to bring to the notice of the Minister for Urban and Regional Development (Mr Uren) certain viewpoints and to seek his explanation.

The Government made great play of the fact that this is a national sewerage scheme. I submit on behalf of the Country Party that when the Government supporters spoke their promises were flicked back and fourth and sounded as hollow as a ping pong ball. A problem identified is not a problem solved. There are specific economic and social problems that need to be outlined. But without the national framework any policy is only directionalist in the strategic sense. Any national framework must have as its basis co-ordination and organisation. In fact, the low quality of planning and organisation can be identified as one of the reasons for the Government’s failure in the various environmental issues.

Problems have to be identified, explicated and treated as critical issues. There is need, we submit, for a total systems approach in the matter of planning for a national sewerage scheme. We must view this against the background of the knowledge that it has been estimated in a report by the Department of Urban and Regional Development that the overall program will involve a sum of the order of $ 1 ,000m. I understand that 38 separate programs in New South Wales have reached the stage of ministerial examination; 25 in Victoria; 12 in Queensland; 14 in South Australia; 19 in Western Australia; and 10 in Tasmania. Obviously with a scheme of this scope there is a great need for planning, research, operator training and programmer training.

Very little emphasis has been given in the Minister’s second reading speech and in the Bill itself- and certainly no emphasis whatever was made in the speeches from Government supporters, although the speakers from the Opposition touched on it- to the very important associated issues of water supply and flood mitigation works. I cannot visualise how any national sewerage scheme can be programmed and outlined without adequate attention being paid to the availability of water supply and also adequate flood mitigation works. Both of these elements surely must be part and parcel of an overall scheme. It was disturbing, particularly to honourable members who have practical experience, to realise that these very important and associated factors were not included in the national sewerage scheme as it has been delivered to us.

In the twentieth century one of the great things that will concern man and society is the problem of pollution. It is good to note that one of the reasons why we are having a progam as outlined and one of the reasons why an extra Bill has been brought down to make moneys available to 3 States to help them overcome their particular problem is the matter of pollution. Historically pollution has been tolerated by society where resources have been judged to be too plentiful to be greatly damaged or dismantled by it But one of the great causes of pollution, as was commented on by various speakers, is the serious problem which arises from the pumping of raw sewage from pipes located close to or on our beaches. Not only is sewage in many instances untreated but a large proportion of the population of our various metropolitan cities and towns is not even connected to a sewerage system. We submit that this stage of affairs is hardly appropriate to this century. It is more akin to the turning back of the clock to the middle ages. As well as presenting a health threat to swimmers, some of the constituents of sewage are blamed for environmental problems such as the killing of vegetation on our sand dunes and our beaches.

There is a very great need to set standards in any national sewerage scheme because the cost of purification becomes disproportionately high if absolute purity is desired. A laboratory chemical 99 per cent pure might be four times as expensive as a similar chemical only 95 per cent pure. Thus the cost of pollution prevention as far as sewerage is concerned is very dependent on what levels of impurities are acceptable. I submit that the following five approaches might be made to the problem of setting standards: These approaches could be based, firstly, on health aspects, which would involve doctors and scientists; secondly, mental health aspects, which would involve psychologists and social scientists; thirdly, the number of complaints from the community; fourthly, cost benefits, which would involve economists; and, fifthly, absolutism, which would involve some environmentalists. As in consumer protection the first consideration should always be the safety of the human environment. The trouble is that scientists know very little about the facts of threshold levels of poisons in the body. So in looking at the problem of a national sewerage scheme, it is very necessary to make sure that we establish our standards and to make these standards acceptable to toleration so that human society is not threatened.

The Opposition wants to state how pleased it is that the Budget has allocated $125m in the next year for sewerage works in an endeavour to improve the quality of life. We submit that this allocation is very essential because there are still vast areas of Australia which need to have sewerage connected or septic tanks installed. It has been estimated that 50 per cent of the rural areas of Queensland are not sewered. I compliment the honourable member for Petrie on his very forceful exposition of the position in Queensland. I want to reinforce some of his remarks. I would like the Minister for Urban and Regional Development (Mr Uren), who is at the table, to tell the people of Australia why the Queensland Government’s application for a $2m loan was turned down and why the Government has granted only half of the amount that was asked for.

The honourable member for Petrie spelt out in very great detail the break-up of the $3.1m that was allocated under the 1973 legislation. Most of that money- I think he said $ 1.8m- was to go to Brisbane and the rest was to go to the Gold Coast and the Shires of Albert and Pine. The honourable member pointed out that under the new legislation which we are discussing now the Gold Coast, which still has a substantial area to be sewered, is not included in the allocation. We want the Minister to tell us why the Queensland Government is being granted only half of the amount for which it applied particularly in view of the fact that a very large and favourable area of Australia- I refer to the Gold Coast- is not included in the allocation provided by this Bill. The Bill provides for $lm, $400,000 of which is for the construction of a treatment works at Luggage Point; and $600,000 of which is for a pumping station at Eagle Farm. We all realise that there has been tremendous progress in Queensland, and this has been as a result of the favourable climate created by many years of good, sound, stable government. The City of Brisbane is 90 per cent sewered; Townsville is 95 per cent sewered; Rockhampton and the city of Toowoomba are fully sewered It is reasonable to point out that one of the positive reasons that this has happened has been the encouragement given to the local authorities in Queensland by the Local Government Department, the Treasurer and the Government of that State in allocating a 40 per cent subsidy for sewerage works.

We want to know why under this present proposal no subsidy is being given to encourage other areas to have this very desirable amenity.

We want to know why the Australian Government is saying that these areas can have this amount of loan money but is not providing a corresponding subsidy. In effect the Government is saying: ‘You can have this money at the long term bond interest rate’. I understand that is 8.9 per cent over 40 years. I support the arguments advanced by the honourable member for Petrie when he asked the Minister to let us know why he will not follow the magnificent example of the Country-Liberal Government in Queensland of providing a subsidy to local government authorities.

It is important to realise also that the proposal of this Labor Government under the original legislation actually referred to money being made available only to cities with a population of more than 60,000. We submit that this is a most unreasonable outlook because it denies people who live in rural towns and rural cities access to this type of finance. I realise that, following representations made from this side of the House and from governments which do not share the same political faith as the Government in the control of the national Parliament, the money will be made available to cities with a population of more than 20,000 people. But there are country towns which do not have populations of this size, and we submit that they are also entitled to have this amenity. Additionally it should be pointed out that people who live in the smaller country towns often have to pay for a scheme in toto or not have it at all. Certain parts of a large city can be sewered and the cost spread over all of the ratepayers. The consequent effect on each of the ratepayers is very marginal. But in a country area such a cost could create great personal hardship when a whole area is sewered. Such a scheme cannot be cut off in midstream because it usually takes a period of 3 years to complete the project once the plans and specifications have been drawn up.

I submit that it is very essential that the present proposal should be extended to include smaller country towns, particularly when we realise that as a means of decentralisation elderly people are being encouraged to retire to these smaller country towns where they are close to their friends, close to the environment into which they have been born and in which they have grown up and to which as members of the community they have contributed. We would prefer them to stay in these rural towns rather than lose their identity as cogs in a machine in the big city areas. One way in which encouragement could be given is to allow the smaller country towns- that is, those towns with a population well under 20,000- to participate in the distribution of this government finance.

We submit that a good case could be made out for those country towns which do not have sewerage to be given a grant under the Government ‘s regional unemployment scheme. This then could be a continuing project and by its very nature could provide work for people who are unemployed. I ask the Minister for Urban and Regional Development to take up with the Minister for Labor and Immigration (Mr Clyde Cameron) the fact that some assistance could be given to country towns which do not have sewerage under the regional unemployment grant scheme. We submit that sewerage is an everyday necessity and it should not be the subject of a cheap political football, as some honourable members have used it in this debate. We want to point out also that unless positive moves are made to implement the spending of this money as soon as possible there will be an increasing debt on the local authorities in the years to come, not only because money is too dear but also because of the fact that since December 1972 we have experienced a massive increase in the inflation rate. I understand that the inflation rate has been reliably assessed now at an all-time high of 20 per cent.

I want to conclude by correcting a few misstatements of fact which were made by none other than our leading citizen, the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam). One would expect that he at least would check the facts before making a public statement so that he knows he is telling the truth. I say this quite honestly because at Townsville last weekend the Prime Minister of this country, in an endeavour to humiliate and disparage the greatest Australian and Queenslander in the person of Mr Joh BjelkePetersen, either resorted to the position of saying something about which he did not know the facts or resorted to the position of deliberately telling untruths.

Mr Lucock:

– His credibility is in question.

Mr McVEIGH:

-As the member for Lyne said, his credibility is in question, and I think we appreciate that remark coming from a man of his outstanding honesty and integrity. The Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) said that Townsville was eligible for assistance under the Labor Government’s national sewerage program in 1973-74. Mr Bjelke-Petersen would not take the money, the Prime Minister said. I submit that already in his second reading speech the Minister has said that Queensland applied for $2m but the Government is going to give them only $lm.

Queensland asked for twice as much as it got. Yet the Prime Minister goes up to Townsville and says that Mr Bjelke-Petersen would not take the money. I leave it to the people of the nation to judge who was right and who was wrong. The Prime Minister said at Townsville: ‘The other States are getting on with the job. Why should the people of Queensland put up with unsewered houses because of Mr Bjelke-Petersen ‘s dislike of Canberra’. What hypocrisy! The member for Petrie (Mr Hodges) spelt out some facts quite explicitly in relation to Queensland and I compliment him on the great amount of research he did to let honourable members know the position there. He spelt those things out. I submit that in the final analysis if the Prime Minister wants to go running around Queensland making statements which are inaccurate and totally off-beam, setting out to humiliate a great man, it should be the Prime Minister who carries the can.

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

Mr MORRIS:
Shortland

-Mr Deputy Speaker, the provision of sewerage facilities is a basic health service and it is pleasing to note that the Opposition supports the Sewerage Agreement Bill 1974 which, on receiving royal assent, will provide $3. 95m to Victoria, $lm to Queensland and $3m to Western Australia for the further reduction of sewerage backlogs. Previous Opposition speakers have criticised the proposition that this money is in the form of long term loans. The facts are that it was the Australian Labor Party which years ago accepted Federal responsibility for the provision of this basic health service. The Opposition needs to be reminded that it was during the rapid urbanisation that occurred throughout 23 years of successive Liberal Party-Country Party administrations prior to December 1972 that the major portion of the present sewerage backlog was built up. During that 23 years there was a deliberate avoidance by Liberal Party-Country Party governments of the responsibility to assist the sewerage construction authorities of Australia in meeting their works programs. This Australian Labor Government, the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) and the Minister for Urban and Regional Development (Mr Uren) are to be commended for the speed with which they have moved to implement the promises made prior to the 1972 Federal election.

The Sewerage Agreement Act 1973 appropriated $30m of loan funds at the long term bond rate to the States for backlog sewerage works in 1973-74. This amount was additional to the normal allocation of loan money made each year to the States. The addition of $7.95m provided by this BUI makes a total of $37.95m for 1973-74. If there had not been a change to the Australian Labor Government in December 1972 not one cent would have been provided for the purposes covered by this BUI. That is something the Opposition might well note, much as it may grieve honourable members opposite. It is worth noting also that the 1973-74 program included 81 reticulation projects, 35 main, sub-main and carrier sewer projects, 6 pumping stations and 10 treatment plants. In my electorate of Shortland, as a result of this Government’s assistance to the Hunter District Water Board in the past year we have seen the speeding up of the major sewerage construction scheme at Warners Bay SouthEleebana Valentine, the conduct of preparatory ground water tests at the low lying areas of Blacksmiths-Pelican, and the commencement of the sewerage construction scheme at Fennell Bay-Bolton Point. These 3 areas abut the foreshores of Lake Macquarie, the most beautiful salt water lake in Australia. a lake into which flow presently 19 surcharge and sewage outlets and a lake which was destined to become a sewage swamp unless urgent measures of assistance to the Hunter District Water Board, as provided by this Labor Government, had commenced.

Long term loan funds amounting to $1.2m were made available to the Hunter District Water Board in 1973-74 and I am hopeful that the Board will receive a much larger sum in the Budget provisions. I was particularly pleased to hear the Minister for Urban and Regional Development announce at question time this morning that financial assistance for sewerage construction in 1974-75 will be in the form of 30 per cent non-repayable grants and 70 per cent long term loan funds.

Mr McLeay:

– Not good enough.

Mr MORRIS:

-Nothing would be good enough for you. This Government has repeatedly reaffirmed its pledge to upgrade the quality of our environment, and sewerage is a major part of that upgrading process. This BUI is further evidence of our determination to carry out that pledge. Earlier I mentioned Lake Macquarie and the 19 surcharge and sewage outlets that discharge into its waters. The polluted liquids that enter the lake, particularly at times of heavy rain, have a detrimental effect on the waters and on the marine life of the lake. It is not reasonable to expect the Hunter District Water Board to shoulder the blame for the present position. It is expending in excess of 50c in the $ 1 of its present revenue to service the existing debt, as is the case with most other major sewerage construction authorities in Australia today. The Board is limited in the amount it can raise by way of rate revenue from home owners. It needs approximately $125m now if it is to eliminate the total backlog of works in its region and construct adequate treatment facilities. Blacksmiths-Pelican, which has been settled for over 70 years and is an outer suburb of Newcastle adjacent to the Pacific Highway, is still serviced by a nightcart sanitary pan service, a service of winch the residents are not proud, a service which lends odours to the summer nights when the population of the area is increased by the influx of holiday makers, especially when the cans spill over.

A few miles from Lake Macquarie on the ocean shores of Nine Mile Beach sewage from Belmont and adjacent areas is discharged raw into the sea without any treatment whatsoever, a completely unsatisfactory situation. I bring this to the attention of the Minister because I want him in the not too distant future to inspect the Nine Mile Beach outlet and the BlacksmithsPelican area in general to see the damage being caused to the area and the harm being caused to the environment and to see the conditions under which the residents live. I know the Hunter District Water Board wants to construct a treatment works, but it needs the money and I hope that the Minister, once having inspected the existing services, will want to see a proper treatment works established so that the effluent being discharged into the sea will be of an acceptable standard.

Just a few miles further north up the coast at Burwood Beach is another Hunter District Water Board sewage outlet into the ocean. There is a simple screening process at the outlet which is the only process carried out before the effluent is discharged into the sea at a rate ranging from 10 million gallons up to 60 million gallons daily. Dependent on prevailing currents and winds, the effluent moves north to the beaches in the electorate of my colleague, the Minister for Transport (Mr Charles Jones) or south down the coastline of my own electorate. Again, the construction of suitable treatment works will involve expenditure in the region of $8m to $15m, depending on the length of the outward pipe to sea. Clearly, projects of this magnitude cannot be financed internally by the Hunter District Water Board. The kind of assistance being provided in this legislation by the Australian Labor Government to the States of Victoria, Western Australia and Queensland is what is needed by the Hunter District Water Board.

Criticism has been levelled at this Government by previous Opposition speakers because this Bill provides long term loan money. They claim that it all should be by way of a non-repayable grant. And these are the people who would not provide one cent over a period of 23 years to sewerage construction authorities. I have already mentioned the Minister’s statement that the funds in the 1974-75 program will be 30 per cent nonrepayable grants and 70 per cent long term loans. It must be emphasised that when funds are made available on a non-repayable basis to develop services consideration should be given the fact that unless the charges -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Dr Jenkins)Order! The honourable member for Darling Downs was heard in silence and with courtesy. I suggest that he extend the same courtesy to the honourable member for Shortland.

Mr McVeigh:

– I apologise to the honourable member.

Mr MORRIS:

-I accept the apology. But unless the charges to the users of those services include the cost of the capital those users are subsidised in a quite arbitrary and equitable way because the subsidy is not related to need. The demand for those services may be artifically inflated. That can result in a misallocation of resources. For the benefit of the members of the Australian Country Party who were present in the chamber I point out that at pages 26 and 27 of the bible to which they ascribe- the Coombs report- a detailed explanation of the use of nonrepayable moneys and non-repayable grants is set out.

Constant reference was made by Opposition speakers earlier to the results of the New South Wales local government elections last Saturday which they have chosen to interpret as a measure of public appreciation of the Labor Government’s progressive policies towards local government. Their interpretation is wrongly based and totally inaccurate. They have neglected to state that last Saturday the Australian Labor Party won a majority on the Newcastle City Council for the first time in history and that it regained the majority in the nearby Cessnock City Council. The correct interpretation of the New South Wales local government elections is that the changes occurred in the representation in the Sydney area because of- wait for it- the low turnout of voters because the Liberal-Country Party Government in New South Wales some years ago abolished compulsory voting at local government elections- a determined backward move, a move which has undermined people’s confidence in local government, a move which was designed to dampen public interest and a move which was successfully designed, along with the gerrymandered Sydney City Council boundaries, to put an undercover LiberalCountry Party organisation in control of the Sydney City Council. Let us hope that the Country Party Minister for Local Government in New South Wales will recognise his public responsibilities and reintroduce compulsory voting for the next local government elections, as he has promised on a number of occasions in the past

To return to the use of the funds to be provided by this Bill, the words in each of the 3 States covered by the Bill have already commenced. Without the financial assistance that is being provided by this program of the Government to overcome the sewerage backlog and if the present sewerage authorities were left to the financial resources that existed prior to December 1972, the present backlog would extend well into the twenty-first century. Solely as a result of the programs initiated by this Government in 1973 it is confidently expected that the backlog will be eliminated by 1982-83. The deficiency in past sewerage provisions by Liberal-Country Party governments has contributed in varying degrees to other urban problems. A major one has been the pollution of ocean, lake and river waters. The deficiency in the sewerage system of East Melbourne has resulted in the pollution of beaches in nearby Port Phillip Bay. Water samplings there showing E.coli counts above the maximum permissible levels have been consistently recorded.

Mr McLeay:

-What is E.coli?

Mr MORRIS:

-I will tell the honourable member for Boothby when he has half an hour to spare. Inadequately treated sewage from Brisbane pollutes Moreton Bay. The septic tank system in Perth is polluting the underground water in the porous sandstone beneath the city. The ground water in Perth could well become a source of drinking water. Obviously urgent action and federal financial assistance is required. That is what the Government is providing in this legislation.

While much has been said on both sides of this chamber about the domestic needs of sewerage services little has been said about the disposal of liquid industrial wastes. The acceptable disposal of liquid industrial wastes is a most difficult problem that is facing most of our industrialised population centres. For instance in the Hunter Valley region, remembering that Australia’s first steelworks were built in Newcastle 59 years ago in 1915, there is no authorised or satisfactory facility for the disposal of liquid industrial waste. Newcastle and the Hunter Valley region- the industrial capital of our nation- do not have that basic facility. Successive State and Federal governments ignored that deficiency for 59 years. The result has been the progressive pollution of ground water, streams and rivers. Daily deleterious substances are discharged into those waters. As yet there is no firm proposal to establish works to treat liquid industrial waste so that it may be discharged as an effluent of an acceptable quality into the waterways of the region. The proper disposal of persistent and hazardous liquid industrial waste is a problem that plagues aU industrial cities. In the absence of State and Federal government action in the years prior to 1972 the councils and representatives of all the responsible authorities in the region embracing the electorates of Shortland, Hunter, Lyne, Patterson and Newcastle -

Mr James:

– And Robertson.

Mr MORRIS:

– And Robertson, formed in May 1973 the Newcastle Regional Waste and Pollution Advisory Panel to find a means of establishing a suitable liquid waste disposal faculty. There are many factors that have to be examined in relation to the provision of such a facility. Consideration has to be given to the effect of the liquid industrial waste, especially the persistent and hazardous wastes, on underground waters, on mineral resources and on waterways and agricultural resources. Consideration has to be given to the short term effects as well as to the long term effects and to the possibility of the ignition of subterranean fires and the results that may follow the flooding of the area, in addition to the transportation of the liquid waste to the disposal facilities. Early in 1975 the Panel will be conducting a feasibility study in the region to determine a site and a satisfactory faculty. I feel that that is a project to which the Department of Urban and Regional Development could well give assistance and bring expertise and in which, hopefully, it could participate. The Panel Will meet on 15 October at Newcastle University. I commend its meeting to a representative of the Department of Urban and Regional Development because that is an area to which sufficient emphasis has not been given in the past. It is a problem of urban planning, particularly of industrial urban planning, and it needs top level expertise and top level people to find the answers. I commend the Panel for the initiative it has shown in developing a program to try to find the answer and to try to develop a facility

I commend the BUI to the House.

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

– in reply- In summing up the debate on the motion for the second reading of this Bill I would like to point out that this is the end of the allocation for the first year’s program. The legislation would have been carried through to finality if the double dissolution had not been brought about. Requests were made by each of the States. Actually if we had made available the expenditure that was required to meet our commitments we would have had to make available $83m in the first financial year. The situation is that in discussions with the State governments and the sewerage authorities we found out that both men and material were not available. So we had set up before Cabinet a program for a $50m expenditure and a $30m expenditure. We took die lower figure in the first year because we were concerned about the problems that were being caused in the construction industry due to the pressure for both men and material.

We stated quite clearly to the States that if they could carry out programs in excess of that figure we would do our best to meet their requests. Consequently in relation to environmental matters in connection with Port Phillip Bay the Premier of Victoria sought a further $3.95m. We agreed to that program. That clarifies the situation in relation to Victoria. Perth had set up its program in anticipation. Because it was said that unless a further $3m was made available last year- that amount was requested last year by the Minister for Works in the former Labor Government, Mr Jamieson unemployment would occur in that sector, the money requested was made available. From Queensland there was a request for $2m. This proposal was discussed and an agreement reached with the Queensland authorities. Enormous pressure had been imposed on men and materials in clearing up the flood problem in Queensland. The Australian Government made more than $50m available for work in the Moreton region. This money enabled works and repairs to be carried out and compensation to be paid.

Mr Hodges:

– Were the discussions with Clem Jones?

Mr UREN:

– Our discussions in Queensland were with the Co-ordinator-General’s Department. If honourable members were aware of the discussions that took place with the States they would realise that in the proposed program and in other programs to overcome urban problems there has been a spirit of co-operation and coordination. Sewerage is an enormous problem. The first spokesman for the Opposition, the honourable member for Boothby (Mr McLeay), said it would cost $ 1,000m to catch up with the sewerage backlog in Victoria. The present estimate of the total cost of a works program to attain the objective of sewerage of all urban areas of Australia is $3,800m at June 1974 prices. The contribution required from the Australian Government is likely to be about 40 per cent of that amount. The Australian Government will be making available approximately $ 1,500m. I announced this morning that there will be new financial agreements.

Criticism has been made of the financial arrangements. I stress that in most cases an antiLabor administration was responsible for the current need for the proposed sewerage programs. It was during the 23 years of mismanagement by previous Liberal-Country Party governments in the Federal sphere that the enormous State debt burden was created. I ask honourable members to bear in mind that it will cost $3,800m on June 1974 prices to catch up with the urban sewerage backlog in this nation.

This morning I explained that for every $ 1 collected by the Perth authority 50c must be paid to service the debt charge. In Sydney the cost is 52c in every $1; in Newcastle 53c, and in Melbourne, where there has been a non-Labor administration since 1 955, it will cost 58c in every $ 1 to service the debt charge. Since 1955 Victoria has been administered by Liberal-Country Party forces and, until 1972, in the Federal arena there were anti-Labor administrations led, firstly, by Sir Robert Menzies, then by Mr Holt, followed by Mr Gorton and Mr McMahon. In the Federal arena we had a musical chairs government. The internal debt of the Federal Government hardly changed between 1950 and 1973 but the debt of semi-government authorities- sewerage charges play an important part- increased by 2,800 per cent. So let Opposition members not criticise the present Government. It was the Whitlam Government that said it would try to solve the sewerage problem as part of an overall urban problem.

The honourable member for Boothby referred to inflationary pressures. One of the major objectives of this Government is to curb inflation. Inflation was created by private enterprise and it commenced in 1971. In the 2 years from 1971 Australia’s overall liquidity increased by some $2,000m because in that period our exports exceeded our imports. However some $3, 000m of foreign capital flowed into Australia. Men and materials were in short supply in that period. A further $2,000m was released by the fringe banking institutions without any control by the then Federal Government. On the question of liquidity I point out that in 1970-71 the private banks liquidity was $4,500m, in 1971-72 it was $4,900m and in 1972-73, $5,900m. In May 1974 there was $8,900m or an increase of $2,000m between May 1973 and May 1974. One-third of this was triggered off by the Reserve Bank’s expression of opinion that we were in for a massive withdrawal of capital after the December and February appreciations of the Australian dollar.

If one examines sanely where inflationary pressures were created, one appreciates that when an enormous amount of capital is infused into the economy in such a way that money is chasing too few goods and too few men and materials, one has an understanding of the real situation. We, as a national Government, are trying to solve these problems. It is incredible to think that in 1974 50 per cent of a city of the magnitude of Perth is unsewered. An anti-Labor Administration has the financial resources to sewer Perth much earlier. It is utterly stupid to think that in this day and age when we can put men on the moon one in every 6 families in Sydney and Melbourne are still living in unsewered areas. From an environmental viewpoint we not only want to sewer all urban areas but also to make sure that there is environmental protection of all areas, such as Port Phillip Bay. Perth is concerned about its water supply because in the future it might have to rely on subterranean water. We can no longer permit areas to be unsewered. We must take account of the possible long term consequences if areas are not sewered. In Brisbane at present what is almost raw sewage is being poured into Moreton Bay.

AU Australians must be sane about these matters. The Australian Government has a national responsibility as part of its interconnected policy It believes that everything is connected to everything else in urban living and it is taking upon itself a responsibility to work with State and local authorities in providing sewerage works and in ensuring proper environmental standards for our nation. I commend the Bill to honourable members. As I announced this morning, the money to be made available in the first year of the program will be made available at the long term Commonwealth bond rate and will be repayable over 40 years. These are the best financial terms given to any sewerage authority. The sewerage authorities usually have to pay at least one-half per cent to three-quarters per cent more than the long term Commonwealth bond rate, and instead of being able to repay the loan in 40 years they usually have to repay within 1 5 to 20 years.

When my State colleagues and I entered into an agreement for the 1973-74 financial year only, I said that when we had more facts and details and more information available I would then put a submission to my Cabinet colleagues for a better financial deal for the States. Having done that, I announced this morning that my colleagues supported the attitude of my Department and I and had made grants available. The money we are making available is all by way of grant, because it is above the normal loan allocation that is made each year at the Australian Loan Council. All this money is being made available by way of grant under section 96 of the Constitution. In future 30 per cent of it will be provided as an interest free non-repayable grant and the remaining 70 per cent will be provided at the long term Commonwealth bond rate. Those terms will assist the sewerage authorities to improve their environmental levels and lower their debt burden, and will assist the States, local sewerage authorities and local government authorities to get on with the job of sewering all our urban communities. I hope that all honourable members Will support the principles as set out for the 1973-74 period of our new on-going 3-year program.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

BUI read a second time.

Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.

Third Reading

Motion (by Mr Daly)- by leave- proposed:

That the Bill be now read a third time.

Mr RUDDOCK:
Parramatta

– I want shortly, if I may, to make a number of comments in relation to a matter of research on which I was elaborating earlier. I believe that the limited funds made available to the various State authorities, such as the Melbourne and Metro.politan Board of Works and the Metropolitan Water Sewerage and Drainage Board, for sewerage works indicate that it is beyond their capacity to engage in what I see as a very important need for the development of a national -

Mr Uren:

– I rise to a point of order. In what way is this relevant to a third reading speech?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Scholes:
CORIO, VICTORIA

-The comments on the third reading of the BUI must relate to the BUI. I would suggest that the honourable member is in order only in discussing the actual Bill, not matters which would normally be raised at the second reading stage and which flow from the Bill. The honourable member must debate the Bill itself on the third reading.

Mr RUDDOCK:

-I will save my remarks for another occasion. I think the Bill really omits to cover certain matters that the Government ought to be dealing with. Quite properly, I think, this matter ought to have been covered in my speech at second reading stage, but unfortunately the allotted time was inadequate.

Mr McVEIGH:
Darling Downs

-I would like the Minister for Urban and Regional Development (Mr Uren) to advise the House why the application of the Queensland Government for $2m was refused.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member would be out of order in raising this matter.

Mr McVEIGH:

-I am referring to Part II of the Schedule to the Bill, Sir.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-The honourable member is referring to matters arising from the Bill that could appropriately have been raised in Committee.

Mr McVEIGH:

-I am dealing with Part II of the Schedule to the Bill, which sets out the agreement under which the sum of $lm was granted to Queensland.

Mr Uren:

– I rise on a point of order. If the honourable member had been in the House earlier he would have known that I explained in detail why Queensland did not get $2m.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! I really do not think the Minister is taking a point of order.

Mr McVEIGH:

- Mr Deputy Speaker, I apologise for not being in the chamber. I had an urgent telephone call from a sick colleague and I had to leave. If the Minister has given the explanation, I thank him for it.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a third time.

page 1710

SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT

Motion (by Mr Daly) agreed to:

That the House, at its rising, adjourn until 3 o’clock p.m. tomorrow.

page 1710

BILLS RETURNED FROM THE SENATE

The following Bills were returned from the Senate without amendment:

Papua New Guinea Bill 1974

Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Bill 1974 Broadcasting and Television Bill 1 974 Asian Development Fund Bill 1 974

page 1710

SERVICE AND EXECUTION OF PROCESS BILL 1974

Bill received from the Senate and read a first time.

Sitting suspended from 6.12 to 8 p.m.

page 1710

APPROPRIATION BILL (No. 1) 1974-75

Second Reading (Budget Debate)

Debate resumed from 17 September (vide page 129 1 ), on motion by Mr Crean:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr SNEDDEN:
Leader of the Opposition · Bruce

- Mr Speaker, I wish to move an amendment to the question before the Chair. I move:

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 Budget fails to tackle Australia ‘s economic crisis, in that:

Unemployment is permitted to grow and the prospect for school leavers is prejudiced.

Inflation is accelerated.

Existing poverty is ignored and new poverty is created.

Personal income tax is increased 45 per cent.

Living standards will be lowered.

Private enterprise is stifled.

Government power is further centralised.

Individual incentive and thrift is penalised.

A double tax is levied on estates. and because the Government:

has made the Budget a socialist vehicle to intensify the attack on the States and break down the free enterprise system.

believes the absurdity that the Government can spend without people paying or can build without people producing.

has preached private restraint but has threatened its achievement by its own Government extravagance.’

This Budget has failed in the most complete sense. Within 3 hours of its delivery, the President of the Australian Labor Party forecast the need for a mini-Budget. Its foundations are already crumbling, only 7 days after it was revealed. The Treasurer (Mr Crean) has already said that he is willing to reduce taxes if necessary. Why was this not done in the Budget? This Budget will fail those who are already unemployed and those who will be unemployed before Christmas. It will fail those who have already suffered most and who can protect themselves least from the brutal impact of worsening inflation. It will fail Australians who want to develop and build this nation through their individual energy and initiative, through their investment and risk-taking. In the truest sense it will fail

Australia. It will put the brake on personal and national progress. The growth it will stifle will never be recovered. We will come out of the morass some time but meantime what has been lost will remain forever lost.

The Budget bears an economic label. But the documents presented by the Treasurer last Tuesday with his Speech are no more than a masquerade. It is a narrow, cynical and thoroughly disreputable attempt to mount a political survival exercise of a discredited Labor Government. It ignores unemployment. It would have us as a nation accept the abhorrent proposition that unemployment is tolerable so long as it does not reach a level of 4 per cent to 5 per cent. And this from the Party claiming to speak for the working man! This from the self proclaimed guardians of social justice and equity! The Budget is built around continued high inflation. We are to have the worst of both worlds. We are promised inflation at 20 per cent and we are guaranteed unemployment of people and resources. It is a prescription for and a description of stagflation.

This Government will forever be remembered as the Government which resorted to the highest unemployment for a generation in pursuit of a blind and callous doctrine of attempting a massive transfer of resources to the public sector. In the broadest sense this is a Budget which blatantly assumes a lowering in the living standards of ordinary Australians. At the same time, it fails to ease the burdens of the very poorest Australians. It goes further. It will create an extra dimension of poverty in this country. There is no more certain way to impoverish a man and his family than by taking away his job. Even if a man loses his job for a few months, it is a setback of major proportions. Unemployment rose in 1972- we are constantly reminded- but we moved to correct it. But the number unemployed is many thousands more today than it was then. That is the magnitude of the problem for which this Government has to answer.

page 1711

QUESTION

ORIGINS OF THE CURRENT CRISIS

Let there be not the slightest doubt as to the origins of our current economic problems. They are directly attributable to the policies of this paralysed and divided Government and the irresponsible promises of its election campaigns. The Australian public wonders how, in 20 months, this Government could reduce a stable, prosperous economy to its crippled condition today. The story is simple. Government spending exploded during the first half of 1973. This was extremely inflationary. At a time when the economy was already under quite obvious demand pressure, the money fed into the economy rose at a rate of 30 per cent in the June quarter of 1973 and 20 per cent in the September quarter. This was directly due to the Labor Government’s expansionary spending policies. The Government’s Budget deficit in the second half of 1973 was an unprecedented $ 1,860m. There has never been anything like that in the history of this country.

There were other pieces of economic stupidity which have already set back the job prospects for tens of thousands of Australian families. Most of them are probably trade unionists who thought a Labor government would help them keep their jobs. The 25 per cent across the board tariff cut decision was taken over a weekend, without full consultation, and without the faintest conception of the adjustment problems that it would bring, and has now brought, to certain industries and the towns and cities that depend on them. Launceston, Adelaide and many others know this unhappiness.

Next came the credit squeeze. The financial tap was suddenly and brutally turned off. Interest rates jumped to unprecedented levels. Housing mortgages, overdraft borrowing and personal loans jumped many per cent. Growth of money available to the economy dropped to less than 5 per cent. Yet, Labor’s policies had pushed wage increases above the 1 5 per cent range, later to go over 20 per cent, and now estimated in this Budget to be 22.5 per cent. It was natural that unemployment would result. Unknowingly- and this must be said with the greatest charity- the Labor Government had already chosen the unemployment option.

Yet, when I said on 3 1 October last year that these measures would result in rising unemployment and a possible recession in 1974, the Government recklessly waved my statement aside. What I warned against has happened. I will restate what I said then because it is relevant now. I said:

The likely result of these measures is that the Government sector will continue to expand- but there could be a rapid and sudden cutback in the rate of growth of the money supply. If unemployment is to be avoided, the rate of expansion of liquidity, or the monely supply, needs to be gradually reduced.

The inflationary Budget of 1973 produced accelerating demand inflation and inflationary expectations which led to the cost pressures that we have today. A brutal credit squeeze with monetary policy being used too harshly and too late, superimposed on the ill-advised tariff cuts, all combined to produce the unemployment and high inflation that we have today.

In its desperate search for excuses the Labor

Party has grasped at the argument that inflation was imported. That claim is exposed for the myth that it is by figures released recently by the

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and

Development. Mr Speaker, I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a table showing consumer prices in OECD countries.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Mr SNEDDEN:

– These figures show that Australia’s inflation rate during the 1960s was the lowest of all in the OECD countries. They show that under the Labor Government the acceleration in inflation has been greater than in any other OECD country. That is what we have to be proud of in its performance.

page 1712

NATIONAL OBJECTIVES

A budget should have both short and long term consequences. It should be the major platform of a national government aimed at the achievement of the nation’s objectives. By that measure, this Budget fails our destiny. Our national objectives are now endangered. Instead of progressing steadily towards them, we are slipping back. A fundamental priority is the development of our natural resources and the encouragement of human skills. For this, we must have growth. Not growth by stops and starts, or merely measured in depreciating dollars, but steady, progressive growth which lifts our standards, improves our prosperity, and gives us the means to go on developing. By achieving this steady growth and development, we build the confidence that is necessary to the success and expansion of our rural and mineral industriesour manufacturing and commercial industries. Fundamental to this is the other major national objective- full employment. The Liberal and Country parties in government followed these objectives and achieved a period of prosperity which lifted Australia into the middle rank of nations and set us on a road to a bright and confident future.

During the decade of the sixties, wages rose by an average of Vh per cent a year- oh, for those days- but prices rose by an average of only 3 per cent- oh, for those days- and we had full employment- oh, for those days. Those conditions must be restored. In contrast, since the commencement of 1973, the average weekly wage earner has actually lost 2 per cent of his take home pay through the combined effects of high taxation and high inflation. His pay has gone up by 25 per cent. But prices have gone up by 20 per cent and his tax has gone up by over 60 per cent. We need to return to an Australia where each individual person can succeed so that the whole community can succeed. We need that overall success to make progress with our other vitally important national objectives: The education of Australians; the care of the aged and retired; the complete elimination of poverty and the assurance that every Australian is given the opportunity for individual success; first class medical care for all; help for the less developed nations; the protection of the environment; the improvement of our cities and towns. There are many more.

The tragedy is that our national objectives are under threat. Our national direction has gone astray under the Labor Government. Those are our long term objectives. To ensure that we can achieve them, these are our short term objectives: First, we must stop unemployment rising and turn it down. Next, we must arrest inflation and turn it down. Then we must ensure that all the resources of this society are fully employed in a proper, sustainable balance between the public and private sectors so that we can progress in a stable and ordered way. That is what the Budget ought to have done.

page 1713

THE CORRECT ECONOMIC STRATEGY

The Opposition’s economic strategy remains valid. It remains the only coherent program to arrest inflation and restore full employment and stability. This is an indictment of the uselessness of this Budget as an economic prescription. Our program has won gathering support from professional economists and other groups, including many of those people who did not at first accept it. While he was still on speaking terms with matters economic, the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) temporarily adopted parts of our program- the easy parts.

We have set out our policies. They are on the record. We have produced printed papers; we have not talked vaguely of an ‘ongoing program’. We produced an economic policy statement prior to the election. I have it in my hand. We reviewed it and published a mid-year economic assessment and review in July. I have that in my hand. The Government was so embarrassed that it refused to allow it to be incorporated in Hansard. On 12 September, prior to the Budget, we set out the Budget strategy and its role in an overall policy, which should have been followed, and I have that in my hand. That statement opened with these words:

The 1974 Budget will be crucial in determining the economic situation next year. It must be seen as a major step towards creating the conditions for a recovery in activity and a declaration in inflation

The major need in this Budget was to restrain government spending- it still is. This restraint is necessary at the present time for 2 principal reasons. Firstly, if demand inflation does take off again next year, it will be from a much higher underlying base rate than the Labor Party inherited at the beginning of 1973. At that time inflation had accelerated from 4lA per cent. In 20 months of Labor government inflation has accelerated to 16 per cent and higher, and is promised to be 20 per cent in this Budget.

Secondly, the credit squeeze has already taken its toll in rising unemployment. Figures released in the coming quarters will also show that our growth is faltering and so is investment activity. This has serious longer term implications. In addition, some companies have already failed, and we fear others will. It is therefore necessary to ease the credit squeeze and set in motion the conditions for a reduction in interest rates. The simple fact is that the greater the responsibility of the Budget in terms of restraining the Government’s demand for resources, the more the credit squeeze can be responsibly eased. If the figures presented in this Budget confirm anything, it is the need for a tax cut of the proportions which I and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Lynch), who is the shadow Treasurer, advocated on 12 September. Labor’s 2 Budgets- last year’s and this- have almost doubled the take from personal income taxes on the community. There has been a 95 per cent increase in taxes in 2 Budgets. Given the assumptions underlying this Budget, it would have been possible to reduce income taxes by $ 1,000m and reduce some indirect taxes, and yet still achieve a domestic balance while permitting an increase in spending of about 25 per cent.

It is a tragedy that Labor missed the chance to hold a national conference prior to the Budget. In the action program proposed by the Opposition before the May elections, we advocated the calling together of a national conference prior to the Budget so that a framework for achieving wage restraint could be put to the participants. To hold such a conference after the Budget is to rob it of much of its potential effectiveness, even if meaningful tax cuts had been given, which clearly have not been given. Nevertheless, given the seriousness of the situation and the obvious willingness of some unionists to cooperate, we believe that a national conference is vital. It is still not too late to revise the Budget to hold government spending to a 25 per cent increase and to agree to significant tax cuts. The importance of achieving a workable program of wage and price restraint cannot be overstated.

The tragedy is that this Budget threatens any hope of an agreement. Restraint, coupled with the monetary-fiscal policy mix that we proposed, is the alternative to unemployment.

The band-aid economics of this Budget cannot disguise the real situation. As we made clear, the national conference should be backed up in 3 specific ways. Firstly, the Government should make it clear that monetary growth will not be expanded at a rate beyond that which is adequate to accommodate increases in incomes and prices in accordance with identified guidelines. Second, we have said that we would not shirk from using powers over prices and incomes as a backup measure in conjunction with the States. Third, the Government should restore and strengthen the authority of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission and be prepared to support the Commission in upholding its awards. At the same time, it would be necessary to retain the Prices Justification Tribunal as an integral part of the restraint policy. Even this Government has been fumbling its way towards some form of a national conference through the Moore conference in August and through this week’s national union meetings. There was also the Industrial Peace Conference in December 1973.

The most important reason why these attempts failed to produce real and genuine restraint is that this Government failed to provide the necessary leadership through the establishment of conditions which would allow such a national conference to succeed. Those necessary conditions are fundamentally linked with basic economic strategy. The most important of them is real restraint in the rate of growth of Government spending to enable real spending and easing of the credit squeeze. Equally, substantial tax cuts are essential to success so that the unions can anticipate rises in take-home pay which do not add to costs. The Government must be prepared to state its total economic program- including its budgetary policy, its monetary policy and its tariff and exchange rate policies.

The course of monetary policy is crucial to economic prospects for the coining and ensuing years. To date, under Labor, we have had 2 phases of monetary policies. The first was the rapid expansion in the money supply up to late 1973 when the economy was already under demand pressure. The second was the credit squeeze phase of 1974, with money supply growth rates approaching zero. What we must aim for in the future is a much steadier growth in the money supply, gradually reducing to bring inflation under control without the massive unemployment created by Labor. With wages expected to increase by more than 20 per cent next year, it would be continued insanity to maintain this credit squeeze.

I come now to responsibility for the Budget, if anybody can be found to be responsible for it. This Budget is devoid of economic strategy. Who must bear the responsibility for it? The Treasurer was not its author. He was not allowed to be its author. He has forfeited the respect which his former integrity earned him in this place. It gives me no pleasure to say these words, but the situation demands that they be said. Continually he has simply given in to the political ambitions and doctrinaire empire buildings of his irresponsible colleagues in Cabinet. By his weakness he has allowed this country to plunge into economic difficulties which will scar Australia’s future. His responsibility is exceeded only by the Prime Minister ‘s. For the blame must be first with the Prime Minister, despite his self-confessed economic ignorance, despite his abdication of economic leadership and despite his fixation with the most trivial trend or event- so long as it takes place outside Australia.

While the economic fires are burning at home, the Prime Minister is looking for a bit part on the world stage. He will be gone again on Friday. In the next 6 months he will be absent from Australia 1 week in four. It is the classic political receipe of substituting movement for action. When in doubt, take a trip- the last resort of the political lame duck. Whether here or there, the people of Australia remember his words. They have to stay here and face problems. This was the man who put his name to a document called ‘It’s Time for Leadership’. It was his election speech in 1972. Let us recall now what he said about the economy then. He said:

Will you again entrust the nation’s economy to the men who deliberately, but needlessly, created Australia’s worst unemployment for years? Or to the same men who have presided over the worst inflation for 20 years?

There could be no more an exact description of the past 20 months of Labor mismanagement. Take another quote from that speech:

The Australian Labor Party see inflation control as the Government ‘s responsibility. Not yours.

Those words come from the man who, as Prime Minister, has abdicated all responsibility for inflation. Because of infighting and contradictions between his Ministers, his Government has failed to reach any economic decision at all between the last election day and Budget night, except for one thing and that was to reduce the variable deposit requirement from 33% per cent to 25 per cent to 5 per cent when it did not matter a damn because there were no overseas people wanting to invest in Australia. Take another quote from that ‘It ‘s Time ‘ speech:

Labor’s first priority will be to restore genuine full employment- without qualification, without hedging.

The simple fact, without qualification and without hedging, is that the present level of 2.3 per cent unemployed is the highest in 10 years. It will get worse, as the Treasurer said, as the Minister for Overseas Trade (Dr J. F. Cairns) said, as the Prime Minister said and as the Minister for Labor and Immigration (Mr Clyde Cameron) said. In fact there was a veritable rush to plead the Fifth Amendment by the whole lot of them as to how much unemployment there would be. It is the direct result of the decision by this Government to impose the credit squeeze. What about the Prime Minister’s other window dressing efforts in that 1972 speech? He promised a growth rate of 6 to 7 per cent a year. In this Budget, the Treasury has forecast 2 per cent. I quote again:

Labor will trust the people.

That is what we were told. Is the Prime Minister here? He was not here to listen to the Treasurer. He was teeing up an overseas visit. Have you, the Prime Minister, told the people that during the next year you are planning deliberately to lower their standards of living? No, you have not told them that. Yet that is a fundamental assumption of this Budget. Members of the Labor Party cannot even trust each other- we are told now that there are Ministers who accept and peddle lies. They are not identified and they are not sacked because the Prime Minister lacks the honesty to declare them and lacks the power to sack them.

So much for 1972. Let me catalogue the further catastrophes of 1974 which have destroyed the Prime Minister’s credibility. He told us on 7 May last, in a prepared written statement, that:

Our policies are now beginning to work . . . Price increases are now slowing down as Government policies take full effect. This trend will be confirmed in coming months . . . We are sure that the June quarter will confirm that the inflation trend is downwards.

He said this 1 1 days before the election for the simple reason that he wanted to insinuate himself into office and was not concerned to tell the truth that he must then have known. He told the Premiers Conference a month later; that is, in June this year

The public sector is trying to increase its spending faster than the availablity of resources will permit. This is especially true of capital expenditures . . .We must now slow the rate of increase in Government spending. Some phasing down or deferment of some expenditure plans must occur.

They were the words of the Prime Minister at the Premiers Conference in this very chamber. What happened to that one? The States were plunged into a Budget crisis. Their taxes and charges are going up and their works programs are barely being maintained. But when it came to the Federal Budget we saw a massive rise of one-third in Government spending.

Before the election he told David Frost that Government spending would rise by only 20 per cent. That would only match the inflation that the Budget promises. Then there were the Prime Minister’s words spoken only 4 days before the last election:

I see no reason why taxes, direct or indirect, need to be increased in order to pay for any of our continuing commitments.

Revenues only go up by a third- more than 30 per cent! Tell that to the elderly ‘capitalists’ who will pay an extra levy on the earnings they have invested, or to the widow paying capital gains tax as well as estate duty on her decesased husband ‘s earnings during his life. This follows the Prime Minister’s promise to cut taxes for low and middle income earners, defined in pre-election terms as those on incomes up to $14,000 a year. This was the man who promised $ 1 30m in his Budget for pre-school education and child care, and the man who promised that his Budget would abolish the means test on pensions for those aged between 70 and 74 years.

Remember the election advertisement: ‘Only Whitlam has a program for child care’. Remember the election advertisements: ‘Only Whitlam can reduce inflation by a third’. Perhaps if he left it might happen. If any honourable members were watching ‘A Current Affair’ on 18 September 1972 they would have heard him say:

There’ll be less industrial disputes under us, I’m sure of that.

Compare that with 4.2 million man days lost in the first half of this year. This is the man who has broken his written assurances to the people of the Baltic states, the man who told Australia’s rural producers that they had never had it so good, the self styled greatest Foreign Minister of them all. It is not true that he is going Zaire on his next trip.

The trinity of blame is completed by the Deputy Prime Minister who is the real perpetrator of this disaster called a Budget. His commitment to political dogma, his constant self contradictions, his willingness to blame the system and convert it into a massive state controlled machine, dominate the Budget outcome. The

Deputy Prime Minister’s commitments are sufficiently flexible to allow him to be all things to all men. He can destroy the Treasurer’s miniBudget with a casual comment on a talk back program 12 hours after its delivery. He can want wages to go up on Wednesday and to come down on Saturday. He can want to ease the squeeze and get headlines for it, and 2 weeks later to put it on again. With an economic manager of such impressive inconsistency in control is it any wonder that confidence has disappeared and that there is a feeling of fear and worry about the future which is befuddling the future of every Australian?

page 1716

WHY THE BUDGET FAILS

This Budget is a document which reveals with brutal clarity how far astray the Labor Party is in understanding the real aspirations of Australians, let alone knowing how to fulfill them. It is predicated on the assumption that the union movement will accept this Budget as a sign of good faith and in return begin to exercise the restraint we so desperately require. If we are talking of real and genuine restraint, as opposed to window dressing, it is a gamble at near impossible odds. This is what the Labor Party is saying to the unions- These are my quotes- and one can just hear it being said in those secret conclaves where the unions and the Labor Party come together: ‘We give you inflation at 20 per cent. We give you unemployment. We give you the most massive increase in personal taxation in history. Now what are you going to give us in return?’ How can you expect restraint on those terms? The proposition only needs to be stated for its absurdity to be clear. It is certainly clear to the President of the Queensland Trades and Labor Council, Mr Egerton, who I understood used to be the Prime Minister’s confidant.

page 1716

THE BUDGET AND THE PRIVATE SECTOR

One sentence, on page 3 of the Budget speech, discloses its purpose.

Opposition members- Here comes the great man now.

Mr SNEDDEN:

– We have been exposing the Prime Minister’s inconsistencies. We have been disclosing the untruths that he has peddled. He might have to declare himself as one of his colleagues who accept and peddle lies. At page 3 of the Budget Speech this passage appears:

The relatively subdued conditions in prospect in the private sector provide the first real opportunity we have had to transfer resources to the public sector.

The Budget aggregates disclose the means. Overall spending is up 32.4 per cent; domestic spending is up 33.2 per cent; receipts are up 30.8 per cent; and income taxes are up 45 per cent.

Mr Katter:

– And Australia is up the creek.

Mr SNEDDEN:

– You are not suggesting that was Hiawatha that came in? Let us examine what Labor’s 2 budgets have done. In 2 years Government spending will have risen 59 per cent, total receipts Will have risen 65 per cent and income taxes will have risen 95 per cent. Is it any wonder we are in a mess, with such structural strains imposed on the economy? This is big government out of control, going beyond the limits of responsibility.

The private sector has been squeezed and battered, unemployment has been created, the public sector will claim a rich slice of real resources, and the Labor Party hopes that it can take up unemployment by putting people on the public payroll. That is a dream that has already become a nightmare. But its victims are not the Government; its victims have been the people wanting to buy homes. Its victims have been people already thrown out of work and young Aus.tralians who will leave school in a few months time to face the biggest job shortage for more than a decade. Its victims are the small businesses which make up the major portion of industrial, manufacturing and commercial strength. Its victims include those people who make up the great rural and mining industries. For all of them, this is a Budget of illusion and delusion.

page 1716

THE BUDGET AND INFLATION

With dispassionate fatalism the Budget accepts an increase in average weekly earnings during this financial year of 22.5 per cent, which, on the kindest and most charitable view, predicts an inflation rate of 20 per cent. The Treasury, however, as distinct from the Treasurer, clearly expects that this may turn out to be a conservative figure. On page 88, in Statement No. 4, the Treasury cautions:

In present circumstances this average earnings assumption is even more uncertain that usual.

The Treasury goes on to say:

To the extent that the assumption should involve an under-estimate, inflation and the effect of inflation on the Budget will be that much greater.

We should not forget that this is the Labor Party’s second successive Budget which is deliberately inflationary. But let us look at the one objective it claims will be achieved- the achievement of restraint of wage demands. On the morning after its presentation- and what a lot of heavy heads there were on the morning after- the finance editor of the ‘Age ‘ wrote:

How this can be expected to have any demonstrable effect in contributing to restraint in wage demands is beyond me.

I wish he were wrong, but an analysis of the facts shows that he is correct. One of the central assumptions of this Budget is that there will be a deterioration in the standard of living of the average Australian. whether he be the family man, the trade unionist, the small businessman or the retired person. Against a wage rise forecast at 22.5 per cent, it suggests price rises at 20 per cent. From the 2.5 per cent left over the Budget proposes this unhappy catalogue for the ordinary Australian. The Budget will take 46 per cent more from you in personal income tax. For those of you who are lucky enough to own your own homes, the Government will keep your repayments at record high levels by keeping interest rates up. Those of you who do not own your own homes may never be able to afford one. But the Government will ensure that you pay higher rent because of its new taxes on unearned income. Of course, every one of you will have to pay the increased postal charges and the higher charges and taxes imposed by the State governments, because Mr Whitlam thought, for six or seven weeks back in June or July, that governments should restrain their spending. Of course, when it came to the Federal Government he had forgotten about it. But you will not have to pay for radio and television listening any more, and the trade off for that is that the next step in abolishing the means test will be deferred for a year.

Restraint in wages by co-operation by the trade unions must be a prime objective. The President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions is asked to deliver a guarantee of real restraint. He may get a nice sounding resolution- a set of words proclaiming support for restraint or, as Mr Laurie Short said last night, some other euphemism- but in the context of the Budget handed down last Tuesday night it could not be real. The Prime Minister’s words last night were destructive today of any chance of co-operation between the Government and the trade unions.

page 1717

THE BUDGET AND UNEMPLOYMENT

Unemployment has been caused by the credit squeeze. The fundamental measure which is required to restore confidence, and to restore employment opportunities, is an easing of the credit squeeze. The jobs that have been lost in the private sector can, and should, be re-absorbed by the private sector. Now is the time to stimulate the private sector and restrain government spending; not the opposite. Yet, by opting for continued heavy reliance on monetary policy, the Budget will do nothing to achieve an early improvement in the availability of jobs, an improvement which is urgently needed before the labour market is subjected to the inflow of school leavers at Christmas. Will Mr Hawke get the supplementary Budget which he told me on Budget night he would require from the Government once unemployment reaches 3 per cent or his subsequently lessened figure of 140,000? At the present rate of increase in unemployment that must be only a matter of weeks away. If he does, will it include an easing of the credit squeeze, as he says he wishes to have to provide jobs? It should. It would be right. Yet, at the same time, he wants to increase further the Government’s spending.

The second part is a recipe for deeper troubles and is not reconcilable with easing the credit squeeze. I ask a question of the House, of the Treasurer, of the Prime Minister, of the Minister for Overseas Trade. If these things are to be done why were they not done in the Budget? Why do we have to have increasing inflation and increasing unemployment before they are done? It should be understood that if the Prime Minister has his way- that is, easier credit plus more government spending- the result will be another splurge of demand inflation during next year, together with even higher unemployment later on.

When are we to see the next mini-Budget? Is this going to be the Budget with the shortest life on record? The arithmetic which showed a domestic surplus has been superseded by later decisions. The direction of monetary policy will be of crucial importance to trends in the economy next year. Yet the strategy of the Budget relies on a continuation of the credit squeeze that has already caused so much damage. Both the Treasurer and the Deputy Prime Minister repeatedly contradict themselves and one another on the direction of monetary policy. Yet on reading through the Budget papers one finds, for the first time in my memory, that there is no specific statement relating to monetary policy. The Budget assumes that the average number of employed will grow in 1974-75 by only 2 per cent. Last year the increase was 4.5 per cent. With the potential work force likely to rise by well over 2 per cent in 1974-75, this Budget is assuming a rise in unemployment. It assumes, and accepts, and ignores stagflation.

page 1718

THE BUDGET AND TAXATION

Another major aspect of this Budget, the Government would have us believe, is the socalled cuts in taxation. They are both illusory and dishonest They are not meaningful tax cuts at all. Because of the effect of the progressive scales against the background of the Budget prediction of a 22.5 per cent increase in average weekly earnings, the vast majority of Australians will be paying record increased taxes. If income tax deductions are to rise 46 per cent, I say to the Government: Please do not try to pretend that the majority of Australians will be better off. That will not fool any of the people any of the time.

In the week prior to the presentation of this Budget I set out publicly the clear proposals of the Liberal and Country parties for a responsible overall Budget strategy. Australians are now well aware that the Opposition has for many months been advocating substantial and meaningful reductions in personal taxation as a responsible economic measure. The personal income tax situation in Australia today is really quite appalling. In 1972-73 income tax collections amounted to $4,089m. I do wish the Treasurer would write the figures down. Obviously he is unaware of them. In the next year, 1973-74, which concluded on 30 June last, tax collections amounted to $5, 490m- an increase of $l,400m. In 1974-75- this year- collections are estimated to reach $7,966m. I stated then, in advance of this Budget, that personal income tax collections must be pruned by at least $900m to produce a cut in income tax averaging more than 10 per cent. This would range from more than 20 per cent at the low income end, tapering off at the higher income level.

The imposition of a capital gains tax will need to be examined against the detailed legislation. For example, it is not equitable to tax a capital gain which is due solely to the effects of inflation. The Treasurer himself was unable to answer a question concerning the details of this measure asked last week by the honourable member for Corangamite (Mr Street) who is certainly precise at all times and was precise in that question. The Treasurer fumbled and bumbled. The surcharge on property income is a regressive, damaging and divisive tax. It is a tax on thrift It is a tax on hard work. It is inequitable. It places a tax surcharge on the elderly person who has saved and invested. It will act as a deterrent to savings and investments. It will be passed on to those people who pay rents, including many poor people.

page 1718

THE BUDGET AND GROWTH

This Budget should have been directed towards the achievement of real growth, not only because we need growth in Australia to provide the schools, the hospitals, the defence capacity and the resources for our other national objectives, but also because productivity increase can be a major factor in reducing inflation. Yet, far from setting out to increase the productive capacity of the economy this Budget sets out to do precisely the opposite. It imposes a new tax on so-called property income, thus reducing the income to be earned from committing savings to the installation of new physical assets. The continued imposts on the insurance companies strike further at one of the major sources of capital to finance development in this country. Those people who have been paying to insurance policies all these years will get yet another rebuff when they see the reduced bonuses this year for every one of their insurance policies.

The confused arguments of the Fitzgerald report on the mining industry are reflected in the tax measures taken against most branches of the mining industry. The Government will regret very greatly this precipitate decision. The Budget leaves the investment climate in disarray. The prospect of rapidly rising costs and the harsh impact of new taxes when combined with the severe monetary restraints cannot help curtail spending on new plant and equipment. But without new plant and equipment the industrial structure will be aging. It will not be incorporating the latest technology. This means a downturn in productivity. It will not expand the supply of resources in the economy, which is the only long term cure for inflation. What does this mean for future employment? The answers are clear. The present ill conceived policies work against productivity gains, against increasing the flow of resources, and against the expansion of employment. Does the Government really wish to push the work force, or such of it as is employed, into partnership with an increasingly old fashioned stock of industrial machinery and assets? 1973-74, this past year, was declared by Labor Ministers as a boom year, yet the growth of the non-farm product, that is, the industrial and manufacturing sector of our community, was less at 5.6 per cent than was achieved in the previous 10 years under a Liberal government at 5.63 per cent. Page 8 of the Budget statements states the outlook for 1974-75:

It is clear that the pace of economic activity in 1974-75 will be much more subdued than it was in 1 973-74 . . . Over much of the year aggregate demand is expected to be relatively weak and the level of unemployment is expected to increase.

What we got from this Labor Government was a downturn in activity, an upturn in unemployment and an escalation in inflation. That is its record of non-achievement.

page 1719

THE BUDGET AND THE INTERNATIONAL SITUATION

In 1973 the Government made much of the importance of imports for increasing the flow of resources available to the economy. Imports were to be stimulated through upvaluation of the dollar and reduction of tariffs so as to provide more resources and increase the competitive environment in the economy. This rise in imports came about early this year. What now confronts the economy is a continued acceleration in costs, prices and wages and the flow of imports. Excess demand has gone from much of the economy, costs continue to accelerate in their upward spiral and imports become more and more competitive with local manufacturers. The disturbing feature of the situation is the lack of any comment in the Budget on Australia’s international position. There is no mention of how resources are going to be directed, not to the public sector but to restore stability in a rapidly worsening external position. Clearly on such a sensitive issue the Treasurer cannot make explicit the policy guidelines he is working to. But the absence of any comment heightens uncertainty and gives fuel to speculation about the future of the exchange rate of the Australian dollar. Such omissions are an abrogation of responsibility. In this area, as in so many others, the Opposition has fined the valuum by stating a policy- a policy for breaking the link with the United States dollar, a POliCY for a flexible exchange rate and a policy for the development of an Australian exchange market.

page 1719

THE BUDGET PRIORITIES

The other great failure of this Budget lies in its distortion of priorities. There are massive increases for urban and regional development and for culture and recreation but the Budget largely ignores the interim report of the Henderson inquiry into poverty. Page 9 of that report says more about this Budget than anything in the Budget papers themselves. I quote from it:

In spite of the measures taken to increase pensions and benefits in recent years, inflation has prevented much progress being achieved in the reduction of poverty.

What then lies ahead with inflation at 20 per cent? For pensioners the future is clear. It is mapped out in the Budget figures. Pensions are not to be reviewed until autumn 1975, the end of the financial year. By then, the Budget assumes, average weekly earnings Will have increased by 22.5 per cent to over $157 a week. By then, the June quarter, in autumn of 1975, the present pension Will be equal to 19.7 per cent of average weekly earnings. It would require then about $10 a week increase to achieve the POliCy platform on which the Government was elected of 25 per cent of average weekly earnings.

The Budget completely ignores the major recommendation of the Henderson report which concerns child endowment. Let me read this part of the report of the Henderson committee about child endowment:

Poverty amongst children is most damaging to the community in the long run. Children in poverty lack opportunities to develop their abilities to benefit from education and to learn skills and may well become poor, unskilled people and inmates of institutions. Thus, measures to reduce poverty amongst large families deserve very high priority.

The Opposition believes that this area should have received higher priority in the Budget than almost any other. I stated this before the Budget.

There is a complete absence of any housing policy in the Budget. Nothing is more indicative of the Government’s failure in housing than its allocation of $25m for an Australian housing corporation. AU we have seen are task forces and committees. Meanwhile, more and more people have been unable to buy homes and interest rates have gone higher and higher. The scheme of income tax deductions for home mortgage interest is a bad scheme. It is inequitable and does nothing for those who do not own their own homes. It Will cost $130m which could be better allocated- for example, towards a general tax cut. This Will be small compensation to homeowners who have had to find conservatively $300m more in increased interest rates- $ 100m more in annual loan repayment for every increase of one per cent in interest rates. This is a social inequity which is the product of socialism.

The second Labor Budget once again neglects Australia ‘s defence needs. There Will be a decline in defence spending this year in real terms. This is the Government that promised to spend 3.5 per cent of gross national product on our defence. This year’s allocation of $l,500m will represent no more than 2 lA per cent of gross national product in 1974-75.

Whilst education spending has been very substantially increased, this has been overtaken by the incredible and inept decision to reduce taxation deductions for education expenses from $400 to $150. It is a decision that Will force a great number of parents to withdraw their children from private schools- not high income parents, but low and middle income parents. It is a decision which in itself requires the Government to spend more than would otherwise be necessary. We strongly oppose the treatment handed out to the States. The Budget provides for large increases in spending by the Commonwealth. At the same time, the States have been squeezed to the extent that they are raising their taxes and charges in order to maintain essential services and to cover their budgets. The Premiers have been forced into imposing inflationary taxes.

At a time when the rural sctor is in revolt against the Government’s neglect this Budget does nothing to restore confidence in the countryside. The new taxes will hit many in the country. The Government has already absolished the petroleum products subsidy and the superphosphate bounty. The increased postal charges will hit the countryman. Labor has written off country electorates; it has therefore written off the country. The Labor Government has a divisive attitude. It seeks to promote the idea that the interests of rural and urban Australians are in conflict. In fact both sectors are interdependent. The success of one depends on the success of the other.

page 1720

REACTION TO THE BUDGET

The only consistent thing about the Budget has been the community’s reaction to it, a reaction which is summarised in the ‘Australian’ editorial of the morning after:

The crisis confronting this country is not a matter concerning the redistribution of income, urban planning or new carriages for commuter rail lines, important as these things are in their way. It is a matter of inflation, and rising unemployment. Mr Crean ‘s Budget does nothing at all about the one, and will probably tend to accentuate the other . . .

The ‘Sydney Morning Herald ‘ wrote:

Last night’s Budget is hardly an economic document at all and can be viewed much more accurately as the vehicle for the Government’s political programs . . . We are in for a period of stagflation.

The ‘ Daily Telegraph ‘ wrote:

The nation looked in vain last night if it sought leadership from the Australian Government.

The ‘ Melbourne Age ‘said:

The tax cuts ‘ are based on a lie ‘.

It also said:

The Budget strategy is based on inflation or, worse, on stagflation: On wage increases of 22.5 per cent with an increase in the gross domestic product of a paltry 2 per cent.

Could all those people have been wrong? What of the afternoon newspapers? The ‘Melbourne Herald ‘said:

The Budget is therefore not a calculation of our economic course in the coming fiscal year, rather it is a statement of political socialist action. And the strong possibility is that it is an unworkable, dangerous gamble.

The Sydney ‘ Sun ‘ wrote:

Last night’s Budget was deceptive to a point only just short of being dishonest . . . Labor- trying to buy its way out of trouble- has offered the unions a hollow lollypop in return for wage restraint.

The ‘Daily Mirror’ said:

What Australia needed was a Budget designed to fight inflation. Instead, it got massively increased public spending. And a gambler’s challenge to the unions.

The ‘ West Australian ‘said:

The Federal Government has shown that it is not equal to the challenges confronting Australia.

The ‘Mercury ‘ in Tasmania wrote:

For a Government which preaches restraint on private business and begs the unions to do the same, the Budget . . . is a classic example of Do as I say, not as I do ‘.

The ‘ Courier-Mail ‘ in Brisbane said:

The Budget is not anti-inflationary. It will not promote employment. Tax relief is so small it is unlikely to curb union wage demands.

The Adelaide ‘Advertiser’ wrote: . . . the Treasurer’s speech simply failed to come to grips with the paramount economic, social and political issue facing Australia today.

The readers of the ‘Nation Review’ found the following words on its front page:

It has now been demonstrated beyond doubt that the Australian Labor Party cannot govern Australia.

page 1720

QUESTION

CONCLUSION

More than anything else this Budget fails because it represents a denial of the opportunity for a better Australia. On 17 September it was time for sanity and responsibility in economic management, it was time for leadership from the national government in the setting out of a coherent policy for the year ahead, it was time to restore confidence to a shaken community and it was time to give incentive to people to work their way out of the economic doldrum. But for this faltering, directionless Government it is never time. It has wilfully and negligently thrown away this chance to guide our national progress. There is no better way in which to express this failure than to quote the words of the Prime Minister when he opened the election campaign on 29 April- just 5 months ago. He said:

In Australia alone, unemployment and inflation do not march side by side.

That is what he told us. What a travesty that has become. They do now. This Budget has massively failed the Australian people.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! Is the amendment seconded?

Mr Lynch:

– I second it, Mr Speaker.

Mr RIORDAN:
Phillip

-We have just listened to a very dull and dreary speech by the pretender to the throne. It was a speech which was irresponsible, capricious and full of absurdity. It was a speech which was designed to destroy confidence in the Australian economy. It was also a speech in which reference was made to the ‘crippled economy’. Those were the words used by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Snedden). Of course, of those who came to listen to him some dozed off and some did not pay attention. Attempts by the Leader of the House (Mr Daly) to enliven the debate were rebuffed in very vigorous style. Of course, we have heard everything that the Leader of the Opposition said many times before. In fact it was a rehash of the old stuff that he trotted out in the election campaign earlier this year. As he quoted from Press reports perhaps I can qoute from the editorials on the speeches which he made at that time and perhaps some of his own comments. On 1 3 April of this year the ‘Sydney Morning Herald ‘ said:

To be plain, the Opposition’s economic policy as so far expounded does not stand up to economic analysis.

We have heard it again tonight. On 1 May the ‘Australian Financial Review’ said:

Not even the most generous analyst could conclude that Mr Snedden ‘s policy speech last night provided anything like a credible solution to the problem he himself denned, that of inflation. His anti-inflation policy is not credible.

That criticism could not be levelled at him tonight. No criticism could be levelled at his antiinflation policy tonight because he did not have one. He stood here as naked of ideas as one could possibly imagine- carping, harping criticism as Billy the wolf huffed and puffed at the door of the Prime Minister’s Lodge trying to get in, but not a breath was heard behind the door. Not a single suggestion did he make as to how he would cope with the problems that confront our economy and the problems that confront the economies of every nation in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. On 10 May the ‘Australian Financial Review ‘ said:

Snedden ‘s proposals have not excited too much attention -

That also applied tonight as half of his supporters went to sleep- or serious debate because nobody even marginally involved in politics takes them seriously.

On 6 July the Melbourne ‘Age ‘ said:

Snedden is still trying to convince the electorate that he has soft options which will cure inflation. There aren ‘t any. If there were Mr Whitlam ‘s Government and other Govermments throughout the Western world would have already implemented them and inflation would no longer exist as an international problem.

That is what the Press thought of the Opposition’s economic policy at the time the Leader of the Opposition suggested those solutions. He acted with political cowardice tonight because he did not put forward one single suggestion as to how the alternative government would come to grips with this problem.

The Leader of the Opposition said that the Budget ignores the unemployment situation. He claimed that the Government accepts that it is tolerable to have 4 per cent to 5 per cent of the work force unemployed. That suggestion is nonsense. It is not supportable in any way. However, let me cite what occurred in 1971 and let me remind the Australian electorate that the words used tonight have a familiar ring. On 15 April 1971 Mr Snedden said:

Every country which has created or permitted unemployment as a weapon against inflation has failed miserably. We take full employment as a cardinal act of political faith and we will not resort to unemployment to achieve our objective.

That is almost what he said tonight. But in a speech just 9 months later when he was reviewing the 1971 Budget and the dismal unemployment figures which appeared at that time he said:

We have achieved what we set out to do in that we have created an environment in which over award payments are depressed.

In other words he had achieved a situation in which the unions- the working man- had less bargaining power. Therefore he deliberately created unemployment. Somebody said that the unemployment figures are worse now. In fact, they are not. At that time they were standing at 120,574 persons on a greatly reduced work force; so the percentage was significantly higher.

The Leader of the Opposition has claimed that some of the decisions made by the Government are wrong. He said that one of those is on the question of interest rates. The Leader of the Opposition has a rather remarkable record on that subject because he has been known to be slightly contradictory on it. He has advocated many things in relation to the question of interest rates. For example he advocated that they should go up or said they might go up, they should go down or they might stay as they are. In referring to interest rates on 1 April he said they could go still higher. On 10 April he said they would be reduced immediately. On 19 April he said they could not be reduced. On the morning of 1 May he said he could not guarantee that they would not go up. In the afternoon of 1 May he said he believed they probably would rise. Surely a person who makes that sort of contradictory statement is in no position to come into this Parliament tonight and criticise what has been done.

He also claimed that the inflation rate in Australia was greater than in any other country in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Of course that is not correct. He also failed to say that during the period when those who were born to rule- the category A mob- were in control, Australia had the lowest growth rate of any OECD country. I refer to the years between 1967 and 1972. Let us examine the facts of this situation. They do not bear out what the Leader of the Opposition said. For example for the year ended July 1974 retail prices increased in Japan by 25.2 per cent; in France by 1 4.4 per cent; in Italy by 1 8.9 per cent; in the United Kingdom by 17.1 per cent; in Belgium by 13.7 per cent; in Canada by 11.3 per cent with 5.6 per cent unemployment; in the United States of America by 1 1.7 per cent with 5.3 per cent unemployment; in Denmark by 15.9 per cent; in Portugal by 25.9 per cent- the unions can hardly be blamed for that situation there because Portugal does not have any unions; in Spain by 15.2 per cent; in Turkey by 25.9 per cent and in Australia by 14.4 per cent. These figures are all from the same source- the OECD survey.

We have heard an allegation that the national directions have gone astray. We admit we have changed direction. There is no question about it. It is quite deliberate and intended. No longer do the multi-national corporations rule Australia. No longer do the rich and powerful friends of those in Opposition call the tune. No longer are the mining corporations allowed to dictate what tax they will deign to pay. Is there not a reaction to this situation? The developers, the fly-by-night developers and the land speculators are the people who are crying and their allies, their little puppeteers, come in here tonight to cry and whinge on their behalf. The deprived people of Australia, as seen by the Opposition, are the land speculators, the rnining corporations and those involved in foreign takeovers which have been prevented. Of course we change direction.

Massive sums of money are now available for schools, hospitals and homes. Massive sums are being spent on education, on training the work force and on preparing the work force to meet the needs of this community.

One could go on at great length in talking about what the Leader of the Opposition said tonight, but let us examine some of the basic facts. Inflation has existed in Australia for a very long time. Since the end of World War II economists and political leaders have been decrying inflation. Year by year we have been told that next year there would be ruin. I can clearly recall that when the basic wage was increased by f 1 a week in 1949 the people were told that the economy could never stand it. I also recall at the end of 1949 a Liberal-Country Party government being elected in Australia on the promise that it would put value back in the pound yet in 1 950 Australia experienced the highest rate of price increase ever in its history- an increase of 23 per cent or about half as much again as the worst that has occurred under the guidance of the Whitlam Labor Government.

Of course there was demand inflation. What caused that? Let us examine the causes of the demand inflation which was with us until a couple of months ago. First there was a reservoir of demand built up. It was built up because of the uncertainties which resulted from the economic policies of the previous Government during 1971 and 1972. Unemployment was deliberately created by the Liberal Party to put the working man in his place. Secondly there was the failure of previous governments to provide a manpower and training POliCY to allow sufficient skilled manpower to be available to produce the goods and services required by the community. The Chamber of Manufactures and the Bank of New South Wales, two reasonably regarded nonsocialist organisations, conducted a survey earlier this year with respect to productive capacity. For the March quarter 1974 the survey illustrated that 42 per cent of the respondents said that they could not keep up to maximum production because of labour shortages and 29 per cent said it was because of material shortages. In June 1974, 35 per cent blamed labour shortages and 28 per cent blamed material shortages. The survey illustrated that 52 per cent of all labour shortages was with respect to skilled tradesmen. There were not sufficient tradesmen because the guilty men, who are now in their place in Opposition, refused to spend a reasonable sum on training. They allowed in the building industry the introduction of a pernicious system which had as its very objective the destruction of skilled tradesmen. It was the most predictable thing one could imagine when subcontracting was introduced into building construction. It was obvious that there would inevitably be a shortage of skilled tradesmen because of the lack of apprentices.

A survey by the Department of Manufacturing industry showed that in the March quarter of 1974 61 per cent of all manufacturers had less than their maximum productive capacity because of labour shortages. Many factors bring this situation about. One substantial factor is the lack of training which the Opposition when in government was prepared to tolerate and did nothing to correct. However that is not the case with this Government This Government has been quick off the mark to provide for additional training for both young people, with additional technical colleges and improved educational facilities, and adults, with a scheme for their retraining.

Our economy is basically sound and no huffing and puffing by the Leader of the Opposition or those who follow him can make it unsound. Unemployment levels at present are higher than the Government is prepared to accept and initiatives are already under way to overcome this problem. Production levels have been booming. No matter where one looks production levels have been running at record rates. For instance last year 30 per cent more houses were built than during the last year of the Liberal-Country Party regime. What is more, $25m allocated for housing to the State governments of Victoria and New South Wales could not be spent- $ 16m in New South Wales and $9m in Victoria. It could not be spent because resources of materials and manpower simply were not available.

Tonight I want to deal with one particular aspect of inflation, namely, oil prices. It is completely unacceptable for the Leader of the Opposition to try to impose the burden of inflation on this Government as though inflation operated nowhere else in the world and it was something that had been dreamed up by the Whitlam Government after December 1972. The facts are that there has been a massive escalation in the price of oil which is having its effect both in terms of costs and prices and liquidity throughout the whole industrially developed world. An extra US$60,000m will be spent by OECD countries as a result of the increase of the price of oil. It is all very well to try to shrug that fact aside. It means that very substantial sums of money are being taken out of certain economies and placed into others. It means that inevitably money becomes tight and that costs go up. We have felt the brunt of it here in Australia in both directions.

Mr Sullivan:
Mr RIORDAN:

-My friend asks why. I am glad he is still awake. I will tell him why, if he does not know it. Australia, because of the nature of its trade, pays freight both ways. Therefore, the cost of freight has risen with the cost of fuel. Australia also needs to import 30 per cent of its fuel, and fuel costs have gone up by some 282 per cent. Australia also needs to import for its basic industries certain chemicals which cannot be produced here, and the cost of these chemicals has gone up by about 80 per cent. We have also had an increase in the cost of tool steels and materials of that kind, on which Australia’s secondary industries depend. Inflation is a world problem which is recognised by responsible world leaders. The current acceleration of the rate of inflation is what is causing concern. It is causing so much concern that President Ford and Dr Kissinger of the United States of America saw fit to address the General Assembly of the United Nations on the subject in the last 24 hours. It is quite irresponsible for the person who aspires to the position of Prime Minister of Australia to try to shrug off the matter on the basis that it is somehow the direct responsibility of this Government.

I would like to refer briefly to 2 other matters before I conclude my remarks. The Leader of the Opposition referred to comments made by the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) which he claims destroyed any chance of Government cooperation with the unions. That was cheap and it showed ignorance of the real situation. The Prime Minister’s comments to which the Leader of the Opposition referred can be made difficult if one takes them out of context, as the Leader of the Opposition has done. But he is not fooling anybody. Nobody is influenced by that sort of distortion, by taking things out of context. The Leader of the Opposition referred to the matter of education. He said that the increase this Government has given for education- some $ 1500m -

Mr Reynolds:

– It has trebled.

Mr RIORDAN:

– As my friend the honourable member for Barton says, the Government’s expenditure on education has trebled over the last 18 months. The Leader of the Opposition said that the benefit of that increase has been overtaken by the decision to reduce the deduction that may be claimed for taxation purposes, from $400 to $150. 1 have heard this argument. I am fed up with all the hypocrisy that is inherent in it, irrespective of the source from which the criticism comes. The fact is that in 1972 the previous Liberal Government gave an allowance of $50 per primary school child and $68 per secondary school child in a regional Catholic school. Next year as a result of the Budget the allowance will be increased to $163 for each child in a primary school and $260 for each child in a secondary school. That is an increase of 300 per cent and yet the Leader of the Opposition had the gall to stand here -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member’s time has expired. The honourable member for Mitchell now has the call, but I would like to remind the House that he is making his maiden speech and I ask all honourable members to extend the usual courtesy.

Mr CADMAN:
MITCHELL, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

-In assuming my seat in this place, I cannot leave unsaid a tribute to my predecessors who have made such an outstanding contribution to Australia, the people of Mitchell, and the Liberal Party. I pay tribute to Mr Roy Wheeler who was the member for Mitchell for 4 terms and who was held in the highest esteem by the many people who knew his kindly good nature. We pay tribute to bis service. It is not 2 years since Mr Les Irwin, C.B.E., left this place after 9 years of dedicated service to the people of Mitchell. It was his boast that he knew each school in the electorate and that he had never been out of the electorate for a holiday or on parliamentary business, except for the pilgrimage he made with many others to the site of the first landing of the Anzacs at Gallipoli. I suppose that the story that I value most of Les Irwin is one which portrays his forthright and indomitable spirit. It is the story of him walking down the front steps of Parliament House after an all night sitting, and as the sun was rising over Canberra, singing in bis powerful voice: ‘Oh What a Beautiful Morning’. His friends will be pleased to know that he and his charming wife Maudie are both well and are achieving outstanding success in other fields. Mr Roy Wheeler and Mr Les Irwin have set a tradition in Mitchell which will provide me with goals to which to aspire- It will be my honest endeavour to fill my position as member for Mitchell with the understanding and forceful activity that my predecessors demonstrated.

The electorate of Mitchell is the largest in New South Wales and the third largest in Australia. It is one of the fastest growing areas in New South Wales, but as yet this area has not attracted much attention. Constant submissions from local government bodies and individual groups are required so that the needs of such a fast growing area can receive attention for what can only be diagnosed as a population explosion. The admirable community traits of civic pride and involvement seem to go unrecognised. When a city expands, great pressures are placed on all services that must be supplied to the outer fringe, be it water, sewerage- we have spoken of that matter today- roadways, schools or community centres. The effect of spreading a large city can have unthought of ramifications. The social and physical problems of adding another population centre or a band to the outer fringe of a city attract more comments on the profits of developers than the real problems that follow the subdivisions. The vital, simple things of living are often overlooked.

When houses and roadways are built, about one-third of the land’s surface is sealed by the houses, concrete footpaths, roads and gutters which are impervious and shed all water. When rain falls the run-off, once the soil is saturated, increases by 50 per cent. On a normal houseblock one inch of rain is equivalent to 6,500 gallons of water. Over 2,000 gallons are shed by roofs, pathways and roadways. In Toongabbie, Pendle Hill, Wentworthville, Seven Hills, Prospect, Winston Hills and Baulkham Hills this happens many thousands of time over from every block of land. All the surplus runs into one shallow creek- Toongabbie Creek. When heavy rain falls on a catchment of this size, within a couple of hours the waterways are brimming and are flooding into houses that were built far above flood levels 12 years ago. Families are forced out of their houses. There have been fatalities. Yet there has been no interest from any authority. Parramatta City Council cannot be expected to cope with such a problem that extends into at least 4 other local government areas.

In most floods early this year, roads were cut and families forced out of their homes 3 times within a few days. If this waterway is cleaned and channelled, the volume of water which would reach the main centre of Parramatta would be such that water would build up against Lennox Bridge and the whole business section would be flooded. The May floods were only 9 inches from doing this. The project is a huge one. I have heard it said that before results can be satisfactory, Parramatta River should be deepened by commencing dredging of rock and sand at Ryde at a rough cost of $200m. Instead of appointing experts, it is time that priorities set by the people and not by someone remote from the place of concern are attended to. If the large increase in funds that the Department of Urban and Regional Development is to collect is to service people and not the institution, then immediate steps should be taken to appoint a survey team to investigate this problem. It is a huge and growing one. Every additional square foot of road or roof in these western suburbs increases run-off area and brings the centre of Parramatta closer to a major flood. Building of homes cannot be stopped entirely. People living with the threat of increasingly serious floods realise that there is a very serious drainage crisis to be dealt with.

Let me move now to the other end of the Mitchell electorate. This is served by 2 capable and dedicated local government bodies- Windsor Municipal Council and Colo Shire Council. But here we see people forced to travel 200 miles to work or to receive medical treatment under great difficulties whenever the Hawkesbury River floods. Great hardship is experienced by families with sick children when they have to get ill children medical attention. A total of 9 days schooling has been missed by children in a period of 14 days. The urgent need agreed upon by both councils and residents was the need for flood-free access. The cost to a community, and a continuing cost in terms of State communications to the west of the State, makes the priorities set by people and their local representatives top priorities. When priorities other than those set by the residents or their representatives take precedence over needs, even if the scheme is most commendable, waste and distrust set in.

Even important projects in the area like planting trees- there would be no local government area in the whole of the country with more trees than the Colo Shire- and even more important projects such as the building of civic centres, surely must pale into insignificance when compared with the lives, health and well-being of people. If we are to have priorities set, let that be done by those who know what they need and not by some remote person. If the Federal funds already put into the towns of Windsor, Richmond and districts had been applied to urgent bridgeworks, there would now be no serious disruption or hardship in times of flood.

I am afraid I have another small untruth to add to those being told about tariffs and imports. The mushroom industry is at the moment under consideration by the Industries Assistance Commission. Protection is being sought for the industry against imports of mushrooms from the Republic of China and Taiwan, which have doubled. Over 50 per cent of the entire Australian production of mushrooms comes from the electorate of Mitchell where 600 people will lose employment within 6 months unless there is a recognition that a modern, technologically advanced industry which has pulled itself up by the bootstraps is worth saving. The IAC must be convinced that this industry is worth-saving. The mushroom industry is one of the most advanced industries in the world, with yields matching those of any country. Efficiency is extremely high. Across the board decisions on tariffs and a constant pull of the United States dollar have made it possible for imports to double in quantity and value during the last 12 months. If it is Government policy to change the face of industry, hard working individuals cannot be subjected to instant aboutface. The Australian Mushroom Growers Association has acted in a most responsible manner to cause this matter to be brought before the Commission. But if the answer is no, no one who works in any industry that can be attacked by imports is safe in his or her job. Surely for the protection of workers and jobs, we need to stop importing unemployment.

Last week we heard much of decentralisation. Many authorities consider that the way to successful decentralisation is the decentralisation of industry and provision of jobs in country areas. Part of the problem of establishing new industries is the cost of transporting raw materials and finished products and the cost of day to day overheads, of which telephone and telex communications are an important part. The decentralisation of Government departments plays an important part in providing access to departments without the need to have constant reference to a centralised office, be it in Sydney, Melbourne or Canberra. Jobs for the clerk, computer operator, concretor and the truckie need to be provided at all times in a decentralised situation. But above aU there must be continuing growth of employment so that families can stay together when children go out to find their first jobs.

All parties represented here pay attention to decentralisation in their platforms. This week considerations of special assistance to the textile industry in country areas are taking place. The town of Riverstone has a small population. It is about 30 miles from Sydney- a country town based on a meat works and a woollen mill. I point out that 12 months ago the mill employed 1 17 workers. Now it has only 24 employees and it is likely to close. Monetary shifts and tariff cuts have brought -

Mr Snedden:

– Who was it who accepted a level that high?

Mr CADMAN:
MITCHELL, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

-I am telling a small untruth at the moment. Monetary and tariff cuts have brought down to slow motion the machines which formerly worked 146 hours a week and are now working 34 hours a week. Why? The answer is a doubling of the importation of knitting material from South Africa- not from China but from South Africa- and the imports are synthetics. How can proper decentralisation be seriously considered when mills like this one- I am talking about a mill that established a pre.shrunk system and the set crease system with the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation- and those in outer country areas are closing without any chance of replacement, affecting men who have given their whole working lives to learn a skill that cannot be picked up overnight in any retraining scheme? Australians dedicated to the manufacture of Australian products cannot be thoughtlessly left to die on the vine.

All that is spoken about the deprived western suburbs is basically true, I suppose. But it is also true of many other areas. Australian people cannot be categorised. That may be necessary in applying statistics so that people may understand how such things as buying trousers and homes are related, but it cannot be done without an understanding of life style and peculiar problems. Categorisation will continue to divide the community and produce frictions that are almost unknown in this country. I object just as strongly to terms like ‘workers’ and ‘employers’. Very few people do not work. To categorise and to label them will produce resentment and splits. In the suburbs of Toongabbie, Winston Hills, Baulkham Hills and Castle Hill, there are the needs that can be found in any western suburb. These include young people with young families, mortgages, interest rate problems and cost of living stresses.

Winston Hills has a total population of 1 8,000 people. The largest age group is from 0 to 4 years. The average age of a home is 8 years. There is no public hall, no swimming pool, and no pre-school kindergarten. The community uses what is affectionately known as the ‘cow shed’ because that is what it was until the Winston Hills Progress Association, with voluntary labour, refurnished the old dairy to be used as a meeting room for district organisations. Will a budget of ‘reform and progress to make Australia a fairer country’ recognise a group of people who have raised $2,000 in 2 years by selling raffle tickets and holding street stalls to establish a pre-school kindergarten? Or will artificial boundaries of deprivation be erected so that people are categorised? The outer seams of Sydney are bursting. The sure sign that this is happening is the demand for kindergartens, casual care centres, day care centres and other types of flexible facilities for young children. How can young people with heavy commitments provide everything by raising funds for buildings at the rate of $1,000 a year. Increases in building costs alone make the annual fund raising process 30 per cent less effective each year. These people possess the individuality that should be encouraged, not dampened.

The Budget proposes a massive 32.4 per cent increase in the collection of revenue from the Australian people. At a time when responsible family managers are finding it more and more difficult to make ends meet the proposed additional Government expenditure when most people are taking in their belts and starting to realise that they have to look after their jobs, the Government has announced that the reply to such a climate is ‘More of the same’. More of the same may be disaster. The people of Mitchell are true Australians, independent and loyal to what they believe in. It will be my privilege to represent them.

Mr HURFORD:
Adelaide

– It is my pleasure to follow the normal traditions of this House and to congratulate the honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Cadman) on his maiden speech. It has been a hurdle well cleared. Although we look forward to further contributions from him I hope, if I may say so, that they are not made too often because this energetic Australian Government of ours has a tremendous amount of legislation to pass and the days and the sittings are already very long. It is good to hear that Les Irwin is well. I visited Gallipoli with him in 1971. However, Les Irwin will readily understand it when I say that I would like to see his quiet and determined successor, Mr Ashley-Brown, back in this Parliament. I am sorry that the honourable member for Mitchell did not pay a well deserved tribute to Mr AshleyBrown, as I now do.

The 1974 Budget debate has commenced tonight with a speech from the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Snedden). Already his effort has been demolished in no uncertain way by the honourable member for Phillip (Mr Riordan). However, I shall return later to his disappointing contribution. At this point I would like to put into perspective the economic situation in which we find ourselves. ‘Exceptional strains’ is the phrase used by the Treasurer (Mr Crean) in his Budget speech. When the Australian Labor Government took over the reins of office in December 1972 there were 4 factors affecting the economy of the country. The first was that funds were flowing in as they had never flowed in before. We were awash with overseas funds. It was hot money expecting a revaluation of our currency, and the funds of wise investors overseas who realised that our assets were cheap. Why was this so? It was so because of a criminally negligent decision of the Liberal-Country Party Government in allowing our currency to be well below its true value, its market value, from the time of the Smithsonian agreement in December 1971. For one whole year- 1972- I use the phrase again, we were awash with funds. The ‘filthy lucre’, to use a colloquialism, was running out of the bankers’ ears.

That was not all. In December 1972 Australia was beginning to suffer from the August 1972 Budget. Who was the author of this Budget? Who was mainly responsible for that disastrous document? None other than the Leader of the Opposition who has been preaching to us at his self righteous best tonight. He it was who was the author of an inflationary Budget, a domestic deficit Budget at a time when the corner had been turned, when caution was required. What was the motive for his extravagance for which we are all paying now? It was none other than the need to buy votes or to attempt to buy votes for the inevitable election at the end of 1972. That was the second factor confronting the new Australian Labor Government when it took over in December 1972.

The third factor which caused the demand inflation which this country suffered for the next 18 months- we make no bones about it- until about the middle of this year, all during 1973 and halfway through 1974, can also be laid firmly at the feet of the Liberal-Country Party Opposition. That third factor was the pent up savings of the community just about to be unleashed in a wave of spending with the new aura of confidence which came with the new Labor Government. The wave of spending during 1973 was the result of the stagflation which we had suffered in 1972. Unemployment had risen to over 200,000, over 2 per cent. People were afraid to spend. The election of the Australian Labor Government brought change and new confidence. Citizens began to spend their savings. The recession caused by the slashing of Government expenditure by the Gorton Governmentthis is something which was advocated all through this year and last year by the Snedden Opposition and which would have given rise to a much worse unemployment situation now- and by a recessionary Budget in August 1971, was at an end when the Labor Government took over. People were at last prepared to spend their savings. But we had a price to pay for this additional factor of Liberal-Country Party folly in the demand inflation of 1 973.

The fourth factor which confronted the Government when it took over in December 1972 was the phenomenon of world inflation. For our size in terms of population, we are one of the great trading nations of the world. We are not self supporting like the United States of America. We cannot build a wall around us. We are very vulnerable to what is going on in the rest of the world. One of the clear and unmistakable characteristics of the recent past has been that the more a trading nation one is the greater is its vulnerability to inflation. Look at Japan. As was pointed out by the honourable member for Phillip, the report of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development shows that Japan had an inflation rate of over 25 per cent. I would like to repeat the figures given by the OECD as at 30 June 1974 which were outlined by the honourable member for Phillip. I believe they are worth repeating. In fact there were 1 1 countries of the Western world whose rate of inflation was worse than Australia ‘s rate of 14.4 per cent in that financial year. In addition to Japan which had a rate of inflation of 25 per cent, Italy had a rate of 18.9 per cent, Britain 17.1 per cent, Denmark 15.9 per cent, Ireland 16.2 per cent, Finland 16.2 per cent, Greece 3 1.8 per cent, Iceland 43.8 per cent, Portugal 25.9 per cent, Spain 15.2 per cent, and Turkey 25.9 per cent. These are only the figures for OECD countries. They do not include countries like the Philippines, Malaysia and Thailand in our own part of the world, which I have just visited and which also suffered badly from this world phenomenon- we can even call it a world malaise or a world illness.

That part of the world, namely the Western world, which runs the capitalist system, the mixed economy and the world trading type system such as our own, has been in the grips of a world boom. The price of commodities has rocketed upwards. One of the main causes of this has been too much liquidity floating around in the world system. A big reason for this was the deficit financing of the United States in order to pay for the disastrous Vietnam war. But exacerbating this, as was also mentioned by the honourable member for Phillip, has been the energy crisis and the deeds of the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries in pushing up the cost of their scarce commodity- the hydrocarbons, the energy and fuel upon which we have become so dependent. This was the economic situation inherited by the Australian Labor Government.

Four dominant factors bedevil us. I repeat them. The first was the under-valuation of our currency for a whole year due to the folly of our predecessors. The second was the buying votes inflationary Liberal-Country Party Budget in August 1972. The third was that nobody was spending because there was no confidence before we took over. This was soon to be converted into a spending spree. These 3 factors clearly were caused by the Opposition which now preaches to us all. The fourth factor was a world influenced illness, inflation, so much of which was being imported.

How has this been tackled? Fifteen days after we took office on 2 December 1972 the Government acted promptly with the up-valuation of our currency. There were howls from the Opposition against this move. I notice that there is hardly a whimper now. Hardly anybody in this country would suggest that that was a wrong move to take at the time. If they did they would be completely economically ignorant. There was the calling up of the special reserve deposits. This was a method of the central bank to control the amount of bank lending by the trading banks. This was promptly done after the taking over of government. We have noticed the opposite happening now as the special reserve deposits are being released. There was the cutting of tariffs by 25 per cent across the board- a courageous political decision- in July 1973. We were bending over backwards to let down this boom gently, known in the rest of the world as a soft landing. Japan also is trying to experience this. However, this was not enough. There was another upvaluation of the currency in September. This still had insufficient effect on businessmen’s expectations. Therefore this had to lead to the further policy to overcome the boom when we were forced into the November 1973 monetary measures of higher interest rates.

Nobody would suggest that higher interest rates are something that a government would like to impose. But it was necessary in order to mop up the excess liquidity in the community. It was necessary, I repeat, to make government bonds more attractive- to siphon off excess liquidity from the community. The alternative was to tax this away from the people. I have not heard the Opposition claiming that this is what it would have done. So we had the unfortunate effect of a flow-on from the higher interest rates into the housing sphere. We all know these adverse effects. No one in his right mind would inflict this upon the community unless it was vitally necessary, particularly someone who has not a majority in both Houses of the Parliament and cannot govern with security for even the short period of 3 years. Yet, this courageous decision was taken because it was the only decision to take. This perspective is necessary. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Snedden) has been living in cloud cuckoo land. One year ago the cry was: Too much demand; shortages everywhere; something has to be done. It was done. Even though what was done was with the greatest gentleness, we were blamed for not being harsher.

If we had followed the advice that was coming from opposite we would have frozen wages and frozen prices and by now we would really have known what unemployment is. Instead of following the advice coming from the opposite side of the chamber, gentle policies were taken against a serious situation caused by those opposite in the way I have described to the House tonight. In spite of this, demand was brought into equality with supply in about the middle of this year. Because in this capitalist system we are so dependent on the whim of businessmen and their investment decisions, because we do not have a majority in the Senate, because we have a lack of co-operation in many of the States, because the Opposition went out onto the hustings less than a year ago and fought a sensible referendum giving this Australian Parliament powers that are possessed by every other equivalent parliament in the world- power over prices and incomes- we had a landing from these boom conditions which now do demand very careful treatment, and very careful treatment they will get from a very sensitive government. The result of this was, as I said, that the demand was brought into equation with supply earlier this year. In most areas shortages are a thing of the past.

The decision makers are going to the other extreme when it comes to investment. They were on the crest of a wave. Now they are in the depths of despair. There is a world downturn. This, of course, also affects them. But it is all part of this capitalist system which is supported by those who are in Opposition in this Parliament. Once again the Government found itself relatively naked in this crazy federation, operating this stupid system without sufficient tools to counter properly the trends that are befalling us. If we had in our hands powers over investment decisions we might be able to do something about them, but we have not. They are in private hands and these private hands must be carefully handled. If we had control over capital issues 2 years ago we would have been able to tail off the boom a lot earlier and have a soft landing. But we do not have these controls, mainly because conservatives fight every referendum and deny the national government of this country the tools which are so desperately needed and necessary if it is to do its job properly.

The capitalist economy has always ricocheted from boom to slump and back to boom again. Stop-go has been a feature of this system as long as any one of us can remember. We are doing nothing more nor less than suffering the same stop-go phenomenon which this system of ours has always suffered. The Australian Labor Government, I repeat, in the face of great criticism at the time, has bent over backwards to iron out these bumps, these booms and slumps. We have done better than our opponents, in spite of the noise that is coming from certain parts of the benches opposite. We have not in any way reached the sort of situation of a 2 per cent unemployment figure brought about by the Gorton measures of February 1971 and the Budget of August 1971. The honourable member for Hume (Mr Lusher) is interjecting. He is a very recent member to this Parliament and obviously has done no homework at aU in recent economic history to learn what the tools are to control this economy. I do not pretend that what we have done is enough. What I say is that within the limitations of the tools available we have done all that can be done. This is the context of this Budget. Demand is more or less in equality with supply at this time. We have a government which is flexible and which Will act quickly when further trends are clearly visible.

Very naturally and understandably the wage determination system is in chaos arising from this excess demand situation which we have suffered. We are not denying that wage and salary earners must catch up their incomes after this period of inflation. In fact there are many people in the community who deserve to catch up after such a period of demand inflation caused by the follies of our predecessors. Indeed, many others have a right to catch up on what has been caused by demand inflation in the recent past. An orderly wage determination system has to be devised. The days of leap-frogging must be put behind us. No wonder we have stoppages, strikes and all the dissatisfaction that is caused in the world of labour. Because of this Federal system of ours we have a leap-frogging of State determinations vis-a-vis Federal determinations and so on. What had to be done was to create the right climate for a new wage determination system to be established. Even though the signs are that we will have many disappointments, let us hope that that is something which Will arise out of the context of this Budget.

There is rationale behind this Budget, and very good rationale it is. I am very hopeful, because of what I have heard in the last few days, that additional benefits will be given annually to wage and salary earners after we bring in wage indexation. I am very hopeful that the commendable establishment and development of the Prices Justification Tribunal will mean that price rises will be less frequent than they are at present and at a much lower level. I am hopeful that the States, even Queensland, will support new initiatives in this area which is so vital for our needs.

It is in this context, I repeat, that we must see this Budget. From a deflationary point of view it is a neutral Budget. I am not going to pretend that from my point of view and the point of view of those in Adelaide whom I represent it is a perfect Budget. There are a few smaller things I should like to see amended, but negotiations will go on elsewhere about those. We are in the Australian Labor Party not expected to be sheep. In spite of the emotional and meaningless headlines we see in the newspapers from time to time about the Caucus rebuffing the Ministry, we will continue to practice participatory democracy and those who are the Ministers Will expect us to do so.

The main message is that the strategy of this Budget is correct. A $23m domestic surplus is neither inflationary nor deflationary. The Leader of the Opposition has been grandstanding and sermonising. I repeat that it was not even a theatrical success in this Parliament; still less was there solid thought applied to the present difficult economic conditions from that side of the Parliament. It is the members of the Liberal and Country Parties who failed to revalue the currency and created those other follies which I have already mentioned. These were the legacies taken over by the Australian Labor Party, I repeat, in December 1972. To add insult to injury the Leader of the Opposition stalked the country opposing the giving of the necessary powers over prices and incomes to the Australian Government less than a year ago. His speech tonight was deceitful. He does not know whether he is applying himself to inflation or to unemployment and he has not the courage to make the choice. What Australia needs is constructive criticism from the Opposition. What it is getting is hollow, theatrical nonsense.

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

Mr FISHER:
Mallee

-First of all, I should like to congratulate the honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Cadman) who made his maiden speech tonight. I am quite sure that this young man will make a very great contribution to this Parliament and also to his own electorate. Last week, when the Treasurer (Mr Crean) introduced to the House what was only the second Labor Budget in a quarter of a century, the immediate media reaction must well have satisfied the socialist philosophies of the Labor Government. We could well imagine the Treasurer in his role as Robin Hood, his dislike for profits, his desire to strip an individual of the enterprise and initiative that has been the trademark of Australia’s development. Of course, it was clear even to one not widely versed in the fundamentals of economic theory that the 2 major problems confronting the nation would not be checked by the Budget strategy. Inflation will still rage ahead. But should the Government be concerned about this when it is a. means of financing an enormous increase of 32.4 per cent in expenditure?

I was amazed at a statement by the honourable member for Adelaide (Mr Hurford) who said that pent up savings were unleashed because of a new aura of confidence when the Labor Government took office. I should like to suggest to him that the fact is that the people started to spend their savings because it was apparent from the ALP policies that inflation was to be used as a tool of the Government. In fact many Australians I believe correctly interpreted this as an intention by a Labor Government to let inflation rip. Should the Government today be concerned about a worsening unemployment situation, a situation in which up to 1,000 people per week are losing their jobs? Where is the reasoning behind a program of social equality if that equality is to be achieved only by payments made through the Department of Social Security? Our people want employment, not welfare. Employment depends largely upon the ability of the private sector to create it.

It is simply not good enough for senior Ministers who should be responsible for the management and expansion of our economy to gloat over and to point to the Mainline Corporation Ltd collapse as an example of private enterprise. Many of our businesses and firms which are well managed and have provided the means of sound employment and have contributed to a thriving national economy are now under intense pressure. Liquidity is tight, and it will remain so. Private investment has been falling away rapidly and in the long term, particularly now that a tax has been placed on people who have made an effort in the past to be thrifty, this will cripple our ability as a nation to meet those payments of scale to our welfare programs, our health care programs and also to education.

In his speech to the Liberal-Country Party Government of August 1970 the present Treasurer, Mr Crean, asked:

What has been done in this Budget or outside it to deal with the causes rather than the symptoms of inflation? 1 would say that nothing is being done insofar as this major problem is concerned.

It has now become obvious even to those members of the national Press who gave such rosy reviews of the 1974 Budget that our Treasurer is still only asking questions; he is still not giving the nation any answers- answers to questions such as why Australia has increased its inflation rate by up to 9 per cent in the last 22 months and answers to the questions being asked by our consumers who are being called upon to meet cost of living increases, particularly to retired people and pensioners who are finding it far beyond their ability to pay.

This Budget does not provide the answers to these questions; instead it will aggravate the present dangerous situation. There will be a further reduction in personal incentive and productivity. The desirable result of any Budget surely will be cut and will be to the detriment of the country.

The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Snedden) and other speakers from the Liberal-Country Party side tonight have adequately expressed the overall effect of this Appropriation Bill. As a representative of a rural electorate I wish to point to specific areas within this Bill that affect my electorate. In the Budget last year the Government set out to bring the excise on brandy into line with that on other spirits and forecast the total removal of the differential that existed. Together with the huge increase in the miniBudget last month this is now being carried out. Surely this must be the first time in the history of the administration of the excise duties that the general public has been warned a year in advance of an increase. This has already had a disastrous effect on brandy sales. Prior to the two latest imposts brandy sales had fallen by 20 per cent, according to the figures that were available before the 1973 Budget. The increase contained in this Budget will effectively increase the cost of a litre of brandy by 40c or, as I believe was accurately stated by the Minister for Overseas Trade (Dr J. F. Cairns) last week, by up to 12c a bottle. However, it should be remembered that other costs will automatically follow. These products will now be subject to sales tax at 1 5 per cent and to a State liquor licensing fee of 6 per cent in Victoria. This could well mean that the real increase per bottle could be more likely in the vicinity of 15c.

This Government has proved itself to be incompetent in the way it is treating rural industries. Its decisions relating to the brandy industry give an outstanding example of its lack of understanding of a vital and important industry- an industry in my electorate and in the electorate of Angas that is restricted to specific regions of Australia. The production of brandy faces problems different to those associated with other spirits. It was for those reasons that a differential in duty was warranted. A tonne of grapes produces about 100 litres of brandy. The Government’s take through excise and sales tax has increased by 1 9 1 per cent in the last 1 3 months. It is now getting $1,107 for each tonne of grapes used for brandy production, while a grower receives an average of $70 a tonne for his year’s work of growing, picking and supplying the grapes. In 1973 the take by the Government was only $420 a tonne. This budgetary measure is just one more example of the vindictive policy that is being directed towards rural industry. This will cause a decrease in sales and, it follows, in grape production.

One of the most dangerous aspects of this Government’s action towards private business, whether urban or rural, is that it is running directly opposite to the direct expressed views that it would support family businesses and farms. The ultimate result of every action that has been taken since Labor came to power in 1972 has resulted in an aggregation of rural holdings and a strengthening and build-up of corporate bodies.

The Phosphate Fertiliser Bounty Act expires on 31 December 1974. It is not to be renewed. This will effectively remove $34m from the rural sector in 1974-75. With the huge increases in the cost of rock phosphate, the large anticipated rises in freight charges and, more importantly, a world wide need for increased food production, adequate justification exists not for the removal of the bounty but for an increase in the bounty. Policies for primary production should not be considered in isolation or only in relation to the immediate economic worth to the producer or the nation. Of course, the effects of any policy on future land use, on marketing and transport requirements or on the wider community and on the environment must be considered. I suggest that the Government has not made any studies in relation to the effects of the removal of the bounty but rather is simply responding to recommendations made in the Coombs report- or should I call it the Australian Labor Party’s handbook for the extermination of rural industries?

Has the Government considered, for instance, its action in the light of the resultant increase in farm production costs and the reduction in productivity per farm or perhaps the increase in commodity prices? Perhaps the most significant effect of the bounty as provided by the previous Liberal-Country Party Government is that it supported economic production on land that would otherwise have been uneconomic. The effect of the withdrawal of the bounty on the land use of hundreds of thousands of acres of marginal land should not be regarded too lightly. When the effects of the withdrawal of the bounty bite, as they will, it will leave the farmer with little alternative but to neglect largely any portion of his land which produces least or which results in a negative income. As this occurs, not only will rural outputs decrease but also the national resources, the quality of water supplies, public utilities, ports and harbours Will be affected also.

The purpose of the bounty program when it was introduced in 1963 by a Liberal-Country Party Government was to reduce farm costs, to promote economic production, to facilitate the growth in rural output, and to improve the competitive position of exports. Not one person on the Government benches can deny that this result was achieved. The statistics released last week give an estimate in the gross value of rural production of 1973-74 as $6,5 13m. As a direct result of Government policies- the removal of the bounty, capital gains tax, the surcharge tax on non-earned income, the failure of the Minister for Agriculture (Senator Wriedt) to reintroduce the essential tax concessions for water and fodder conservation- farm incomes could well fall by up to 50 per cent this year. The removal of the bounty is short sighted in a climate when the outlook for rural industries is the worst since the 1930s. I ask the Government to reconsider its position before 3 1 December and to reintroduce this assistance before further erosion occurs in the profitability of those rural industries which have as their basis the family farm.

A Budget proposal that receives my instant support, not only because it was a matter of policy of the Opposition during the last election campaign but also because it is a necessary national responsibility, is the proposed introduction of a handicapped child’s allowance of $10 a week. We could argue as to whether $10 per week is adequate, but this would be unreasonable. The move has been made and it is to be commended. It appears to me that parents or guardians of children who need constant care and attention require assistance to meet circumstances of personal costs and devotion not encountered by parents of a child not afflicted by severe handicaps, irrespective of that child’s age. The former Government made no attempts to increase child endowment payments to give encouragement and support to our basic unit- the family. This Government, despite the recommendations contained in the interim report on poverty and the thousands of requests made by organisations, individuals and petitions, has also not responded. Family life today is under challenge. It is not being encouraged by some forms of social legislature introduced and to be introduced by this Government under the guise of reform and social progress. Raising a family today is not easy. The economic and social climates are difficult and incentive and support could well have been provided by substantial endowment payments. Huge expenditure by the Government on child care and pre-school facilities in the future could well prove to have been unnecessary if such incentive was available.

The development of growth centres and decentralisation have rightly become major endeavours of our national and State governments. Australia has an excellent opportunity to avoid, or at least to correct, the severe ills caused by over-urbanisation in many parts of the world. It will be impossible, however, to achieve programs of long term viability by artificial means of government support. We have seen successful decentralised industries- large employers of rural labour- devastated and ruined by specific government action. Years of achievement, which has never been easy, have been nullified by an across the board tariff decision without reasonable reference to each specific industry, to the efficiency of those industries and to the value of those industries as a component of the total economy.

I put it to the Government also that until such time as our most essential public utility- I refer to the Post Office- is used as a vehicle to promote balanced development, future gains will also be difficult. The removal of televisionh and radio licence charges is welcome. It is something which I have been recommending for some time, mainly for the reason that all regions of Australia do not have the advantage of an adequate service or reception. Many deficiencies of transmission and quality of programs exist. It is hoped that new initiatives now under way within the PostmasterGeneral ‘s Department will correct these deficiencies. It is difficult, however, to reconcile the thinking of the Governmnent on this issue when it says that the cost of a public service which is provided for the community as a whole should be met out of general taxation and then proceeds to make substantial increases in postal and telephone charges. The proposed increases represent a significant cost additive to business and private individuals. There will be cutbacks in mailings, with resultant effects upon employment. There is nothing more sobering than an examination of the increases in postal and telephone costs. An article which appeared in Monday’s ‘Australian’ makes interesting reading. It reads in part:

If hyperinflation is your fear, then it must be the Australian Post Office’s ideal, because the increases are in the hyperinflation bracket.

Telephone connection fee: Up 33 per cent to $80; connection of an additional phone: the same increase to the same amount. If you can’t afford the 24 per cent increase in local calls and the increases in trunk calls, you can cancel the service or the APO will take it away from you- the charge for this remains at $15. To add insult to financial injury, if you can’t meet the account and the phone is removed, you’ll have to pay an extra 33 per cent in future to get it back- the rise is from $60 to $80.

The attempt in the July mini-Budget to increase the basic postal rate by 28 per cent enraged the Senate, which threw it out, so now the Government is increasing the rate by 42 per cent, from 7c to 10c a stamp . . .

Aerogrammes will henceforth be a better example of flying inflation than first-rate service- they’re rising by 42 per cent, from 14c to 20c.

Mr Hunt:

– That does not make any sense at all.

Mr FISHER:

-That is right. The article continues:

You could put them in a Concorde or an SR7 1 and they still wouldn’t reach you any faster than 10 years ago, and never on Saturdays, as they used to do. Local mail service and frequency of delivery was good at threepence, a bad joke at 7c and at 10c will bring delight to private courier services. . . . businesses that want fast communication won’t pay increased postal charges for a declining service.

The future management and policy decisions made within the Postmaster-General’s Department will have as direct and important an influence upon inflation and employment as most other government decisions do. The Australian Post Office is particularly vital to rural people. It is not just a convenience, it is an integral part of their business operation. As I mentioned earlier, it will ultimately determine the success or otherwise of balanced development.

In the Treasurer’s own words, the expansion in the public sector contained in this Budget is designed to take up the slack emerging in the private sector. This is perhaps the most significant statement in the whole Budget Speech. It emphasises that under Labor the Australian nation is being swiftly guided onto a new course. It heralds m an era of big unions, big business and big government. The importance of the individual having a say in his future and using his enterprise and initiative for the benefit of the whole nation has gone. I support the amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition. It clearly indicates to the Australian people the different direction that would be taken by a Liberal Party-Country Party government.

Mr SCHOLES:
Cork.

-We have just heard an interesting speech on behalf of those who represent the free enterprise system. In the last 20 minutes the honourable member for Mallee (Mr Fisher) has told us just how important it is that the free enterprise system be based on a system of government subsidies. Every sentence he spoke was a demand for greater public expenditure in order to ensure private profit.

Mr Fisher:

– If necessary.

Mr SCHOLES:

– ‘If necessary’ has never entered into your thinking at all. You have never provided subsidies on the basis of need alone, you have provided subsidies on the basis of need and greed. The small farmer who had need got exactly the same level of subsidy, and thus a very much lower level of assistance, than the large farmer who had no need at all. One remembers well when these gentlemen who make so much noise gave $90,000 in cash to one wool grower in one year and gave an average of $3,000 each to the hard pressed wool growers who were really in need, and justified it in this Parliament An honourable member interjects that they wish they could get it now. Of course you wish you could get it now. That is what it is all about. You represent the large grazing interests in this community and you talk to the small farmers about their problems. You tell them that they have problems, which they know about anyhow. You encourage them into actions which they normally would not take and you mislead them into believing that their needs are quite often what they are not. Possibly the member for Mallee will tell us about how the Country Party encouraged his constituents to put in pear trees, then paid them to pull them out again. They were occupied, of course.

Mr Lloyd:

– You want to have a geography lesson to see where pears are actually grown.

Mr SCHOLES:

-They were pulling them out in your electorate.

Mr DONALD CAMERON:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– What about the Ford Motor Company in your electorate?

Mr SCHOLES:

– The Ford Motor Company is doing very nicely, thank you.

Mr DONALD CAMERON:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– What about the workers?

Mr SCHOLES:

– Doing very nicely, thank you.

Mr DONALD CAMERON:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– They are not very happy.

Mr SCHOLES:

– You would not know, and you do not drive a Ford, you drive a great big Mercedes. You are a poor unfortunate farmer who cannot afford any better than a Mercedes.

Mr Calder:

– Can you fly an aeroplane?

Mr SCHOLES:

-I do not know whether you fly an aeroplane. You are also one of those unfortunate Country Party people.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member will address the Chair.

Mr Calder:

– He is slinging insults around the place, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I do not care what he is doing, it does not call for interjections. The honourable member for Corio will address the Chair.

Mr SCHOLES:

-Mr Speaker, every Budget that I have heard delivered in this Parliament has been, according to the Opposition, a bad Budget. It has made all of the economic mistakes, had all of the disadvantages that can possibly be built into any document presented in the Parliament. I repeat that all of the Budgets I have heard in this Parliament have had the same fault. I think there were five of them when I was in Opposition and most likely said many of those things and there have been 2 since I have been on this side of the House when the honourable gentlemen opposite were in Opposition.

Mr Millar:

– We do not just debate, we tell the facts.

Mr SCHOLES:

-Your opinion of facts and mine are different. Your facts are very similar to Grimm’s fairy tales- very grim but not very relevant. Mr Speaker, in any Budget there are those things which will be disagreed with, those things which people will be told will affect them in ways in which they in fact will not affect them. We have heard a lot of talk about the differential rates of income tax and the effect that they will have on savings. I do not suggest that they will not have any effect on savings at all. They will cause some -

Mr Lusher:

– They will be disastrous.

Mr SCHOLES:

-Disastrous! What utter rubbish. You are a schoolboy. The only thing in the Budget that will benefit you is the increased aid for child care. Most people who will come under this will have more trouble in filling out their income tax form. It will be more of an inconvenience than a cost. Most of them will benefit more from the abolition of the radio licence fee than the Budget will cost them in additional income tax. There will be some who will pay more tax. They will be people who have large incomes or substantial incomes from their investments. It is arguable that this is inequitable. I think it is also arguable, and I think honourable members of the Opposition would argue in this way on behalf of those whom you profess to represent, that their exertion is entitled to an adequate reward.

Mr Lusher:

– Let us hear your argument.

Mr SCHOLES:

-I think if I tried to convince the honourable gentleman I would first have to get a degree in kindergarten teaching, because I am sure that if I put any arguments now he would not understand them. There is one thing I would like to have seen in the Budget which I believe must be undertaken by the Government very quickly. That is a program of encouragement for the establishment in major centres of theatre complexes for the performance of live arts. It is all very well for governments- I say ‘governments’ collectively as the previous governments never made any efforts at all in this field; it has been an area of State responsibilty and still is at this stage- to provide theatre companies with money to keep going, to encourage actors, to encourage artists. If you do not provide adequate facilities where people can perfrom and do not provide facilities in areas other than the centres of the major capital cities you do not provide anything at all; because you must give people the opportunity not only to perform but to perform in front of other people, because an actor who performs on his own is not an actor at all; he is only half fulfilling himself.

Mr Lusher:

– It is a sin to perform on your own.

Mr SCHOLES:

-You have a filthy, dirty mind. You should get out of the place if that is the best you can do.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable gentleman will withdraw that remark.

Mr SCHOLES:

-I withdraw the remark. I was very strongly provoked, Mr Speaker.

The introduction of an allowance for handicapped children who are being kept at home will be a relief to parents, and I think it is welcomed by all honourable members. It is part of an expansion of assistance programs which has been taking place and which, whilst individually welcomed, is collectively criticised by the Opposition as an expansion of expenditure in the government sector, which is an umbrella set of words.

page 1734

ADJOURNMENT

Australian Labour Party: Media Interests- The Parliament- Redfern Mail Exchange

Mr SPEAKER:

– It being 10.30 p.m., in accordance with the order of the House of 1 1 July I propose the question:

That the House do now adjourn.

Mr DONALD CAMERON:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– It is my intention to raise in the House this evening a section of a report presented to the Queensland Central Executive of the Australian Labor Party on 25 June 1974. The report was prepared by the Campaign Director, Mr Bart Lourigan. I do so at a time when the Government Party- the Australian Labor Party- has just purchased a large holding in television station Channel 7. Stories are floating around everywhere that the Party which cries poor is out to buy its way into so many other areas of the media. I wish to refer to Mr Lourigan ‘s report on talk back programs. It is for everyone’s sake that I will read the section which relates to that subject. I do so because the Australian Labor Party, through its activities and through its efforts to stifle freedom of speech and democracy, is setting out to reduce to nothing more than a farce and a laugh the talk back programs in which people ring radio stations. The extract from Mr Lourigan ‘s report headed ‘Talk Back Programs’ reads:

At its first meeting, the Central Campaign Committee -

Meaning of Queenslandresolved to give attention to talk back programs, and empowered the State Campaign Director to organise an effective means of combating obvious anti-Labor propaganda.

That is, of combating statements by others which might be truthful but which are also hurtful. The report continues:

A meeting of 20 women under the organisational control of Mrs J. A. Vaughan was convened. It was agreed that Mrs Vaughan work from the QCE office, monitoring all programs and arranging participants in the sessions when not only the Labor Government but also the trade union movement came under fire. Mr Fred Whitby and other union officials assisted in this counter-attack on our political opponents.

This strategy met with success throughout the campaign, to the extent that in the final weeks, former QCE Press Officer, Jack Stanaway was employed by the National Campaign Committee to co-ordinate the activity on a full time basis.

The QCE office went one step further and arranged for each of the seventeen Ministers who visited the State to participate in a talk back program or in a T.V. session. Indeed, Cabinet Ministers have since extended their congratulations that in this particular activity, Queensland was far ahead of other States.

One aspect which caused considerable concern in relation to talk back programs was the viciousness of the smear campaign waged by individuals attempting to discredit the A.L.P. and its policies.

If only we could have the time over again all listeners would able to recognise that the forecasts of doom that were made at that time as to what would happen to Australia in relation to inflation and unemployment, and what was said about the promises of tax reductions, were correct and not simply smear campaigns by the Opposition. The report continues:

I advised Dr Coombs of defamatory allegations against him on radio station 4BH. Acting on legal advice we forced a public apology and retraction from both the station and Ivor Hancock, the compere.

Can honourable members visualise the darling of thousands of Brisbane’s listeners Mr Ivor Hancock, being painted by Mr Lourigan as a villain? The report continues:

On another occasion, Mick Young -

Now the honourable member for Port Adelaide- was called a communist on no fewer than 4 occasions in the one session. It is clear that the Labor movement in general must counter these scurrilous attacks on its credibility and on the integrity of individuals.

I have raised this matter in this chamber tonight to inform the whole nation that the Australian Labor Party is making a complete farce out of the ring-in programs which are conducted from one side of the continent to the other. How ofter have we heard some so-called Mrs Housewife ringing in and saying ‘Dear Ivor’ or ‘Dear Mr Laws, what do you think of the way in which Mr Snedden did this or Mr Snedden did that?’ and Mr Hancock or Mr Laws saying: ‘It is quite reasonable’, only to find some Australian Labor Party trained trades hall stooge saying certain things and making suggestions which cloud the issue in an attempt to distract the minds of the Australian people from the real destruction which is going on within our community today? I appeal to the Special Minister of State (Mr Lionel Bowen) as the representative in this chamber of the Postmaster-General (Senator Bishop)- I apologise for not having advised him that I was going to speak on this subject tonight but I notice that he has come into the chamber because of the nature of the accusations that have been made- to intervene in this matter and to stop his own Party from manipulating and twisting the media, as this admission by none other than the Queensland Campaign Director, Mr Bart Lourigan, indicates.

I wish now to lay on the table an official complaint. We are told that television stations and radio stations are to accept all advertising and that political bias is not to be shown. In the 1972 election campaign, because I am a man who has no particular bias about where he places his advertising, I placed my radio advertising with 4KQ, the Labor controlled radio station in Brisbane. Because I never rose much before a quarter to five in the morning during the 1972 campaign I never heard the advertisement but I heard from some friends who come from electorates represented by members of the Australian Country Party that it was played during the hours in which dairy farmers were up looking after their cattle and milking their cows. It was put on so early in the breakfast program that hardly anyone except the dairy farmers was awake. But in the last election campaign 4KQ, the Labor controlled radio station, refused to have anything to do with my advertising. I do not know whether it was because of the nature of the advertising. It had imagination and the result of the voting in Griffith at the last election indicates that it had a great deal of appeal. The words of one song, which went to the tune of ‘Waltzing Matilda’, were as follows:

Once a Labor Lord Mayor ran for Federal Parliament, He tried to take Don Cameron ‘s seat; But the electors of Griffith want to change the government,

Cameron is Liberal and he won ‘t be beat.

And so it went on to the verse of that tune. But the station would not accept that advertisement or any of the others I had. I believe that that was grossly unfair because, on the serious side, licences for radio and television stations are necessarily restricted. There is only so much space on the band and only so many listeners in each city. If we have a situation in which the Labor Party owns the media, I do not believe that it has any right to discriminate between advertisers. A station has to accept all advertisements. The more I think of the comments of my friend the honourable member for Lilley (Mr

Kevin Cairns), who said that all political parties should get out of the media, the more I realise how much sense he made. It is high time the Labor Party moved out of the area of propaganda and out of the area of strangling free thought and handed over the running of the media to people who are going to be responsible in their presentations and who will accept the advertisements of all people. This afternoon the honourable member for Hunter (Mr James) referred to the fact that the skies are filled with aeroplanes leaving Queensland with farmers for the farmers’ meeting. The people of Queensland have had indications of unfairness and were not at all happy.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Mr WENTWORTH:
Mackellar

-I do not want to take up too much time of the House by referring to procedures in the House but I think that the protection of the rights of private members is fundamental to the operation of this House and therefore fundamental to democracy. For that reason I bring forward what I do tonight. On 19 September, as recorded in Hansard on page 1S79 and following pages, I was speaking to the Post and Telegraph Rates Bill (No. 2). I had spoken for only a few moments when the Special Minister of State (Mr Lionel Bowen), who in this House represents the PostmasterGeneral (Senator Bishop) and who was sitting at the table, interrupted me and took what he alleged to be a point of order. It seems to me on reading the Hansard record not really to be a point of order. However, he took what he alleged to be a point of order.

He resented some things I had said and asked me to swear a statutory declaration in respect of them. He said:

I want you to swear it now. Swear it now.

He was a little incoherent. I said:

Yes, of course I do.

Immediately I had concluded my speech I found a justice of the peace and made the statutory declaration. I then tried at the earliest opportunitythis is recorded in Hansard- either to read it or to lay it on the table of the House. I was refused permission by the Government so to do. I propose now to read that statutory declaration. It states:

page 1736

QUESTION

STATUTORY DECLARATION

My name is William Charles Wentworth, and I am a member of the Commonwealth Parliament.

Some weeks prior to the last Federal Election I visited the Redfern Mail Exchange, and spoke to certain senior postal officials there and to certain employees.

The senior officials informed me that some little time previously the Postmaster-General had attended a mass meeting of employees there. They then informed me that although he had with him an official from the Central Office in Sydney, no senior officers from the Redfern Exchange were present.

I was informed by employees that at the meeting the PostmasterGeneral was presented with a written series of demands, relative very largely to organisational matters, and that he had promised that if the Labor Government were reelected to office, he would grant these demands. I am informed by these employees that at this meeting he signed a copy of these demands. I was given a copy of what purported to be these demands.

And I make this declaration and so swear.

That statement is in the form of a statutory declaration and is available for the House. I shall lay it on the table if the House requires me to do so.

This matter was referred to me also in a letter from an employee. It is a signed letter, not an unsigned one, in which he says:

The attached are the 8 claims already mentioned, signed by Mr Bowen, PMG, at a mass meeting on 18.4.74.

I have here a copy, not a signed copy, of the demands which were served on the then PostmasterGeneral and which it is alleged, according to the information that I have that he signed and capitulated to. I seek leave to have this document incorporated in Hansard. It is somewhat lengthy to read.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Is leave granted?

Mr Lionel Bowen:

– I have not seen them.

Mr WENTWORTH:

-But you signed them.

Mr Lionel Bowen:

– I have not seen those.

Mr WENTWORTH:

– All right, the former Postmaster-General became a little incoherent in this debate. He was indignant at 2 statements I had made. I admit that I made them on the evidence that I was given, not having been present at the. meeting myself. The 2 statements were that although an officer from the central administration of the Postmaster-General’s Department in Sydney was present no officer from the Redfern Mail Exchange was present at the mass meeting. This was a statement which the former Postmaster-General received with some indignation. I believe it to be a true statement but, as I said, I was not present at the meeting myself. However I was told by people who were present at the meeting that it was a true statement.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I have the honourable member’s earlier speech before me. He was good enough to show it to me. I am not sure whether the matters he mentions are within the subject matter of that debate. Of course, as the honourable member would be aware, he cannot revive an earlier debate.

Mr WENTWORTH:
MACKELLAR, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP; IND LIB from Oct 1977

-I am aware of that, Sir. I am referring now only to the declaration itself. I did not have this copy with me at the time, but the former Postmaster-General indignantly denied, as I understand it, that he had signed this declaration.

He asked me to swear a statutory declarationa rather unusual request for one member to make of another, but which I acceded to- that I had received this information and I believed it to be true. I have a signed statement that it is true. I do not propose to give the former PostmasterGeneral the name of the person who signed that statement because I know that if I did he would go for the usual tactic of victimisation. However I ask the former Postmaster-General to reciprocate in kind for what I have done. He asked me to swear a statutory declaration. I have done so. I now ask him to sign a statutory declaration on the 2 matters that he has specifically denied in the debate. First I ask him to sign a statutory declaration that an official from his own Redfern Mail Exchange was present at the mass meeting held in the Redfern Mail Exchange and, if so, to name that person who was present. The second thing I ask him to sign in this statutory declaration is a statement that he did not sign the 8 demands which were served on him. He now has a copy of those demands. I ask him would he be good enough to return it to me now he has seen it and I will seek his leave to have the document incorporated in Hansard. Is that leave granted?

Mr Lionel Bowen:

– I do not mind it being incorporated.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Leave is granted. (The document read as follows)-

page 1737

QUESTION

RECOMMENDATION BY STATE EXECUTIVE SUB-COMMITTEE

  1. Artarmon to be brought under Mail Branch Control and conditions immediately.
  2. Strathfield, Potts Point and Parramatta continue as zonal centres at their present level of staff and output. All persons sorting in zonal and mail centres to be Mail Officers. Any future recruitment to these zonal centres be undertaken with a view to providing preference to staff at SME and GPO and qualified staff from Post Offices.
  3. Arncliffe to revert to former function and cease to form part of the zonal network until proper premises are provided.
  4. No extension of the existing zonal network as at the time of inspections by the Mail Branch Council.
  5. Any future diversion of mail from the existing Mail Branch facilities should be through the establishment of Area Mail Centres properly planned and constructed as part of a long term plan and under Mail Branch control.
  6. A central traing school be set up in the City so that anyone who is in future employed to son mail in the metropolitan area may be properly trained under Mail Branch control and subject to APWU inspection.

Further that any person who is employed as a Mail Officer in either Area Mail Centres or Zonal Centres and who has not yet satisfied the provisions of pan ‘ A ‘ or ‘ B ‘ of the barrier should be given the opportunity to attend the Central Training School in order to become ‘qualified’ under Mail Exchange Branch conditions.

  1. That the matter of existing Area Mail Centres and Zonal Centres be reviewed by the parties concerned in the present discussions at the end of six months.
  2. That pending the review a monthly visit by members of the previously elected delegation, plus one representative from the Postal Group and one from the Transport Group should take place to Artarmon and Zonal Centres.

A monthly statement on the amount of mail traffic passing through Area Mail Centres and Zonal Centres be published for members in the Mail Branch.

Mr WENTWORTH:

– I thank the House. That will save me the trouble of taking up the time of the House by reading it. If you will be4 good enough to look at page 1580 of Hansard, Mr Speaker, you will see that the former Postmaster-General asked me for a statutory declaration. Immediately before he did so I had said:

I was not present at the meeting myself and I do not know of my own knowledge who was present. But I am willing to swear that senior officials gave me this information and they said that although -

The Minister then interrupted me by saying:

I want you to swear it now. Swear it now.

I said:

Yes, of course I do.

Within the next few minutes and immediately I concluded my speech I wrote out in my own handwriting the statutory declaration and I got a justice of the peace to sign it. That declaration is now in due form. The original is signed. If the House so desires it is ready for laying on the table. I now ask the former Postmaster-General, since he issued the original challange- a most unusual thing for one member to do to another- to me to swear this declaration, to swear a declaration specifically on the 2 points that I have mentioned. First, let him swear that there was one of his officials from the Redfern Mail Exchange present at the mass meeting of men- I am told by senior officials that there was not- and, secondly, let him swear that he did not sign the demands served on him at that meeting. I have been told, circumstantially, that he actually waved the paper and said: ‘I will sign’. But as to that, I can only say is that this has been reported to me. I have in my possession a signed letter with an address on it, and that I am willing to swear, but I am not willing to allow the Minister to know the name of the person who signed the letter so that the Minister can victimise him. I have a signed letter in my possession at the present moment saying that the Minister signed these demands. I ask the Minister whether he would be good enough, perhaps by tomorrow morning, to furnish me with that statutory declaration.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
KingsfordSmithSpecial Minister of State · ALP

-This matter was the subject of a debate on 19 September. The honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Wentworth) has taken the matter no further tonight than he did on that occasion when he falsely alleged that somebody had been excluded from a meeting at the Redfern Mail Exchange at my direction. In the course of the debate last week I suggested that he name the person. He refused to do it. I then said: ‘You had better make a declaration as to who told you, because I do not believe you’. He said: ‘Yes, I will do that’. The honourable member now has a declaration but he says that he cannot name the person He says that he has just been told certain things. This issue was the subject of a point of order taken by myself last week. I was relying on standing order 76, which states:

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

The imputation was that I had excluded people from the meeting. That was an improper imputation. It never happened.

I exlained the situation the other evening. As I have a few minutes available, let me give some background. There had been a lot of difficulties with the mail in Sydney due to what are called area mail centres. The Redfern Mail Exchange employees had difficulty in accepting the view that area mail centres should be conducted in the way they were being conducted. There was nothing wrong with them, but the Redfern employees were concerned and there had been meetings about the matter. Mr Milton Stevens, the Director of Postal Services in Sydney, is responsible for the Mail Exchange. He was at the meeting, and so was 1. 1 was invited to be there. The meeting was arranged by the employees with the permission of the Postmaster-General’s Department. It was a mass meeting of some 2,000 people. They were there to discuss what they felt were a set of conditions which ought to apply to area mail centres.

It was agreed some time before the meeting that the best way to satisfy the concern of the employees was to assure them that they would have an opportunity to be promoted to the mail centres, that the mail centres would have the same training courses as the Redfern Mail Exchange had, and that they would have the same working conditions and amenities. For some weeks before this meeting Mr Milton Stevens had taken representatives of the union around to these mail centres. They had agreed on a set of conditions which the Department would say would apply. That was a solution. As it turned out- I think in about March- the solution lasted only a short time. The area mail centres became an issue with the Department. According to the employees the Department was not using the same training methods at the area mail centres and there was further trouble at the Redfern Mail Exchange because of that.

The union officials came from Melbourne. The honourable member for Mackellar maligned them as being Marxist. That was his expression. He said they were Marxist union officials. That is not true either, but he uses the privilege of the House to talk about people in this fashion, knowing that they cannot defend themselves. The union officials flew from Melbourne to address the meeting. I was invited to be there as Postmaster-General to affirm and confirm that a set of arrangements had been made and the Department would adhere to them. Mr Stevens was there also. The honourable member for Mackellar was anxious to say that there was a set of demands which was an election bait. It had nothing to do with the election at all. What he alleged was a set of demands was a set of conditions to which the Department had agreed. They were to be on trial for a period of 6 months and subject to review. They were agreed to on the basis that there would be the same staff and the same opportunity for advancement in the mail centres as there were in the Redfern Mail Exchange. When the meeting took place everybody spoke about this issue and I was then invited to speak. I might add that all the television cameras of Sydney were there, so there is no misunderstanding as to what took place.

Mr Kevin Cairns:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

– How did you go over?

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:

-I went over well. I even spoke afterwards. The honourable member must have heard that, because that is about the only interest he has shown. I will mention that later. He rang me after that and asked whether he too could attend. We will talk about that in a minute. He did not mention that tonight, by the way. I spoke to the people at the meeting and said: ‘What the Department has told you is right. I confirm it. It has been the situation that you have known since March. There is no need to be doubting the word of the Department’. The people at the meeting asked whether I would sign that arrangement. I said: ‘Yes, I will sign it, because the Department has agreed to it’. It is completely outrageous to say that I said: ‘If you elect us, we will see that this arrangement is implemented’. It had been implemented since March. In fact, the area mail centres had come into being the previous year. The honourable member for Mackellar is maliciously using the fact that somebody told him certain things to mount a smear campaign by the use of unnuendo and slander, which I think is disorderly of any honourable member. In my view honourable members in this Parliament are entitled to have some protection.

Mr Wentworth:

- Mr Speaker, if anybody is being disorderly -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! Is the honourable gentleman taking a point of order?

Mr Wentworth:

– Yes.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The honourable gentleman should say that he is taking a point of order.

Mr Wentworth:

– I am sorry. If anybody is being disorderly by the criteria which the Minister himself invoked, it is the Minister himself now. Mr Speaker, I ask you to apply to the Minister the same kind -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! That is not a point of order.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
KINGSFORD-SMITH, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– The honourable member for Mackellar has accused people in this Parliament of corruption and victimisation. They are his own words. That is what he said, and he is still nodding his head tonight. He based his attack on an innuendo by somebody unnamed about something that did not happen. The honourable member knew that it did not happen. What happened at the meeting was public knowledge. At least 3,000 people were at the meeting. Mr Milton Stevens, as I affirm again, was the officer in charge. He was responsible for the Redfern Mail Exchange. By all means, the honourable member may go and see him in Sydney when he gets back there on Friday. The thing that he did not say in his declaration is that he rang my office and asked whether he could go to the meeting at the Redfern Mail Exchange. I said: ‘By all means go’. He asked whether he could take television cameras with him. I said: ‘By all means do that’. He did that, and he would have done it in April.

It is rather remarkable that he waited until 19 September in the course of a debate on the Post and Telegraph Rates Bill to raise the issue in the fashion in which he did. The point I objected to was not that he said I did something that was not wise in signing an agreement. He is entitled to his view. I objected to the fact that he said I had acted improperly to exclude officials from a meeting and that I had acted corruptly to offer an election bribe. That is outrageously false and everybody in Sydney knows it. Strikes had been taking place since February. The problem underlying the strikes had been solved in March on a temporary basis. The Department can confirm that Mr Milton Stevens had to take the union officials and employees to all area mail centres and that an agreement had been reached but it broke down because the employees wanted it in writing. They would not just accept the view. I confirmed the Department’s view. That is the position. Everybody knows what happened at that meeting. What I am objecting to is a member of Parliament of the standing and seniority of the honourable member for Mackellar, even though he says he is retiring, so often ignoring the fact that it is outrageously wrong to base an attack on another honourable member on something that somebody has told him. I might say to the honourable member for Mackellar that somebody told me that he had found the honourable member asleep once when he was a Minister and so not able to introduce a Bill and some other Minister had to do it. It would be an inuendo

Mr Wentworth:

– That is not right.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:

-It would not be true, would it? But it does you a lot of damage, does it not? The honourable member knows that he never fell asleep or that his colleagues could not find him and had to get the then Minister for Repatriation to introduce a Bill in his absence. The honourable member knows that would be false, would he not? I have just laid an accusation against the honourable member. That is all he has done against everybody in this House on occasion. He has used the smear and the innuendo. All one has to do to be an honourable member of Parliament is to be forthright and full of integrity and to ask an honourable member what happened on a certain occasion. The member will tell you. You can check it and then say: ‘Bill Jones said that it did not happen’. I will say: ‘Let us look at what Bill Jones says’. The honourable member for Mackellar did not adopt that approach.

Mr Kevin Cairns:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

– The honourable member for Mackellar is a superb member of Parliament.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:

-He does not need any help from the honourable member for Lilley.

There is no need for the honourable member to get excited. The honourable member for Mackellar is a well known performer of the smear, and he is able to get away with it. He is not entitled to do it. If he ever does it again I will move for his expulsion from this House, because I do not think that such conduct is befitting of an honourable member. That is all I want to say to him. The honourable member has left the issue in the position that somebody told him but he cannot disclose the name.

Mr Wentworth:

– The misrepresentations are so serious that I hope to take them up as soon as the House meets.

Mr SPEAKER:
Mr Wentworth:

– It is an outrageous falsification -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! If the honourable gentleman wants to make a personal explanation he will have the opportunity to do so tomorrow.

Mr Wentworth:

– Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! It being 1 1 o’clock the House stands adjourned until 3 p.m. tomorrow.

House adjourned at 11 p.m.

page 1741

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS UPON NOTICE

The following answers to questions upon notice were circulated:

Department of Foreign Affairs: Research Grants (Question No. 74)

Mr Snedden:

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

  1. 1 ) Will the Minister provide a list of all grants, to any organisation or individual, that are provided from moneys appropriated to his Department or authorities under his control, to undertake research.
  2. To what bodies have such moneys been advanced, and what was or is the nature of the research being undertaken as a result of the grants in each of the last 3 years.
Mr Whitlam:
ALP

– The Foreign Minister has provided the following answer to the right honourable member’s question.

  1. Financial support to the limit of $50,000 was approved for the period 1972-74 to undertake a study initiated by the United Nations Institute for Training and Research (UNITAR). A grant of $27,362 was provided in 1973-74 for organisations involved in population activities.

Australia also contributes indirectly to the research work undertaken by United Nations specialised agencies by payment of its annual membership dues. The nature and extent of these programs can be ascertained from the annual reports of the bodies concerned which are held in the Parliamentary Library.

Similarly Australian financial contributions to other international bodies like the IAEA may in part be used for research.

  1. The UNITAR study, which is being carried out by the Education Research Unit at the Australian National University, aims to assess the significance of the factors that account for the ‘brain drain’ and emigration and return between developing and developed countries.

The International Union for Scientific Study of Population (IUSSP) was granted $10,000 and the population program of the OECD Development Centre received $17,362. These two international agencies are primarily concerned with research and promotion of research into demography and population growth, and the dissemination of related information.

Department of Special Minister of State: Research Grants (Question No. 84)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Special Minister of State, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Will he provide a list of all grants, to any organisation or individual, that are provided from moneys appropriated to his Department, or authorities under his control, to undertake research.
  2. To what bodies have such moneys been advanced, and what was or is the nature of the research being undertaken as a result of the grants in each of the last three years.
Mr Lionel Bowen:
ALP

– The answer which is provided below gives details in respect of:

  1. grants provided from money appropriated to my department in 1973-74 to five organisations for the purpose of research and study on Australian historical projects of national significance: and
  2. grants previously provided to these organisations in 1971-72 and 1972-73, from money appropriated to the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet.

The information is as follows:

Department of Housing and Construction: Appointment of Women (Question No. 116)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Housing and Construction, upon notice:

  1. How many women have been appointed to senior positions in his Department since 2 December 1 972?
  2. Who are they?
  3. To what position has each been appointed, and what is the function of the position.
Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

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

The right honourable member will be aware that information on the employment of women in the Australian Public Service is presented in a number of regular statistical items, for instance ‘Intake of Permanent Staff’ and ‘Staff Statistics’ contained in annual reports of the Public Service Board. I wish to direct his attention also to the special item ‘Female Employment’ at pages 101 to 109 of the Public Service Board’s 1971 annual report. I understand that much of that information is being up-dated for inclusion in the Board’s 1 974 report which will be tabled in September.

I also understand that the Board intends as part of its monitoring of equality of opportunity for men and women in the service to add to its list of regular statistical bulletins one on the employment of women. This bulletin, the first of which is expected to be released shortly will contain a variety of information including details of second division offices occupied by women.

The Public Service Board has in recent times made available a substantial amount of information on the employment of women to, for example, the Joint Council Sub-Committee on Women. I am sure the Board would be pleased to supply the right honourable member with any available information of this sort on request.

Electrically Powered Vehicles (Question No. 254)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice:

Will he make available the report prepared by the Bureau of Transport Economics on the feasibility of introducing electric powered vehicles to replace some conventional vehicles.

Mr Charles Jones:
ALP

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

The Bureau of Transport Economics report ‘Electric Cars’ is at present with the Government Printing Office and is expected to be completed within a few weeks. I anticipate releasing the report at that time.

Tasmania: Urban Passenger Transport (Question No. 344)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice:

What is his attitude to the submission forwarded to him by the Tasmanian Government requesting $1.8 million in 1974-75 and 1975-76 to assist urban public passenger transport in North and North- Western Tasmania.

Mr Crean:
ALP

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

I am informed that the Minister for Transport received a submission on this matter. The submission was considered within the context of the urban public transport assistance scheme as announced by the Government last year. The Minister for Transport subsequently wrote to the Tasmanian Minister for Transport pointing out this scheme applied to State capital and that the needs of the dues of Newcastle, Wollongong, and Geelong and the corridors linking them and the capital cities would also be looked at. In settling on this program the Government had given consideration to the limitations on finance which would be available and decided that priority should be given to these areas. The Minister informed the State Minister that in the light of the foregoing he was unable to see his way clear to recommend a reordering of the Government’s priorities to enable the area of Tasmania outlined in the State submission to be eligible for assistance within the program announced last year.

Else-Mitchell Report into Land Tenure (Question No. 379)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Special Minister of State, upon notice:-

When is it expected that the Government will take a final decision on the recommendations of the Else-Mitchell report into land tenure.

Mr Lionel Bowen:
ALP

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

The Government’s decision on the First Report of the Commissioner of Inquiry into Land Tenures was announced by the Prime Minister in his press statement of 6 August.

Urban Public Transport (Question No. 398)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice:

  1. Does he intend to extend funds for urban public transport to provincial centres with a population below 100,000
  2. Did he indicate to the Australian Transport Advisory Council that this was his intention
  3. If so, what form will the extension take.
Mr Charles Jones:
ALP

– The answer to the right honourable member’s question is as follows: (1), (2) and (3) In announcing the Australian Government’s initiative to improve urban public transport I advised the February 1973 meeting of ATAC that we would be prepared to extend the scheme to include major provincial centres of over 100,000 population based on comprehensive investigation. As the present scheme only extends to 1977-78 I do not envisage assistance being extended to centres with a population below 100,000.

Urban Public Transport (Question No. 399)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice:

Has the Government decided to drop the condition on grants to urban public transport authorities that have provided free off-peak travel; if so, why.

Mr Charles Jones:
ALP

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

The urban public transport program that this Government initiated was not conditional upon the urban public transport systems providing free off-peak travel. The question of pricing policies for urban transport is at present under investigation by the Bureau of Transport Economics in co-operation with State bodies.

The Australian Government’s attitude to fare structures of urban transport systems will be considered following the completion of this study.

Bureau of Transport Economics: Report (Question No. 405)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice:

  1. Is the Bureau of Transport Economics preparing a report which will identify community areas in Australia which are presently poorly served by public transport facilities.
  2. If so, when will copies of the report be made available.
Mr Charles Jones:
ALP

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

  1. and (2) I refer the honourable member to the answer to question No. 1635, in which I outlined some aspects of this study by the Bureau of Transport Economics. The study covered selected suburban areas in Sydney and yielded some useful information. However, results were not conclusive and a report will not be issued.

Urban Transport Study (Question No. 407)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice:

  1. Has agreement been reached between Commonwealth and State Transport Ministers on the undertaking of a joint study to ease urban transport problems.
  2. If so, what are the terms of reference, and what studies will be undertaken
Mr Charles Jones:
ALP

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

  1. The Australian Government and the State Governments have agreed to undertake a number of studies aimed at improving urban transport including the development of the Australian Urban Passenger Train consumer preferences in rail car design the development of a new rail system centred on Parramatta the feasibility of improving and standardising bus designs in Australia consumer preference in bus design analysis of bus replacement cycles urban transport pricing examination of household characteristics and travel patterns in the Sydney area estimation of a complete demand function for urban passenger transport
  2. The terms of reference are implied by the description of the study. Studies into urban transport Will continue to be undertaken although the nature of future studies is not yet determined.

Consumer Preferences in Urban Rail Carriage Design (Question No. 410)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Has a final report been prepared following the rail car preference survey carried out by the Bureau of Transport Economics in Brisbane.
  2. ) If so, when will the report be made public.
Mr Charles Jones:
ALP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. This report was tabled in Parliament on 23 July 1974.

Rail Service Studies (Question No. 412)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice:

  1. With reference to the answer to question No. 1110 (Hansard, 7 November 1973, pages 2970-1), which of the studies mentioned have been completed.
  2. Which of the studies have resulted, or will result, in reports being prepared.
  3. ) When is it expected that the uncompleted projects will be finalised.
Mr Charles Jones:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) The report on the rail car preference survey has been completed (see answer to question No. 410).

Although the overall study of Brisbane’s airport need is still continuing, an interim report has been produced on the requirement for a new international terminal. Copies of this report are available in the Parliamentary Library.

A revised report on the proposed interstate rail freight terminal at Acacia Ridge, Brisbane was presented at the July meeting of the Australian Transport Advisory Council. Study of other terminals is proceeding.

A final report on an optimal upgrading program for the Melbourne-Adelaide railway is in the course of preparation

  1. In addition to those described in (1), studies which will ultimately appear in report form are: determination of the optimal rail wagon fleet to perform the Australian main line freight task assessment of the upgrading needs of the single track section of the Sydney-Melbourne railway analysis of bus maintenance costs (incorporated in the study of bus replacement cycles referred to in the answer to question No. 1 1 10) potential benefits of reducing the number of Australian port calls by container ships through increased use of container modes.
  2. Many BTE studies (e.g. competition between modes in long distance passenger movements, complete demand function for urban passenger transport are of a long-term, on going nature and have no specific completion date, nor will they necessarily appear as published reports. Other investigations will be finalised as soon as practicable.

Bureau of Transport Economics: Studies (Question No. 413) Mr Snedden asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice:

  1. With reference to the answer to question No. 1285 (Hansard, 1 1 December 1973, pages 4575-6), what progress has been made in each of the studies mentioned.
  2. In particular, which studies have been completed and, for those not yet completed, what is the likely date of completion.
  3. What are the terms of reference of each project.
Mr Charles Jones:
ALP

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

  1. and (2) The following studies, or parts of studies, have been completed: Alternatves in Petrol Driven Motor Cars Simulation of Single Track Railway Operations The Treatment of Cross-modal Effects in Transport Evaluation

Scale Economies in Private Bus Operations in Melbourne Sensitivity of Estimated Transport Benefits to Key Parameters

Implication of Energy Resource Limitations for Transport in Australia (First Stage: Literature Review )

Estimating the Value to Public Transport Users of Comfort Improvements (First Stage: Literature Review)

The following studies are well advanced:

Wheat Freight Rates and their Effect on Wheat Movements

Removing Road Transport Controls in South AustraliaAn Assessment of Effects

Review of Railway Intersystem Rating Practices and their Effects

Survey of Pallet Use in Australia and Proposals for a New Standard Pallet (eventual report will be titled ‘Pallets and Containerisation in Australia ‘)

As I indicated in my answer to question No. 1285, it is not possible to state specifically when each individual study will be completed (in part, because many studies are dependent on State co-operation ).

  1. As I indicated in my answer to question No. 1110, Ido not propose to list the terms of reference for each study in detail, as the aims are implicit in the study description.

National Railway System: Study (Question No. 415)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice:

  1. What progress has been made by the Bureau of Transport Economics in the investigation referred to it by the Government, namely, an examination of the relative benefits of a unified national railway system or the maintenance of the present State railway and Commonwealth railway system.
  2. Did he indicate in 1973 that, if the Bureau saw advantages in retaining the present system, he would accept that opinion.
Mr Charles Jones:
ALP

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

  1. The Bureau of Transport Economics has commenced a study of the benefits that woud accrue from a unified national railway system as opposed to the present separate railway systems.
  2. I indicated that, in line with the Australian Government’s flexibility and desire for an efficient transport system, a report from the BTE favouring retention of the present system would cause me to rethink the situation- something that the States should be prepared to do if the report favours unification.

Reserve Bank Borrowings (Question No. 476)

Dr Gun:
KINGSTON, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

asked the Treasurer, upon notice:

  1. Have any of the trading banks availed themselves of ‘lender of last resort’ facilities of the Reserve Bank during 1974.
  2. If so, what were the terms upon which such facilities were provided.
  3. Have any of the trading banks overcome a shortage of cash by other than borrowing from the Reserve Bank during 1974.
  4. If so, did the bank or banks obtain terms less favourable than those available from the Reserve Bank.
Mr Crean:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) As mentioned by the Deputy Governor of the Reserve Bank in his press statement of 12 June 1974, some banks have borrowed from the Reserve Bank in order to maintain their LGS ratios above the agreed minimum of 1 8 per cent.
  2. In accordance with traditional banker/customer relationships, the terms and conditions of loans by the Reserve Bank under the terms of the LGS convention are not made public. The Bank may charge “penal” rates on such loans if it considers this justified.
  3. The trading banks do not borrow from the central bank to meet a shortage of cash but to observe the terms of the LGS convention. Thus they may have to borrow when they have adequate cash but not sufficient LGS assets in total to meet the 18 per cent minimum. The agreement with the Reserve Bank requires inter alia that they try to maintain the minimum LGS ratio by means other than borrowing from the Bank. As regards the drain on bank liquidity over recent months, the banks have sought to mitigate it in a variety of ways including issues of certificates of deposit, sales of commercial bills, reduced loans to authorized dealers in the short term money market, and a sharply reduced rate of new lending. Funds released from Statutory Reserve Deposit Accounts by the Reserve Bank have also provided a partial offset to the drain on liquidity.
  4. See answer to (2).

Land Held by Australian Government (Question No. 568)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Services and Property, upon notice:

  1. Is his Department conducting a study of Commonwealth land throughout Australia.
  2. If so, what is the purpose of the study.
  3. Who is conducting it.
  4. Will a report to the Minister be prepared.
  5. Will it be made public.
Mr Daly:
ALP

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

  1. and (3) Yes. The Department of Services and Property is conducting a survey of all land held by the Australian Government including Statutory Authorities.
  2. The purpose of the survey is the preparation of the computerized consolidated record of all land owned or leased by the Australian Government.

No such record has been prepared previously. When it is complete it will facilitate a general review, which the Government has also initiated, of landholdings to ensure that the lands to put to their best use consistent with the Government ‘s objectives.

  1. and (S) This initiative has been taken by me. No formal report will be made of the results of the survey which is a vast undertaking. However the collated information will be available to the Government and the Parliament and information will be more readily available on land in which members of the public are interested. Decisions taken or conclusions reached relating to changed landuse will be announced as and when appropriate.

Joint Parliamentary Committee on Prices: Import Price (Question No. 666)

Mr Garland:
CURTIN, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the Treasurer, upon notice:

  1. Did he take the opportunity to read the transcripts and evidence presented to the Joint Parliamentary Committee on Prices relating to import prices.
  2. Did he discover any important point in relation to these industries or prices of which he or his officers were previously unaware.
  3. Has he found the report and recommendations useful; if so, in what way.
  4. What action has he taken to implement them.
Mr Crean:
ALP

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

  1. 1 have not read the transcripts and evidence presented to the Joint Parliamentary Committee on Prices relating to import prices. I have however had the Report on that matter carefully examined.
  2. ) and (3) Yes. The report provides specific and detailed material, both to confirm results which might have been broadly foreseen in a more general way, and to clarify questions where there could have been doubt of the practical situation. In particular, the report indicates firstly that, in the cases it deals with, the revaluation of the Australian dollar had arrested the trend of rising import prices and that import prices would have risen significantly without revaluation, and secondly, that reductions in landed costs following revaluation had, in general, been passed onto the consumers of these products.
  3. The recommendations do not cover matters which would be primarily the responsibility of the Treasurer.

Company Takeovers (Question No. 668)

Mr Garland:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice:

  1. Referring to his Press Release No. 18 of 14 March 1974, what was the reason he found objection to the 8 proposals mentioned in the second paragraph.
  2. What was it about the S proposals mentioned in the third paragraph that made him decide further consideration should be given and interim orders made which were published in the Gazette.
  3. Did he or his officers influence in any way the negotiations between the parties resulting in the termination and takeover proposals being withdrawn in the case of any of the 3 cases mentioned.
  4. What were the reasons, found upon detailed investigation, that there was no objection to 3 proposals.
  5. In the remaining 2 cases referred to in the press release, what precisely was the reason or reasons that he decided the proposed takeovers would be contrary to the national interest.
  6. How is national interest defined in this case.
Mr Crean:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) The Government raised no objections to the 8 proposals concerned. Each of these proposals involved takeovers of companies with total assets of less than $1 million. It is the Government’s practice not to intervene in respect of such takeovers except in special circumstances.
  2. Interim orders are made to provide time to enable further consideration to be given to a proposal. In the case of the S proposals in question, the preliminary examination period of one month did not provide sufficient time for the Government to reach fully informed judgments.
  3. No.
  4. and (5) Under the Companies (Foreign Takeovers) Act 1972-73, action to prevent consummation of a particular takeover proposal is subject to the Government being satisfied that it would result in effective control of the ‘target’ company being transferred from Australian to overseas interests and that this would be contrary to the national interest. Accordingly, these are the bases on which individual takeover proposals are considered so far as the taking of action under the Act is concerned. Because confidential information is involved, it would not be appropriate for me to provide detailed information on the particular cases mentioned in my press release.
  5. The Government has continued to apply the criteria outlined on 26 September 1972 by the then Prime Minister in a statement to the House on overseas investment in Australia.

World Situation of Youth: Report (Question No. 700)

Mr Peacock:
KOOYONG, VICTORIA

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

  1. 1 ) With reference to the United Nations report on “The World Situation of Youth: Its Needs and Aspirations”, in what United Nations deliberations on this report has the Australian Government participated.
  2. How many statements have been made by Australian representatives at these meetings.
  3. On what dates, and where, were these statements made.
  4. Will the Minister make copies available to Members.
Mr Whitlam:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) The Australian Government was represented on the Third Committee of the 28th Session of the United Nations General Assembly which gave consideration, among other social questions, to the Secretary-General’s Report on the World Social Situation of Youth.
  2. to (4) The question of youth was coupled with that of the elderly on the Agenda of the Third Committee and was not given lengthy consideration. The two resolutions passed were adopted without a vote and a formal intervention by the Australian representative was not required.

Home Savings Grant Applications (Question No. 721)

Mr McLeay:

asked the Minister for Housing and Construction, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) How many homes were valued in excess of the statutory limit for a Home Savings Grant by (a) less than $500, (b) less than $1,000 and (c) less than $5,000 during each of the years 1972-73 and 1973-74.
  2. What was the average savings period for those applications for a Home Savings Grant which were rejected, because acceptable savings were not held for the minimum period, during each of the same years.
  3. What was the average residential period for persons whose applications for a Homes Savings Grant were rejected, because of failure to meet the residential requirement, during each of the same years.
Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: ( 1 ), (2) and (3) Statistics on rejected applications do not record the amount by which the value of the home exceeds the statutory limit, or the precise period by which the acceptable savings and/or residence of an applicant (and the spouse where appropriate) fall short of the statutory minimum of three years.

Tamar Valley Development (Question No. 744)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. When did the Government first promise a sum of $500,000 for the Tamar Valley in Northern Tasmania for the development of the Tamar region.
  2. Who gave the promise.
  3. To whom was the promise given.
  4. When was the promise given.
  5. 5 ) How was this promise communicated.
  6. If the promise was made in writing, will he incorporate a copy in Hansard.
  7. If the promise was made orally, will he indicate the exact nature of the promise, the conditions under which the grant was offered, and the purpose to which the moneys were to be put.
  8. Has the money yet been received by the Tasmanian Government.
  9. If not, why not, and when will the money be received by the Tasmanian Government.
Mr Whitlam:
ALP

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

  1. The Minister for Urban and Regional Development in a Ministerial Statement to the House of Representatives on 23 August 1973 on introducing the New Cities Program stated ‘In Tasmania, the Government intends to give assistance for land purchase, planning and other works in the Tamar Region, of the order of $0.5 million in 1973-74.’
  2. , (3), (4) and (5) See (1).
  3. See Hansard 23 August 1973, page 308.
  4. Not applicable.
  5. Expenditure to the amount of $35,000 incurred by the Tasmanian Government on planning studies in Tasmania including the Tamar Region has been reimbursed.
  6. Agreement with the Tasmanian Government has not been reached on the terms of financial assistance for land acquisition. Discussions are proceeding towards the conclusion of an Agreement.

Northern Territory -Queensland Rail Link (Question No. 771)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice:

Is the Bureau of Transport Economics examining the feasibilty of constructing a rail link from Alice Springs and Darwin to Mount Isa; if not, when will it do so?

Mr Charles Jones:
ALP

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

At the present time the Government is committed by the Northern Territory Acceptance Act and the 1949 Railway Agreement (S.A.) Act to the eventual construction of a standard gauge railway from Port Augusta to Darwin. Agreement has been reached for construction of the proposed standard gauge railway from Tarcoola to Alice Springs. Before construction of the line is completed I will be giving consideration to asking the Bureau of Transport Economics to undertake a comprehensive study of the possibility of extending the line to Darwin and, at the same time, to look at the feasibility of alternative routes to Darwin including that from Mount Isa. You will appreciate, however, that before a railway could be built within Queensland the prior agreement of the State Government would be required. -

Council of Nature Conservation Ministers (Question No. 784)

Mr Snedden:

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

  1. 1 ) When has the Council of Nature Conservation Ministers met
  2. ) Who attended each meeting.
  3. 3 ) What matters have been discussed at each meeting.
  4. What resolutions have been passed.
  5. What action has been taken on each of the resolutions.
Dr Cass:
Minister for the Environment and Conservation · MARIBYRNONG, VICTORIA · ALP

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

  1. 1 ) to (4) I draw the right honourable member’s attention to the reply to Question No. 583 (Hansard, 23 August 1974, page 1212).
  2. The following action has taken on the resolutions made at the inaugural meeting of the Council of Nature Conservation Ministers:

Resolutions 1 to 21 dealt with the formation of Council and the Committee structure to service Council. The Council and its Standing Committee have been established.

Resolution 22 dealt with the ban on kangaroo skins and products. The Australian Government has continued to enforce the ban on the export of Kangaroo skins pending all States implementing the programs as specified by the Ministerial Working Party which was established to make recommendations on the management and conservation of kangaroos.

Resolution 23 sought to extend the scope of the South Pacific Conference on National Parks to be held in New Zealand in 1975 to include fauna matters. The proposal was passed to the New Zealand authorities for consideration.

The summary record and decisions taken at the second meeting of the Council of Nature Conservation Ministers is, as yet, not approved by the members of Council.

Australian Diplomats: Uniforms (Question No. 834)

Mr Peacock:

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

  1. 1 ) Is the Department of Foreign Affairs designing a new Australian uniform for Australian diplomats.
  2. If so, what is the nature and description of the uniform.
  3. Who designed the uniform.
  4. Has the uniform been considered or approved; if so, by whom.
  5. Have the view of departmental officers been sought as to whether they wish to have such a uniform imposed upon them.
  6. If a uniform is being designed, will the Minister discontinue such a folly.
Mr Whitlam:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) The Department of Foreign Affairs has for some time given consideration to the possibility of its officers wearing on an optional basis, a form of modified lounge suit on occasions when European formal dress, such as white tie and tails etc., is required. The aim is to provide officers with a more simple, more comfortable, and more suitable style of dress for use on such occasions, particularly in hot climates.
  2. and (3) The style of formal dress which the Department would like to see introduced is essentially a modified lounge suit made from Australian wool. A design has not yet been finally settled upon but there is some feeling within the Department that, if possible, the suit should be in some way distinctively Australian.
  3. In considering the most suitable style of dress the Department has of course, taken into account the experience of Departmental officers who, through the dictates of protocol, have first hand knowledge of the discomfort, cost and inappropriateness of European formal dress, particularly in Asian countries.
  4. and (6) There is no question of a ‘uniform’ being imposed on officers. Only those who chose to wear the suit need to do so and they would be able to purchase it on the same basis as an officer acquiring other formal dress. The Minister considers that use of the formal dress is a matter for the department and individual officers to decide themselves in the light of circumstances pertaining to their country of accreditation.

South African Services Attache (Question No. 838)

Mr Peacock:

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

  1. 1 ) Has the Department of Foreign Affairs requested the South African Embassy to withdraw its military attache and not to replace him.
  2. If so, when was the request made.
  3. On what grounds was the request made.
  4. To whom specifically was the request made.
Mr Whitlam:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) The Department of Foreign Affairs has informed the South African Embassy that the Services Attache, Brigadier Van Dyke, is not to be replaced on completion of his tour of duty. No request has been made by the Department of Foreign Affairs for the Services Attache to be withdrawn.
  2. 16 April 1974.
  3. 3 ) The request was made in order to bring South Africa ‘s diplomatic representation in Australia into line with the realities of our relationship with South Africa. No defence co-operation exists. This position is in conformity with relevant United Nations Resolutions.
  4. The request was made to the South African Ambassador in Canberra, H.E. Mr J. B. Mills.

World Peace Council (Question No. 900)

Mr Wentworth:

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

What information is available as to the origin, nature, affiliations, orientation and operations of the World Peace Council.

Mr Whitlam:
ALP

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

Information on the World Peace Council is to be found in Keesing’s Contemporary Archives (see in particular January 20-27, 1951, page 11220; April 14-21 1951, page 11408; August 28-September 4 1954, page 13760; February 9-16, 1957, page 15378) and in the 1973 Yearbook on International Communist Affairs. These publications are available in the Parliamentary Library.

Australian Government: Purchase of Land Overseas (Question No. 665)

Mr Garland:

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

  1. In what countries, and at what place, is it contemplated that land will be purchased and

    1. embassies
    2. high commissions, and
    3. other buildings erected to accommodate members of the Department of Foreign Affairs in the next 5 years.
  2. ) In what countries, at what places and at what cost, has land been purchased for such purposes in the last 2 years.
  3. What land tenure has been obtained for new buildings in Tokyo, Peking, Hanoi, South American countries and Middle East countries.
  4. What was, or is expected to be, the cost of the land in each case.
  5. What is the actual or estimated cost of buildings in each country referred to in parts (l),(2)and(3).
Mr Whitlam:
ALP

– The Foreign Minister has provided the following answer to the honourable members question:

  1. 1 ) In September 1 973 the Prime Minister announced the commissioning of firms of Australian architects to design and supervise the building of new Australian Embassy and High Commission buildings in Saigon, Suva, Singapore, Kuala Lumpur, Bangkok and Paris. At the same time the Prime Minister said that the present Chancery in Jakarta would be extended and that a major redevelopment project at Tokyo is under consideration.

Subsequently architects have been commissioned for extensions to the Embassy building at Washington and for a new Chancery in Wellington, New Zealand. A feasibility study has been completed for a new Chancery at Brasilia. In each of these cases land has been acquired and planning is proceeding. This is a program of major proportions which will involve capital expenditure over this and the ensuing two financial years of the order of $40m. The Overseas Property Bureau, in consultation with the Departments concerned, is examining requirements with a view to developing a program of further construction covering the ensuing 4-5 years for consideration by the Government. (2), (3), (4) and (5) As mentioned, land is already available for the projects referred to in the answer to pan ( 1 ). No land has yet been acquired in Peking or Hanoi. The Embassy at Peking is leased from the Government of the People’s Republic of China and action is in hand to secure premises on lease from the Democratic Republic of Vietnam. The information sought in the balance of these pans of the question is provided in the following table:

Co-operatives (Question No. 222)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Can he say what legislation exists in each State relating to co-operatives.
  2. What are the broad groupings of co-operatives that have been set up in each State, and what are their functions.
  3. 3 ) How many co-operatives are there in each group.
  4. What grants has the Government made to cooperatives since 2 December 1 972 and for what purpose.
Mr Crean:
ALP

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

  1. Information on State legislation relating to cooperatives is not readily available. The position in regard to mainland Territories is as follows:-

Northern Territory legislation comprises the Co-operative Societies Ordinance 1945-1972 and the Co-operative Trading Societies (Loans Guarantee) Ordinance 1969-72. The former deals essentially with the formation, powers and operation of a registered society; the latter authorises the Australian Government to guarantee the repayment of money borrowed by certain societies and for related purposes. In the Australian Capital Territory, legislation in force comprises the Co-operative Societies Ordinance 1939-1973 and the Housing Loans Guarantees (Australian Capital Territory) Act 1959. The former deals essentially with the incorporation of co-operative trading societies, building societies and credit societies, their powers and operation; the latter is an Act to facilitate the borrowing of money by co-operative building societies and the Commissioner for Housing.

  1. and (3) The Commonwealth Statistician has provided the following information.

The activities of co-operatives are controlled by various types of legislation brought down by State and Australian Parliaments for specific purposes at particular times. The appended tables 1 to 7 show, for each State and the Australian

Capital Territory and Northern Territory combined, a classification of type of legislation enacted by type of co-operative with each type of co-operative enumerated.

The functions of the various types of co-operatives are as follows: Rural and Producer Societies assist producers in conducting their operations and in marketing products. Trading Societies carry on business, trade or industry for the benefit of members. Community Settlement Societies operate to acquire land or settle or retain persons thereon and to provide any common service or benefit. Community Advancement Societies provide any community service (e.g. water, gas, electricity, transport, recreation, etc.). Building Societies assist members to acquire homes or other fixed property. Credit Unions or Co-operative Credit Associations arrange loans to members. Investment Societies enable members to combine to secure shares in companies or businesses or to invest in securities. Friendly Societies provide sickness and funeral benefits to members. Mutual Buying Groups operate for collective buying purposes. Societies of the same kind may combine to form co-operative associations and associations of all kinds may form unions of associations.

The Commonwealth Statistician, for statistical purposes, approaches the principal co-operatives listed in Tables 1 to 7 and, in his publications, reclassifies the co-operatives to the broad categories shown in the appended Table No. 8.

  1. The Australian Government has not made any grants to co-operatives in either the Northern Territory or the Australian Capital Territory since 2 December 1972. In respect of the Northern Territory no advances, either repayable or otherwise, have been afforded to these societies. As I announced in my 1973 Budget Speech, the Government has decided to cease providing advances to A.C.T. permanent building societies for on-lending to eligible borrowers on first mortage. However, $1.1 million was provided in 1973-74 to enable these societies to honour outstanding loan commitments as at 30 June 1973. For the period 2 December 1972 to 30 June 1974, five permanent building societies have received a total of $6,317,120 by way of loans repayable over 31 years at 6Vt% per annum. This is made up as follows-

Electoral Divisions (Question No. 714)

Mr Morris:

asked the Minister for Services and Property, upon notice:

What are the latest enrolments in (a) each electoral division in Australia; and (b) each subdivision within each electoral division.

Mr Daly:
ALP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is presented in the following tables:

page 1751

ENROLMENTS AT 26 JULY 1974 FOR EACH

page 1751

FEDERAL ELECTORAL DIVISION, ALSO SHOWING SUBDIVISIONAL ENROLMENTS

*(N.B. Divisional enrolments only are available for the Divisions of Canberra and Fraser).

Department of Northern Development: Appointment of Women (Question No. 108)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Northern Development, upon notice:

  1. How many women have been appointed to senior positions in his Department since 2 December 1 972.
  2. Who are they.
  3. To what position has each been appointed, and what is the function of the position.
Dr Patterson:
Minister for Northern Development · DAWSON, QUEENSLAND · ALP

-( 1 ) (2) and (3) I refer the right honourable member to Mr Whitlam ‘s answer to

Question No. 97, which appeared in Hansard of 24 July, page 625.

Prime Minister: Overseas Trips (Question No. 164)

Mr Lloyd:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. Who has accompanied him on each of his overseas trips
  2. Of these, who have been (a) his family, ( b ) Ministerial staff, (c) ABC representatives, (d) other media representatives and (e) departmental officers.
Mr Whitlam:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) and (2) New Zealand: 20-23 January 1973

    1. Mrs Whitlam

    2. Dr. P. Wilenski, Mr G. Freudenberg, Mr E. Walsh, Miss C. Summerhayes, Miss B. Stuart and Miss E. L. Hon
    3. Sir John Bunting and Mr M. J. Wilson (Prime Minister and Cabinet), Sir Arthur Tange (Defence), Mr B. C. Hill and Dr S. Fitzgerald (Foreign Affairs), Mr J. R. Short (Treasury), Mr J. T. Smith (Overseas Trade), Sergeant B. Brown (Wellington-Canberra) (Attorney-General’s)
    4. and (d) None.

Papua New Guinea and Indonesia: 18-25 February 1973 See my answer on 1 May 1 973 (Senate Hansard p. 1 207 ).

  1. Mr W. Duncan, Mr P. De Vries, Mr K. Begg and Mr C. Souilijaert.
  2. Mr C. Anderson, Mr A. Barnes, Mr D. Barnett, Mr P. Barron, Mr B. Bayly, Mr. N. Bennell, Mr B. Johns, Mr V. Matthews, Mr A. Ramsay, Miss H. Sexton, Mr D. Solomon, Miss J. Perlez (Canberra-Port Moresby) and Mr R. Farmer (Canberra-Jakarta),

Western Samoa, London, Rome, Rhodes, Mauritius: 17-30 April 1973 See my answer on 1 5 May 1 973 (Senate Hansard p. 1 6 1 8 ).

There were no ABC representatives.

India: 3-7 June 1973

Professor Sir John Crawford, Or J. F. Hammett and Mr B. Grant (New Delhi-Canberra),

  1. a) Mrs Whitlam and Miss F. L. Whitlam.
  2. Dr P. Wilenski, Mr G. Freudenberg, Mr D. White, Miss B. Stuart, Miss N. Thompson and Mrs L. Dwyer.
  3. Mr P. H. Bailey, Mr M. J. Wilson, Mr W. G. N. Orr and Mr R. F. Millar (Prime Minister and Cabinet), Mr A. S. Cooley (Public Service Board) and Mrs Cooley, Mr L. H. Border, Mr H. D. Anderson and Dr R. S. Merrillees (Foreign Affairs), Mr D. H. McKay (Overseas Trade) and Mrs McKay, Sergeant R. Massey (New Delhi-Canberra) and Senior Constable P. Fenton (Attorney-General’s) and Mr C. F. J. Crowther ( Media )
  4. None
  5. Mr A. Barnes, Mr B. Bayly, Mr R. Schneider, Mr L. Shaw and Mr J. Slee (Sydney-New Delhi)

Mexico, U.S.A., and Canada: 24 July- 1 5 August 1973 His Excellency Mr Jose Gamas-Torruco. Ambassador of Mexico and Senora Patricia B. de Gamas (SydneyMexico City), Dr J. F. Hammett

  1. Mrs Whitlam.

  2. Dr P. Wilenski, Mr G. Freudenberg, Mr E. Williams, Mr E. Walsh, Miss C. Summerhayes Miss N. Thompson, Miss B. Stuart and Mrs L. Dwyer.
  3. Sir John Bunting and Lady Bunting, Mr B. F. Cox, Mr J. H. Scholtens, Mr P. D. Luck, Miss P. K. Haslam and Mr R. F. Millar (Prime Minister and Cabinet), Sir Keith Waller and Lady Waller (Sydney-Ottawa), Mr B. C. Hill, Mr R. A. Woolcott, Mr L. Bain (Honolulu-Canberra), Miss B. M. Olivers, Miss K. Duffy (Ottawa-Honolulu) (Foreign Affairs), Mr D. H. McKay (Overseas Trade), Mr R. Whitelaw (New York-Canberra) (Treasury), Sergeant B. Brown, Sergeant R. Massey (Ottawa-Sydney) (AttorneyGeneral’s).
  4. MrK.Begg
  5. Mr A. Ramsay, Mr B. Johns, Mr A. Barnes, Mr R. Haupt (not Ottawa-Honolulu), Mr D. Barnett, Mr D. Webb, Mr J. Hagin, Mr L. Oakes, Mr D. Solomon (Mexico City-Honolulu), Mr P. Costigan (Mexico City-Ottawa) and Mr R. L ‘Estrange (Mexico CityOttawa),

Japan: 25-31 October 1973

The Hon. Jim Cairns, M.P., the Hon. Frank Crean, M.P., and Mrs Crean, Senator the Hon. K. S. Wriedt,*the Hon. R. F. X. Connor, M.P., Dr H. C. Coombs and Mrs Coombs, Mr T. J. Burns, M.L.A., Dr J. F. Hammett, Mr T. Farrell and Mr J. Menadue.

  1. MrsWhitlam.
  2. Dr P. Wilenski, Mr G. Freudenberg, Mr J. Spigelman, Mr E. Williams, *Mr E. Walsh, Miss C. Summerhayes, Miss B. Stuart and Mrs L. Dwyer (Prime Minister’s Office), Miss K. Murray and Mrs J. Child (Office of the Minister for Overseas Trade), Mr R. Freney (Office of the Treasurer), Mr T. Connors and Mr D. Thomas (Office of the Minister for Primary Industry) *Mr R. Sorby and *Mrs J. White (Office of the Minister for Minerals and Energy).
  3. Sir John Bunting and Lady Bunting, Mr K. W. Pearson, Mr W. G. N. Orr, Mr R. F. Millar and Miss J. Robinson (Prime Minister and Cabinet), Sir Keith Waller and Lady Waller,Mr A. P. Renouf, MrH.D. Anderson, Mr R. A. Woolcott, Mr P. J. Flood, Mr D. R. Ashman, Miss S. Arthur and Miss D. Thomas (Foreign Affairs), Mr D. H. McKay and Mrs McKay and *Dr S. F. Harris (Overseas Trade), Mr J. H. Garrett (Treasury), Mr G. A. Brennan, Sergeant R. Massey, Sergeant B. Brown (Tokyo-Canberra) (AttorneyGeneral’s), *Mr E. D. Letts (Primary Industry), *Sir Lenox Hewitt andLady Hewitt (Minerals and Energy), Mr F. C. Pryor and Mr R. J. Palfreyman (Secondary Industry), and Mr S. H. Fitzpatrick (Media).
  4. MrK.Begg.
  5. Mr P. Barron, Mr B. Bayly, Mr A. Bray, Mr R. Colvill, Mr P. Harvey, Mr D. Johnston, Mr L. Oakes, Mr L. Shaw, Mr D. Solomon, Mr P. South and Mr B. White.

*Did not travel by charter flight.

China: 3 1 October-5 November1973

See my answer on 20 November 1973 (Senate Hansard pp.1904-5 ). The ABC representatives were Mr K. Begg, Mr K. McKendry and Mr J. Penlington. In addition the following persons travelled from Peking to Canberra:

  1. Mr E. Walsh.
  2. Mr A. Sheppeard, Miss A. Mayne and Mr J. Ingrey (Foreign Affairs).

New Zealand: 23-25 January1974

  1. MrsWhitlam and Miss C. J. Whitlam.
  2. Mr M. Delaney, Mr E. Walsh, Miss B. Stuart and Mrs L. Dwyer.
  3. Mr G. J. Yeend and Mr R. F. Millar (Prime Minister and Cabinet), Mr L. H. Border (Foreign Affairs), Sergeant B. Brown and Senior Constable P. Fenton (Attorney-General’s) and Mr E. Wadsworth (Media).
  4. None.
  5. MrI. Frykberg and Mr B.Murray.

Malaysia, Thailand, Laos, Burma, Singapore, Sabah and The Philippines: 28 January- 13 February 1974

Dr J. F. Hammett and Mrs Hammett, Mrs P. Henderson (Manila-Canberra).

  1. Mrs Whitlam and Miss C. J. Whitlam.
  2. Dr P. Wilenski, MrG. Freudenberg (Kuala LumpurManila), Mr J. Spigelman, Mr E. Williams, Mr E. Walsh, Mr D. White, Miss C. Summerhayes, Miss B. Stuart and Mrs L. Dwyer.
  3. Mr P. H. Bailey and Mrs Bailey, Mr A. R. Palmer, Mr J. W. Cleary, Mr R. F. Millar and Miss J. Robinson (Prime Minister and Cabinet), Mr R. A. Woolcott and Mrs Woolcott, Mr K. Gates, Mr E. W. Howell, Mr G. L. Barney (Bangkok-Rangoon), Mr L. M. Brennan (Kuala Lumpur-Bangkok), Mr J. W. Mapleson (Rangoon-Singapore), Miss K. Howes. Miss V. Gaw (Kuala Lumpur-Canberra) and Miss M. Clarke (Foreign Affairs), Mr G. E. Blakers (Defence), Mr J. Scully (Overseas Trade), Sergeant B. Brown and Sergeant R. Massey (Attorney-General ‘s) and Mr W. J. Payne ( Media ).
  4. Mr K. Begg, Mr P. Couchman (Kuala LumpurManila), Mr D. McKendry (Kuala Lumpur-Manila) and Mr B. Grundy.
  5. Mr A. Barnes, Mr D. Barnett, Mr R. Baudino, Mr B. Bayly, Mr I. Hamilton, Mr B. Johns, Mr P. Kelly, Mr D. Kim (Bangkok-Rangoon), Miss S. MacMillan, Mr D. Solomon (Sydney-Manila), Mr B. Wilson (Kuala Lumpur-Manila) and Mr M. Walsh.

New Zealand: 3-4 September 1974

Mr M. T. Somare, M.H.A., Mrs Somare and Mr R. Namaliu (all Sydney-Wellington). The Right Hon. B. M. Snedden, Q.C., M.P., Mr R. Sheppard, Mr R. J. L. Hawke and Mr I. Head (Wellington-Canberra).

  1. MrsWhitlam
  2. Miss C. Summerhayes and Ms E. Reid (WellingtonCanberra)
  3. Sir John Bunting (Prime Minister and Cabinet), Mr L. H. Border (Foreign Affairs), Air Marshal C.F. Read, C.B., C.B.E., D.F.C., A.F.C. (Defence), Sergeant R. Massey and Senior Constable R. Fox (AttorneyGeneral’s)
  4. and (d) None

Indonesia: 5-8 September1974

*His Excellency Her Tasning,

*Major General Tjokropranolo,

*Mr Sastranegara, * Lieutenant Sutomo, Dr J. F. Hammett, Dr P. T. McCawley

  1. Mr J. Spigelman, Mr David White, Miss P. Logan, and Mr R. F. Millar
  2. His Excellency Mr R. W. Furlonger, Mr R. A. Woolcott, *Dr J. W. F. Aniens *Mr B. M. Peck, Mr G. J. Forrester (Canberra-Denpasar), *Miss J. Koch (Foreign Affairs), Sergeant R. Massey, Senior Constable P. Fenton (YogyakartaCanberra) (AttorneyGeneral’s)
  3. Mr G. Scully andMr W. Phua
  4. MrT. R.Stayteand*MrM. Richardson

*Yogyakarta-Denpasar

Ms Elizabeth Reid: Report on Overseas Visit (Question No. 323)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Will Miss Elizabeth Reid be submitting a report to the Government following her recent visit to other countries and to the United Nations
  2. ) If so, will the report be make public.

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

  1. Ms Elizabeth Reid intends to submit a report to me following her visit to other countries and to the United Nations.
  2. No.

Department of Northern Development: Training in Financial and Auditing Procedures (Question No. 357)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Northern Development, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) How many officers in his Department have been given some form of formal training in financial or auditing procedures used in Commonwealth Departments in the last 12 months.
  2. What is the division and classification of these officers.
  3. 3 ) How many of these officers were in operational, as distinct from financial or accounting positions in the Service.
Dr Patterson:
ALP

-( 1) (2) and (3) I refer the right honourable member to Mr Whitlam ‘s answer to Question No. 329, which appeared in Hansard of 24 July, pages 626/627.

Public Servants: Leave Without Pay (Question No. 546)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

How many public servants are presently on leave without pay for periods of 12 months or more.

Mr Whitlam:
ALP

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

The Public Service Board has advised me that the information sought is not kept in consolidated form in its Office. It could only be obtained from a special survey of separate records held by departments. A survey of this kind would need a lot of time and effort. I have been informed that data collection procedures are being reviewed to ensure that this kind of consolidated information will be readily available.

Public Servants: Statistics (Question No. 649)

Mr Garland:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

What was the (a) number and (b) cost of public servants and other Government employees employed by departments and Government corporations and instrumentalities as at (i) 2 December 1972, (ii) 1 July 1973. (iii) 1 January 1974 and (iv) 1 July 1974.

Mr Whitlam:
ALP

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

  1. Information of the type sought by the honourable member is published quarterly in the Australian Bureau of Statistics monthly bulletin ‘Employment and Unemployment’. The bulletins for December 1972, June 1973, December 1973 and June 1974 contain the statistics that are available for the dates specified in the question. The June 1974 bulletin is in the process of being published.
  2. I am advised that information on costs is not readily available in the form sought by the honourable member. The Treasury, however, publishes some statistics on average employment and expenditure on salaries in respect of each department, except the Postmaster-General’s Department, in Table 16 of the document ‘Estimates of Receipts and Summary of Estimated Expenditure’ which is tabled annually with the budget papers. Table 4 of the same document summarizes estimated expenditure on salaries for the current financial year compared with expenditure during the previous financial year.

A summary of expenditure on salaries and wages by the Postmaster-General’s Department for the five years to June 1 973 is given in ‘Table 1 2: Cash Expenditure ‘ of the Financial and Statistical Supplement of the Annual Report of the Postmaster-General’s Department for 1973, tabled in the House on 18 October 1973. I am advised that the Post Office’s Annual Report, to be tabled during the Budget sittings, will contain the statistics to June 1 974.

Electoral Divisions: Quota Variations (Question No. 650) ‘ Mr Garland asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Did he say in his television broadcast to the nation in support of the referenda proposals that it was the recommendation of the Joint Committee on Constitutional Review in 1959 that a variation of 10 percent above or below the average number of electors in the electoral divisions in a State was sufficient.
  2. Does he recall, as a member of that Committee, that the preponderance of the views of the expert witnesses called, viz. the Chief Electoral Officer for the Commonwealth, the Commonwealth Electoral Officer in each State and the Surveyor-General for each of the States, was clearly in favour of retaining the variation at the existing 20 per cent.
  3. Is it a fact that the Committee’s Report stated that it would be easier to apply a 20 per cent margin of allowance than a 10 per cent allowance from the quota, although the Committee expressed itself satisfied that the problems of applying a 10 per cent margin were manageable.
  4. Where was the practicality of removing altogether a margin of allowance, proposed by the referendum, which is contrary to (a) the Committee’s recommendation of 10 per cent, (b) the Bill proposed by the Government in 1973 for 10 per cent and (c) the preponderance of opinion of the electoral officers in Australia.
  5. Does he also recall comment in the Report that, to keep the matter in its proper perspective, it should be appreciated that, in the redistributions made, relatively few seats have departed from the quota by more than one-tenth.
  6. Which seats, since the redistribution which took place in 1 937 up to that which took place for the last election, have departed from the quota by more than one-tenth, what was the percentage departure in each case, and how many seats had a smaller quota variation than one-tenth.
  7. Will he familiarise himself with the matters set out on page 49 of the Report from the Joint Committee on Constitutional Review, 1959, so that in making speeches on electoral changes a balanced view is put.
Mr Whitlam:
ALP

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

  1. to (5) and (7) The subject of the equal franchise has been thoroughly canvassed in the Parliament on11 occasions last year and this year, three times in the House of Representatives, three times in the Senate and once at the joint sitting in debates on the Commonwealth Electoral Bill (No. 2) 1973 and twice in the House and twice in the Senate in debates on the Constitution Alteration (Democratic Elections) Bill1974. The honourable member can ascertain my views from my speeches on 8 November 1973,5 March 1974 and 6 August 1974 (Hansard, pp3055-3056, pp44-45 and pp4-6 respectively) and from the many speeches I have made over the years in an effort to have the Menzies, Holt, Gorton and McMahon governments carry out the unanimous recommendation of the all party Joint Committee on Constitutional Review (1956-59), of which I was a member.
  2. There have been three distributions for the expanded House of Representatives, in 1948,1955 and1968. The appended tables give the names of the divisions which departed by more than 10% from the quota of electors in each State and the percentage of the deviation in each division at the time of each distribution and at the time of the last elections held under that distribution. Malapportionment escalates steeply with the lapse of time. (The distributions which the honourable member refers to as taking place in1937 and for the last election applied to Western Australia alone. Distribution proposals were also tabled for all States in1962 but were aborted by the Country Party.)

Salaries: Opposition Staff (Question No. 817)

Dr Klugman:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) How many members on the staff of (a) the Leader of the Opposition in the House of Representatives, (b) the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the House of Representatives, (c) the Leader of the Australian Country Party, (d) the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate and (e) the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate receive salaries, including overtime, of (i) $14,500 or more, and (ii) between $ 1 2,000 and $ 1 4,500 per annum.
  2. What are their names and positions.
Mr Whitlam:
ALP

– My colleague, the Special Minister of State, has supplied the following information for answer to the honourable member’s

In calculating salary, the special allowance of $2,860 per annum, payable to Ministerial Officers in lieu of overtime payments, has been included. In other cases, overtime payments received in the financial year 1973-74 have been used. Also, calculations have been based on a particular officer’s salary point in the appropriate salary range. As increments become due, an officer could move from the lower to the higher salary group.

  1. The table below lists the names and positions of the staff members of the particular non-Government Party office-bearers who currently receive salary, including a special allowance or overtime payments, of (i) $14,500 or more and (ii) between $ 12,000 and $ 14,500 per annum.

Leader of the Opposition’s Staff-

  1. Dr J. Best, Ministerial Officer, Grade 3. Mr J. Knight, Ministerial Officer, Grade 3.
  2. Mr J. Goodfellow, Ministerial Officer, Grade 2. Mr R. Sheppard, Ministerial Officer, Grade I .

Deputy Leader of the Opposition’s Staff-

  1. Mr A. O. Hay, Ministerial Officer, Grade 2.
  2. Miss J. Plant, Press Secretary.

Miss B. Anderson, Ministerial Officer, Grade 1.

Leader of the Australian Country Party’s Staff-

  1. Mr B. Virtue, Press Secretary.

    1. Mr R. Coombs, Ministerial Officer, Grade 2. Mrs B. Carrol, Ministerial Officer, Grade I.

Leader of the Opposition in the Senate’s Staff-

  1. Mr R. Maher, Ministerial Officer, Grade 2. Mrs N. Driver, Press Secretary.

    1. Mrs J. Hirst, Ministerial Officer, Grade 1 .

Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate’s Staff-

  1. Nil.

    1. Mr J. Shier, Ministerial Officer, Grade 2. Miss P. O’Connor, Ministerial Officer, Grade I.

Seymour: Flood Relief (Question No. 858)

Mr Bourchier:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Has he received a request for assistance for flood relief in the Seymour area from the Victorian Government.
  2. If so, what action has been taken by the Government to provide funds on $ 1 for $ 1 basis.
  3. If funds have been provided, what sum has been paid by the Government towards flood relief in Victoria.
Mr Whitlam:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) Following reports of extensive flooding in Victoria, including Seymour, I reiterated in a telex to the Premier of Victoria on 16 May last my Government’s offer of financial assistance in the event of natural disasters as I had outlined in a letter to all State Premiers on 27 February 1974. On the same day, I received a request on this matter from the Victorian Premier.

My offer included financial assistance for immediate relief of personal hardship and distress, on a dollar-for-dollar basis. Under the natural disaster relief arrangements, the Australian Government also meets the entire cost to the State Government of approved rehabilitation and restoration measures for natural disasters in Victoria above a base annual cost of $3. 5m. The Premier wrote to me in August concerning specific rehabilitation and restoration measures and these are at present receiving consideration.

In addition, in a letter of 6 June I have suggested to the Victorian Premier that the Australian and Victorian Governments engage in a joint undertaking to replace the railway embankment at Seymour by a viaduct and to build longer spans for the railway bridge in order to avoid repeated impoundment of water in the creek crossed by the broad and standard gauge tracks. A program of works recently proposed by the Victorian Government in this connection is also under consideration.

  1. and (3) No request for reimbursement of expenditure for relief of personal hardship and distress or other measures has yet been received from the Victorian Government. Any such request will be handled promptly.

Statutory Authorities: Appointment of Communists (Question No. 934)

Mr Ruddock:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. Have any Communists been appointed to boards of statutory corporations, advisory committees or commissions of inquiry.
  2. If so, how many, what are their names, and to what positions have they been appointed.
Mr Whitlam:
ALP

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

  1. and (2) Many people from all fields of national life have readily made available to the Government their particular skills and experience to help the work of bodies mentioned by the honourable member. The Government’s practice is to make such appointments on the basis of the contribution each person can make. It appreciates the cooperative spirit in which the services of many such people have been and are being provided. The Government has not imposed discriminatory political, social, racial or religious tests in these cases.

Department of Foreign Affairs: Research and Development Staff (Question No. 866) Mr Snedden asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice:

  1. How many officers or employees of the Department of Foreign Affairs or of authorities under the Minister’s control are employed on research and development work.
  2. Where are they employed.
  3. What is the nature of the work being undertaken.
  4. What is the total expenditure per annum in maintaining this research and development program.
  5. Who decides the nature of the programs or projects included in this research and development work.
Mr Whitlam:
ALP

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

  1. Fifty-two (52) officers are directly engaged on research work in the Department of Foreign Affairs. Their number includes a few Foreign Affairs Officers, who are engaged on specific research tasks, as well as Research Officers, Clerical Officers, Journalists, Engineers and Technical Officers. Furthermore, the nature of foreign policy formulation and coordination requires also that research work be undertaken by the majority of the Department’s political officers both in Canberra and Overseas from time to time.
  2. Officers engaged full-time in research work are employed in political, managerial and other functional areas of the Department in Canberra.
  3. The nature of the work embraces:

Foreign policy planning; political and social research; information and publications; historical and archival research; commercial and economic policy; international organisations and agencies; conditions of service oveseas; information handling and retrieval systems; development and review of communications systems; and science, technology and environment activities.

  1. The total expenditure on salaries of officers engaged in full-time research amounts to $572, 1 72 per annum.
  2. The projects are directed and assessed by Second Division officers of the Department ‘s Executive.

Department of Services and Property: Research Grants (Question No. 76) Mr Snedden asked the Minister for Services and Property, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Will he provide a list of all grants, to any organisation or individual, that are provided from moneys appropriated to his Department, or authorities under his control, to undertake research.
  2. To what bodies have such moneys been advanced, and what was or is the nature of the research being undertaken as a result of the grants in each of the last 3 years.
Mr Daly:
ALP

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

No grants to any organisation or individual to undertake research have been provided by my Department or the Australian Electoral Office.

Department of Defence: Research Grants (Question No. 78)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice:

  1. Will he provide a list of all grants to any organization or individual that are provided from moneys appropriated to his Department, or authorities under his control, to undertake research.

    1. To what bodies have such moneys been advanced and what was or is the nature of the research being undertaken as a result of the grants in each of the last 3 years.
Mr Barnard:
ALP

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

  1. ) The Aero Medical Research Laboratory of the University of Adelaide used these grants to finance research into the physiological effects relating to high altitude flying.

The Melbourne University used these grants to finance research by the academic staff of the RAAF Academy Point Cook into the following four fields:

  1. Radar Meteorology
  2. Upper Atmospheric and Astro Physics
  3. Ionospheric Physics
  4. Oceanography.

Department of Defence: Appointment of Women (Question No. 106)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) How many women have been appointed to senior positions in his Department since 2 December 1 972.
  2. Who are they.
  3. To what position has each been appointed and what is the function of the position.
Mr Barnard:
ALP

– The answer to the right honourable member’s question is as follows: (1), (2) and (3) No women have been appointed or promoted to senior positions in my Department since 2 December 1972. The Department does not discriminate against women; they rarely apply for senior positions. For less senior positions women are applying and being engaged. Of University Graduates recruited during the past two yean about one third are women.

Postmaster-General’s Department: Training in Financial and Auditing Procedures (Question No. 395)

Mr Snedden:

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

  1. How many officers in the Postmaster-General’s Department have been given some form of formal training in financial or auditing procedures used in Commonwealth Departments in the last twelve months?
  2. What is the Division and classification of these officers?
  3. ) How many of these officers were in operational, as distinct from financial or accounting, positions in the Service?
Mr Lionel Bowen:
ALP

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

Radio and Television Licences (Question No. 469)

Mr Kerin:

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

  1. What was the total revenue collected from radio and television licences during 1973-74.
  2. Can an estimate be given of the cost of collecting this revenue.
  3. How does the Postmaster-General’s Department enforce the payment of licences.
  4. How many people were prosecuted for not possessing a radio and/or television licence, what was the number of convictions, and what was the total amount collected in fines in 1973-74.
  5. How many staff are engaged full-time, or predominantly full-time, in the issue of licences and in ensuring that owners of radio and television receivers possess a licence.
Mr Lionel Bowen:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) The total revenue collection was $68,798,488.
  2. The estimated cost of collecting this revenue was $3,352,004.
  3. The Department employs a number of Licence Inspectors in each State and they are supplied with information which enables them to identify those addresses for which there is no record of a current licence. Their visits are generally concentrated on those premises and legal proceedings are taken against persons who have unlicensed sets capable of reception at the time of inspection. It is also a firm rule that local newspapers are made aware of impending visits by Licence Inspectors.

There are certain exceptions from prosecution action viz: pensioners, migrants (if resident in Australia less than six months), all instances where not more than three months has elapsed since the receiver was purchased or the licence has expired and any person who is able to substantiate a claim of hardship.

  1. Prosecution actions initiated in 1973-74 totalled 19,144, however some of these would not have been finalised due to the time lag between issue of the summons and hearing of the case. In the same period 23,120 convictions were recorded and fines and costs received totalled $548,192. These figures could be misleading because persons detected with an unlicensed television receiver as well as an unlicensed broadcast receiver would be proceeded against on two separate charges and it is not possible to establish how many double prosecutions are involved.
  2. Staff engaged in the recording and inspection of Broadcast and Television Licences totals 251.

Australian Capital Territory: Proposed National Gas Pipeline (Question No. SOS)

Mr Anthony:

asked the Minister for the Capital Territory, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) As the gas from the proposed national gas pipeline will be in a different form to gas in use in Canberra, how will the gas from the pipeline, when available, be distributed throughout the city.
  2. Is a reticulation system similar to that in use in other cities proposed.
  3. Would such a system be effected throughout the whole of Canberra or in the new areas only.
  4. Who will bear the costs of a reticulation system or costs of conversion to existing appliances using LPG.
  5. What is the relative heating value of appliances using LPG and natural gas respectively.
Mr Bryant:
ALP

– The answer to the right honourable member’s question is as follows: ( 1 ), (2) and (3 ) The method of distribution of natural gas in the Australian Capital Territory and the areas to be served have not yet been determined.

  1. The costs of reticulation would normally be recovered in the tariff. Who should bear the cost of conversion of existing appliances has not yet been determined.
  2. The heating capacity of appliances converted from the use of LPG to the use of natural gas would generally be unchanged even though the heat output of a given volume of LPG is greater than the same volume of natural gas. Adjustment of appliances at conversion would compensate for the difference in gas characteristics so as to give approximately the same heat output.

Land Allocation (Question No. 559)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Services and Property, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) What are the conditions under which land has been allocated to the Western Region Commission in Melbourne.
  2. Has he made land available to other local government organisations.
  3. If so, under what conditions and for what purpose.
Mr Daly:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) No Australian Government land has been allocated to the Western Region Commission in Melbourne.
  2. Apart from land sold for road-widening purposes, the only area sold to local government organisations since November 1972 in the Western Region of Melbourne is as follows: July 1974-6,166 sq. metres (1 acre 2 roods 3.8 perches) in Mason Street, Newport, to the City of Williamstown for $4,800.
  3. The land was sold on a concessional basis of 50 per cent of the valuation on the condition that the land was only to be used for public recreational purposes and that if ever the land was no longer required for this purpose, it was to be sold back to the Australian Government at the same price.

National Disasters Organisation (Question No. 561)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice:

  1. What establishment has been approved for the National Disasters Organisation.
  2. What is the nature of the joint Commonwealth/State exercises that are to be conducted in October to cope with national disaster situations.
  3. How often is it planned to conduct such exercises.
Mr Barnard:
ALP

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

  1. The establishment which has been approved for the National Disasters Organisation at Canberra comprises a Director-General (Major-General) and sixteen others. There are thirteen public service and four service positions. The establishment has absorbed five positions from the former Directorate of Civil Defence which has been abolished. Two of the public service positions will soon be relocated with the Department of the Capital Territory, to operate the A.C.T. Emergency Service.
  2. The first joint Commonwealth/State exercise, Exercise Hunter, is being held in the Newcastle area on 25-26 October 1974. The aim of the exercise is to test procedures designed to meet a large emergency resulting from the crash of a loaded passenger aircraft into the residential/industrial complex.
  3. It is planned that exercises of this type will be held annually, in differing States, designed to study a variety of disaster situations.

Telephone Directories: Errors (Question No. 598)

Mr Hunt:

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

  1. 1 ) Will the Postmaster-General call for and make public a report on the serious, and apparently growing number of errors and omissions in the new telephone directories, some with costly, and all with inconvenient and irreversible, impact for at least a year.
  2. ) As subscribers do not see errors and omissions until the books are published and distributed, will the PostmasterGeneral introduce a better proof reading system that will allow subscribers to proof their own entries and check listings where amendment or new listings occur.
  3. Will the Postmaster-General consider the introduction of quarterly or half-yearly supplementary listings to more quickly correct error and list new connections.
Mr Lionel Bowen:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) Until the error rate analyses are completed on the recently delivered Sydney and Melbourne telephone directories, it is not possible to comment on whether the incidence of telephone directory errors has increased. It is a fact, though, that despite all practicable safeguards and checks, some errors are unavoidable due to:

    1. the human element involved in the many manual processes associated with directory compilation and printing;
    2. the fact that new and cancelled services, and requests for amended entries affect, on average, about 30 per cent of directory listings each year; and
    3. the pressure of publishing larger and larger directories each year within the same production time span.

Although many errors relate only to incorrect street numbers, initials, etc., the Department is keenly aware that some errors can have a very adverse affect on the subscribers concerned. To help them, various measures are taken wherever practicable; for instance, in some cases calls can be diverted from an incorrectly listed number; in others, the subscribers concerned are supplied with cards to assist them to let their business contacts, friends, etc, know of the correct entry.

The Department sees the adoption of computer compilation of telephone directories as the main means of reducing the incidence of errors in directories to a minimum. It is significant that the lowest error rate recorded in main capital cities last year was in respect of the Adelaide directory- the only book currently compiled by means of computer. Computer compilation is being extended to the Brisbane alphabetical section of that directory this year and will be extended progressively over the next two or three years.

  1. Subscribers wishing to do so may have their telephone directory listings checked by arrangement with their local Telecommunications Sales Office if application is made at the time a new issue is in course of production.
  2. Based on experience some years ago, subscribers make little use of supplementary listings and in view of the very high cost involved already in producing directories on an annual basis, it is not proposed to add to such cost by introducing quarterly or half-yearly lists.

Royal Australian Air Force: Strength (Question No. 730)

Mr Hyde:
MOORE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) What is the state of preparedness of the Royal Australian Air Force.
  2. Are all squadrons at full strength.
  3. If not, to what extent are they below strength, both in respect of men and serviceable aircraft.
  4. To what extent are available aircraft backed up by adequate logistical support.
Mr Barnard:
ALP

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

  1. The RAAF is an effective, well trained organization which maintains a state of operational preparedness appropriate to assessed defence requirements.
  2. and (3) Squadrons are at their full peacetime strength in aircraft and are manned to approximately 95 per cent of personnel establishment.
  3. Adequate logistic support is available to meet approved peacetime rates of effort. This support is designated to ensure that aircraft are not grounded for a period in excess of 24 hours for want of a particular spare part.

Department of Services and Property: Management Consultant Firms (Question No. 796)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Services and Property, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) For what purpose has the Department used management consultant firms in the last 12 months.
  2. Which firms have been used.
  3. ) What was the total cost.
Mr Daly:
ALP

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

  1. In May 1974 the Australian Electoral Office engaged the services of a management consultancy firm for the following two projects:

    1. To advise the Chief Australian Electoral Officer on ways and means of improving polling booth procedures and facilities at elections/referendums in order to ensure a quicker turn-round of voters.
    2. To review Senate election procedures and suggest ways to speed up the filling of vacancies.
  2. W. D. Scott and Company Pty Ltd was engaged on both these projects.
  3. $8,000.

Postmaster-General’s Department: Management Consultant Firms (Question No. 807)

Mr Snedden:

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

  1. For what purpose has the Postmaster-General’s Department used management consultant firms in the last 12 months?
  2. Which firms have been used?
  3. What was the total cost?
Mr Lionel Bowen:
ALP

– The Postmaster-General has provided the following answer to the right honourable member’s questions: 1 and 2. Management Consultant firms have been used for a variety of studies within the last year. In addition academic staff from several Universities have been retained to provide management consulting services. The following list outlines projects which utilized management consulting services during 1973-74. The consultant firms are listed and where the services of a particular individual were sought the name of the individual is included.

  1. The total cost of management consulting services attributable to work carried out for the APO during the last 12 months was approximately $ 1 1 8,000.

Department of Defence: Research and Development Staff (Question No. 869)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) How many officers or employees of his Department or of authorities under his control are employed on research and development work.
  2. Where are they employed.
  3. ) What is the nature of the work being undertaken.
  4. What is the total expenditure per annum in maintaining this research and development program.
  5. Who decides the nature of the programs or projects included in this research and development work.
Mr Barnard:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) The total number of employees engaged in research and development work is 5700.
  2. The largest number are employed at Salisbury/Woomera, South Australia, and in Melbourne, Victoria, with a smaller number at Canberra and Sydney. A very small unit is maintained at Innisfail, Queensland, and a few are overseas.

  3. The nature of the work being undertaken is:

    1. Research and development on specific defence projects.
    2. Consultancy and investigation work for the Defence Forces and Government Departments or industries engaged on Defence work.
    3. Consultancy and investigation work for other bodies on matters in which the establishments have special facilities and skills.
    4. Background research required for the proper execution of the above functions or which is significant to the defence requirements of Australia.
  4. The total expenditure for the year 1973-74 to maintain the program was $6 1 ,0m approximately.
  5. The Minister for Defence, on the recommendation of the Defence Science Board, decides the nature of the programs as a whole and also the major projects undertaken in research and development work.

Department of the Environment and Conservation: Research and Development Staff (Question No. 884)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for the

Environment and Conservation, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) How may officers or employees of his Department or of authorities under his control are employed on research and development work.
  2. Where are they employed.
  3. What is the nature of the work being undertaken.
  4. What is the total expenditure per annum in maintaining this research and development program.
  5. Who decides the nature of the programs or projects included in this research and development work.
Dr Cass:
ALP

– Taking ‘research and development work’ to be work carried out in, or based on, a research laboratory, the answer to the right honourable member’s question is as follows:

  1. and (4) Nil.
  2. ) , ( 3) and ( 5 ) See answers to (1 ) and (4).

The Department is however involved in the administration of research in various fields.

Overseas Property Bureau (Question No. 929)

Mr Connolly:
BRADFIELD, NEW SOUTH WALES

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

  1. . Is he responsible for the Overseas Property Bureau.
  2. If so, is it a fact that a substantial shipment of furniture was purchased by the Bureau from Australian manufacturers and air freighted to Peking in July1974.
  3. Is it also a fact that, in connection with the refurnishing of the Australian Chancery and staff residences in Peking, there have been about 8 visits made by officers of the Bureau to Peking.
  4. Was it possible to purchase adequate furniture and fittings from Hong Kong, Japan, Manila, or Singapore at a substantially lower cost than from Australia; if not, why not.
  5. Was it necessary to send Australian carpet layers to Peking; if so, why.
  6. Did he authorise the visits of his officers to Peking.
  7. How many officers made the trip, and for what purpose.
  8. What was the total cost including sustenance and travel for their visit.
  9. What has been the total cost of furnishing the Chancery and residences in Peking.
Mr Whitlam:
ALP

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

  1. Responsibility for the Overeas Property Bureau has been transferred from the Minister for Services and Property to the Minister for Foreign Affairs.
  2. Yes.
  3. No. The Chancery and Official Residence have not been refurnished. Three visits to Peking were made by officers of the Overseas Property Bureau and the Interior Design Section of the Department of Housing and Construction associated with the furnishing of the15 staff apartments recently allotted by the Chinese authorities.
  4. No. The market in Hong Kong was carefully investigated and it was concluded that it would not be possible to purchase furniture suitable in design and quality at a substantially lower cost than in Australia. Apart from preferred Australian designs, adequate quality control could not be exercised, basic materials could not be inspected, and supply could not be guaranteed in the time required. Purchase from any other Asian centre would have involved similar problems plus the cost of transport.
  5. Yes. It was not possible to obtain the services of carpet layers locally or from Hong Kong.
  6. The visits were authorised in accordance with regular procedures laid down by Overseas Visits Committee. Under these procedures, Ministerial authorisation of individual visits is not involved.
  7. Three officers visited Peking in association with this exercise to assess the requirement, design the total scheme and supervise its installation.
  8. The average cost for each visit was approximately $2,000.
  9. The Chancery and Official Residence were furnished in 1973 at a cost of approximately $79,200. The cost of furnishing the 15 staff apartments, including freight, was approximately $189,700.

National Anthem (Question No. 932)

Mr Bourchier:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. ) Is it intended to provide recordings of the new Anthem to schools.
  2. If so, when will these recordings be available.
  3. If recordings are not to be supplied, is it intended to retain or continue the recordings of the National Anthem God Save The Queen ‘.
Mr Whitlam:
ALP

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

  1. No.
  2. See(l).
  3. The question does not arise as it has not been the practice of this or previous Australian Governments to provide recordings of’ God Save The Queen’ to schools.

Schools: Portraits of the Queen (Question No. 933)

Mr Bourchier:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. Is it a fact that for some nine months photographs of Her Majesty The Queen have not been supplied to schools with issues of the Australian flag; if so, why.
  2. If the position is as stated, is it intended to supply photographs to all schools that received a flag in this period.
  3. If so, when will the supply of photographs be recommenced.
  4. Is it intended to continue to supply the photograph of Her Majesty.
Mr Whitlam:
ALP

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

  1. ) I am informed that some State Offices of the Department of Education have recently exhausted their stocks of the Queen’s photograph and have consequently not been able to supply a number of schools.
  2. Yes.
  3. Last year the opportunity was taken during the Queen’s visit to have photographs taken of Her in an Australian setting which would emphasise Her role as Queen of Australia. Her Majesty has approved a selection of photographs and these are now in process of printing. I expect distribution of the new photograph will commence in October.
  4. See answer to ( 3 ).

Deafness in Australia (Question No. 184)

Mr Lloyd:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

  1. How much research is being done into deafness in Australia.
  2. How much is being spent, at what institutions, and on what aspects of deafness.
  3. Is it a fact, as stated by Professor Clark, that Australia is not pulling its weight in research into deafness.
Dr Everingham:
ALP

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

  1. A considerable amount of research into deafness is being undertaken in Australia by various bodies. I can only answer the honourable member’s question in respect to research supported by the Australian Government. It supports research into deafness through the National Acoustic Laboratories and the National Health and Medical Research Council.

The National Acoustic Laboratories have conducted research into deafness since their inception in 1949 and many contributions to knowledge have been made. Some results of their research have appeared in Australian and overseas professional journals. In fact, 28 papers have been published in the last three years.

The National Health and Medical Research Council supports research into deafness as part of its general support for medical research. Professor Clark’s group at Melbourne University is currently receiving support.

  1. The cost of research at the National Acoustic Laboratories in the 1973-74 financial year was approximately $134,000 (salaries $1 15,000; equipment $19,000). Fourteen psychologists, engineers and technical officers are at present engaged either wholly or part-time in this work. At present, research there is being carried out on the following aspects of deafness.

    1. diagnosis of hearing disorders
    2. quantification and measurement of hearing handicaps
    3. hearing aids
    4. epidemiology
    5. effects of noise on hearing and methods of protection ( 0 psycho-acoustic properties of the ear
    6. treatment of Meniere’s disease by ultrasonic irradiation.

The National Health and Medical Research Council support for Professor Clark’s group in the 1973-74 financial year was $6,600. In past years the group has received support totalling in excess of $40,000.

  1. No. In the matter of research undertaken by the NAL. I cannot agree that we are not pulling our weight. One most noticeable recent contribution has been the research carried out by Mr J. Macrae, Psychologist-in-Charge of the Audiology and Psychology Research Section. His work on impedance audiometry has received international recognition.

The Laboratories have recently obtained approval to extend work on the detection and diagnosis of hearing disorders. A special section staffed by psychologists, a physicist and a technical officer is being set up to investigate central hearing dysfunctions associated with hearing disabilities in children. The cost of this section for a full year will be $50,000 ($39,000 salaries and $ 1 1,000 equipment).

In the areas of NH & MRC supported research, hearing, speech and vision disabilities have been designated an area of special need. However, although prominence was given to this in the advertising by NH & MRC of grant awards for 1973 and 1974, few applications were received. While funds available through the NH & MRC for medical research will be in excess of $6 million in 1975, applications for research into deafness have again been few in number.

It is known that research on aspects of deafness is being carried out at the Physiology Department of the University of Western Australia; Medical Centre, Monash University; University of Melbourne, Department of Otolaryngology; University of New England, Department of Psychology and the University of Brisbane, Department of Speech Therapy. It appears that, of all these institutions, the most extensive work is being carried out at the Physiology Department, University of Western Australia.

Treasury Papers (Question No. 202)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. Did the Prime Minister promise before the 1972 elections that the Labor Government would publish Treasury forecasts.
  2. If so, when will that promise be implemented.
Mr Whitlam:
ALP

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

  1. and (2) See my answer to a question from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition on 17 September 1974 (Hansard p. 1255).

Cigarette Testing (Question No. 590)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Science, upon notice:

  1. What will be the total cost of conducting the twiceyearly test of all cigarettes for tar and nicotine content.
  2. What is the establishment of the special unit which will conduct the test.
Mr Morrison:
ALP

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

  1. Capital equipment cost 18,000 Consumable stores per annum 2,000 Salaries per annum 24,000
  2. Three persons viz: Chemist Class 2 Technical Officer Grade 1 Technical Assistant Grade 2

Home Ownership (Question No. 722)

Mr McLeay:

asked the Minister for Housing and Construction, upon notice:

  1. When will the Government-commissioned inquiry into the financing of home ownership be completed.
  2. Will the Government make the report available to the Parliament.
Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

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

  1. 1 ) The inquiry by a firm of consultants into the methods by which a sample of recently completed dwellings has been financed has been completed and the results are being processed. The completed report should be available about the end of September.
  2. Yes.

Occupational Cancer (Question No. 772)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

  1. Has his attention been drawn to the criticisms by the Australian Workers’ Union of the draft regulations that have been framed by the National Health and Medical Research Council concerning health dangers attributable to asbestos; if so, what is his attitude to them.
  2. Has the Council given sufficient consideration to the Union’s attitudes.
  3. Will he ensure that, in line with the recent ILO Convention and recommendation on occupational cancer, laws relating to the control of substances which cause cancer should be framed after consultation with workers involved.
Dr Everingham:
ALP

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

  1. Yes. The criticisms were referred to the Occupational Health Committee of the National Health and Medical Research Council, and a reply on that Committee’s deliberations has been made.
  2. Yes. The National Health and Medical Research Council Draft Model Asbestos Regulations were circulated to the A.C.T.U. and State Labor Councils. The Regulations were examined by unions concerned who advised they had nothing further to add.
  3. The Australian Government delegates to the 59th ( 1974) session of the International Labor Conference supported the adoption of the Convention and recommendation on occupational cancer. The subject matter of the instruments is appropriate for action partly by the States and partly by the Australian Government. Accordingly, copies of the authentic texts of the instruments will be forwarded to the competent Federal and State authorities for their advice on the compliance of current law and practice with the provisions of the instruments and their expert views regarding ratification of the convention and giving effect to the provisions of the recommendation.

Royal Australian Nursing Research Federation and Education Trust (Question No: 779)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

Is it intended to allocate a one time grant of $80,000 to the Royal Australian Nursing Federation Research and Education Trust to set up an initial sinking fund, and to enable an interdisciplinary group, including nurses and other professionals in the health care field, to plan and recommend funding from the Trust for research and educational programs.

Dr Everingham:
ALP

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

The Royal Australian Nursing Federation approached the Interim Committee of the Hospitals and Health Services Commission in November 1973 for finance for a Nursing Research and Education Foundation.

The Commission also has before it submissions from other non-medical health service and career groups for similar funding.

The Commission ‘s Committee on Health Careers (Personnel and Training) is currently considering these submissions and the Australia-wide needs they propose to serve. The Committee will be making its recommendations on action in its first report on Australian Health Manpower, scheduled for release in late 1974.

Department of Science: Management Consultant Firms (Question No. 815)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Science, upon notice:

  1. For what purpose has the Department used management consultant firms in the past twelve months?
  2. Which firms have been used?
  3. 3 ) What was the total cost?
Mr Morrison:
ALP

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

  1. to (3) The Department of Science has not used any management consultant firms in the past twelve months.

International Women’s Year (Question No. 973)

Mr McLeay:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

Do members of the recently appointed Australian Advisory Committee on International Women’s Year receive any income or allowances in their capacity as members of the committee; if so, what are the details.

Mr Whitlam:
ALP

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

Members of the Australian National Advisory Committee for International Women’s Year will receive fees and fares and travelling allowance according to the standard terms and conditions applicable for members of such advisory committees, namely:

Sitting fees of $40 per day or pan day in excess of 3 hours; $20 per half-day not exceeding 3 hours Air fares at first-class standard

A travelling allowance within Australia at the rate of $28 per day where an overnight stop is involved.

The foregoing provisions do not apply to members of the Advisory Committee who are already members of the Australian Public Service. Such members will not receive any sitting fee and the provisions for fares and travelling allowances will be those already applying to their employment.

No sitting fee will be paid to Mrs Whitlam.

Costs Of Overseas Visits (Question No. 989)

Mr Holten:
INDI, VICTORIA

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

What was the cost of each overseas trip made by each Minister and his party during 1973 and 1974.

Mr Whitlam:
ALP

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

I refer the honourable member to the Appropriation Act (No. 1) 1973-74, Division 547, and the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1974-75, Division 547.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 24 September 1974, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1974/19740924_reps_29_hor90/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant