House of Representatives
27 August 1975

29th Parliament · 1st Session

  1. House of Representatives
  2. 29th Parliament
  3. 1975

Mr SPEAKER (Hon. G. G. D. Scholes) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers.

page 561

PETITIONS

The Clerk:

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

Increased Postal and Telephone Charges

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 sheweth:

That we wish to protest most vigorously at the proposed increases in postal and telephone charges.

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

Diminish the size of the increase or, if possible, leave charges as they are.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Crean, Mr Anthony, Mr Snedden, Mr Kevin Cairns, Mr Connolly, Mr Katter, Mr O’Keefe and Mr Ruddock.

Petitions received.

Australian Government Insurance Corporation

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 establishment of an Australian Government Insurance Office will:

  1. Lead to the nationalization of the Insurance Industry.
  2. Divert a substantial flow of funds from the private to the public sector.
  3. Depress the private sector still further and create unemployment both within the Insurance Industry and elsewhere.

Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives rejects completely the Australian Government Insurance Office Bill 1975.

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

Petitions received.

Australian Government Insurance Corporation

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned employees and agents of the Australian insurance industry respectfully showeth:

  1. 1 ) That Parliament should reject the Bill currently before it to establish an Australian Government Insurance Office.
  2. That while there is a need to establish in Australia a Natural Disaster Fund to provide compensation for property damage and other losses resulting from disasters such as earthquakes, floods and cyclones, such a Fund can be established, as in other countries, using the medium of the existing private enterprise insurance offices.
  3. That a plan for such a Fund was submitted to the Treasury in October 1 974.
  4. That no sound reasons for the establishment of an Australian Government Insurance Office (other than the desire to provide non-commercial disaster insurance and Australian Government competition with private enterprise) has been given by the Government.
  5. That there is already intense competition between the existing 45 life assurance offices and between over 260 general insurance companies now operating in Australia, and that further competition from a Government Office would be harmful at this time.

  6. That the insurance industry is already coping with

    1. the effects of inflation,
    2. increased taxation on life assurance offices,
    3. the effects of recent natural disasters,
    4. other legislative measures already in train or in prospect by the Government, e.g. the National Compensation Bill, a National Superannuation Plan and improved Commonwealth Public Service Superannuation.
  7. That as taxpayers your petitioners are greatly concerned at the huge costs (far more than the $2m initial capital and loan funds which it is proposed will be allocated) of establishing an Australian Government Insurance Office.
  8. That as employees and agents of existing insurance offices your petitioners fear for their jobs and their future prospects if the Parliament proceeds with the legislation.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House will reject the Bill.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray, by Mr Connolly and Mr Macphee.

Petitions received.

Australian Government Insurance Corporation

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 establishment of an Australian Government Insurance Office will:

  1. Nationalise the Insurance Industry.
  2. Reduce the flow of funds to Industry and Commerce from the Private Sector and increase their dependency on Government finance.
  3. Endanger the economy by undermining confidence in Industrial and Commercial Company Shares and by thereby causing share prices to tumble.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives reject completely the Australian Government Insurance Office Bill 1975.

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

Petition received.

Australian Government Insurance Corporation

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 establishment of an Australian Goverment Insurance Office will nationalise the Insurance Industry:

  1. Causing widespread unemployment,
  2. Stifling freedom of choice and virile competition, and
  3. Making mendicants of former Industry employees and policy-holders alike.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives reject completely the Australian Government Insurance Office Bill 1975.

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

Australian Government Insurance Corporation

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 establishment of an Australian Government Insurance Office will:

  1. Nationalize the Insurance Industry.
  2. Increase bureaucratic control over the Nation’s financial resources.
  3. Lead swiftly to total socialization and complete subjugation of all the citizens to the State.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives reject completely the Australian Government Insurance Office Bill 1975.

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

Australian Government Insurance Corporation

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 establishment of an Australian Government Insurance Office will:

  1. Increase bureaucracy at the time when Government spending should be curtailed.
  2. Shrink the flow of funds to the private sector.
  3. Eliminate private insurance for Australians.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives rejects completely the Australian Government Insurance Office Bill 1975.

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

Australian Government Insurance Corporation

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 establishment of an Australian Government Insurance Office will:

  1. . Nationalize Insurance.
  2. Accelerate the growth in ratio of Public Servants to others.
  3. Destroy private initiative and corporate enterprise.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives reject completely the Australian Government Insurance Office Bill 1975.

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

Australian Government Insurance Corporation

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 establishment of an Australian Government Insurance Office will:

  1. . Nationalise the Insurance Industry.
  2. Make for mass unemployment in the Insurance Industry.
  3. Greatly increase taxation.

Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives reject completely the Australian Government Insurance Office Bill 1975.

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

Australian Government Insurance Corporation

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 establishment of an Australian Government Insurance Office will:

  1. Cause the loss of jobs and future prospects of employees and agents of the private Insurance Industry throughout Australia.
  2. Compete unfairly with private insurers.
  3. Require large taxation subsidies for a lengthy period.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives rejects completely the Australian Government Insurance Office Bill 1 975.

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

Australian Government Insurance Corporation

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 establishment of an Australian Government Insurance Office will:

  1. Create hundreds of public service jobs and cause serious unemployment in the private insurance industry throughout Australia.
  2. Add to the Taxpayers burden.
  3. Trade unfairly.

Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives rejects completely the Australian Government Insurance OfficeBill 1 975.

And your petitioners as in duty boundwill ever pray, by Mr Kelly. Petitions received.

Aborigines

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

Petition of the undersigned members of the National Aboriginal Congress respectfully showeth that-

  1. 1 ) Until Aboriginals manage their own affairs, until they are given opportunities to define their priorities with regard to housing, health services, education and employment opportunities, Aboriginal self-determination cannot exist;
  2. Aborigines must have a meaningful say in decisions that affect their everyday lives. The aspirations of different Aboriginal groups cannot find expression in the housing policies of State Housing Commissions; decisions with regard to the housing that Aborigines have in urban areas, its location and style, are made by administrators who do not consult Aboriginal community leaders;
  3. Until politicians and administrators listen to Aboriginal groups, and until they give weight to Aboriginal opinion, policies will continue to fail and Aboriginal “selfdetermination” will continue to be the term that salves the white Australian conscience;
  4. When self-determination is defined by Aborigines and when Aborigines resume land that is spiritually and economically their domain, a sense of identity will emerge and flourish. It is for Aborigines to tackle the problems of housing, employment, health and education and to establish management of their own affairs through the exercise of decision-making power, and through the control of financial resources;
  5. The acceptance of the recommendations of the National Aboriginal Consultative Committee, as the democratically elected representatives of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander nations, will enable Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders to formulate and implement policy and to budget for and disburse finances on behalf of Aboriginal and Islander communities and will culminate in Aborigines and Islanders moving into the mainstream of European Australia with pride and dignity;
  6. The Government has a responsibility to remove economic oppression, social oppression, political oppression and racial oppression from the backs of Australian Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders, and the most effective way to do this is to place the destiny of these peoples in their own hands;
  7. The Parliament should implement the replacement of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs as a decision-making body, and decision-making be the responsibility of the National Aboriginal Congress. The Department of Aboriginal Affairs should be transferred from the Public Service to a Commission so as to operate more flexibly and be more compatible with the needs and aspirations of the Aboriginal and Islander Peoples;
  8. As an oppressed people we are lacking in certain skills and we would need the assistance of European Australians possessing expertise in specific areas of administration to assist us in reaching our goals, and
  9. The needs of the Aboriginal and Islander Peoples of Australia are urgent. The need of the Australian Government to remove oppression from Aborigines and Islanders is vital.

Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House seek to ensure that the Government immediately involve Aborigines in the decision-making processes with regard to aboriginal affairs, and to implement those policies eventually.

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

Petition received.

National Aborigines Day

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble Petition of the undersigned Members of the National Aboriginal Congress respectfully showeth:

That11 July1975 was set down as National Aborigines Day and it was not a day of any real significance to the people of Australia.

Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House ask the Government to make the second Friday of every July National Aborigines Day and to proclaim it a public holiday.

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

Petition received.

Hansard Subscription Rates

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 increased price of the Hansard subscription will place it beyond the financial reach of most people;

That it is basic in a Parliamentary democracy that electors have easy access to records of the debates in their Parliament;

That making Hansard available only to an elite who can afford it is at odds with the concept of open government.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government will reduce the cost of the Hansard subscription so that it is still available at a moderate price to any interested citizen.

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

Petition received.

Taxation Zone Allowance, Weipa

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 people living in the Weipa area of Queensland have need for an increased income tax zone allowance.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House increase to $3,000 the income tax zone allowance for the Weipa area.

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

Petition received.

Fraser Island

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

That whereas the natural environment of Fraser Island is so outstanding that it should be identified as part of the World Natural Heritage, and whereas the Island should be conserved for the enjoyment of this and future generations,

Your petitioners humbly pray that the members, in the House assembled, will take the most urgent steps to ensure:

  1. That the Australian Government uses its constitutional powers to prohibit the export of any mineral sands from Fraser Island, and
  2. that the Australian Government uses its constitutional authority to assist the Queensland Government and any other properly constituted body to develop and conserve the recreational, educational and scientific potentials of the natural environment of Fraser Island for the long term benefit of the people of Australia.

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

Petition received.

Shire of South Gippsland

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

  1. The Rural economy of the Shire of South Gippsland is severely disadvantaged by the current prices being paid for cattle;
  2. The Council of the Shire of South Gippsland is extremely concerned with the financial crisis which is rapidly overtaking its finances;
  3. Non-replacement of outdoor staff has been introduced since early 1974 because of the effective reduction in funds for road maintenance and construction caused by inflation;
  4. Continually increasing wages and salaries as a result of indexaton cannot continue to be passed on to the ratepayer.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House take steps to-

  1. grant to the Shire of South Gippsland an amount of $200,000 to enable it to provide the same standard of service it provided in 1972;
  2. increase this grant annually in line with the inflation rate.

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

Petition received.

Tertiary Education Scheme

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

That the undersigned, as well as many Australian students most strongly agree with the changes proposed to the tertiary education scheme in the submission to the Committee to review the scheme presented by the Australian Union of Students, and see the following specific changes as being immediately necessary:

  1. An immediate increase in the maximum away from home and independence rates from the present $32 per week to $49 per week, as indicated in the 1974 joint Department of Education and AUS survey of student cost and expenditure.
  2. Indexation of the allowance according to moves in the Consumer Price Index weighted for particular student costs;
  3. Abolition of the present complex academic requirements preventing financially needy students from obtaining benefits on grounds of their academic standings and replacing them with one year’s automatic grace for students who fail or transfer.
  4. Abolition of the pernicious regulations which prevent students who are less than 21 and living away from home from receiving the away-from-home rate (except under three limited conditions).
  5. Increase in the allowance for dependent spouse from $5 to $17 per week.
  6. Efficient administration of the scheme.

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

Petition received.

Radio Station 2JJ

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The petition of the undersigned students of Macquarie University, North Ryde, New South Wales and citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

That many areas of the Sydney region are inadequately serviced with access to broadcasts of ABC radio station 2JJ by virtue of the transmitting equipment used by that station being not powerful enough for good quality reception in some areas, or of any reception in others.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House will take all possible action to bring this matter to the attention of the Government, that by legislation, regulation or administrative fiat the station may be provided with the necessary facilities to adequately service the whole Sydney region.

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

Petition received.

page 564

MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS

Mr WHITLAM:
Prime Minister · Werriwa · ALP

I inform the House that the Treasurer, the honourable Bill Hayden, leaves Australia today to lead the Australian delegation to the 1975 annual meetings of the boards of governors of the International Monetary Fund and World Bank Group which are being held in Washington. He is expected to return on 1 1 September. During his absence the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Overseas Trade, the honourable Frank Crean, will act as Treasurer.

page 564

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE TIMOR

Mr VINER:
STIRLING, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– Does the Prime Minister feel that his Government’s reluctance to take any positive steps to assist in Timor is consistent with his own and his Government’s proclaimed concern for humanitarian causes and the welfare of the developing world? As a self-styled world statesman, is this not a time for initiatives and leadership, rather than a time to be seeking to hide behind cliches and unreality?

Mr WHITLAM:
ALP

-The Government has taken many positive steps in relation to Portuguese Timor, and has been doing so for several weeks past. If the honourable gentleman wishes to have any particular matters of doubt or complaint dealt with, let him be more specific. Perhaps I can add a couple of things to what I told the House yesterday. One is that we expect to contribute as soon as possible to further humanitarian action, and we are hoping to work with the International Committee for the Red Cross, one of whose representatives is due in Sydney today on his way to Darwin from where he hopes to go to Timor. We have, contrary to what was alleged after my statement yesterday, been in consultation with the ASEAN countries and have been in touch with them for some time. Nothing that has emerged from these consultations would lead us to believe that these countries consider that they could play a useful role at this stage. The main immediate hope still lies in the mission by Dr Almeida Santos. He was here, honourable members may recall, about 10 months ago and conferred with the Foreign Minister and me. He is expected to arrive in Australia in a day or so and hopes to be able to get into the Timor area to begin mediation between the parties.

An advance guard of 2 Portuguese representatives has, it is reported, already left for Darwin. The Portuguese have raised the matter in New York in discussions with the Secretary-General. The bureau of the Committee of Twenty-Four is also considering the matter. We understand that the strong disposition there is that Portugal should maintain its responsibilities to the territory.

So we have been in touch with the ASEAN countries; we have been in touch, of course, with Portugal; we have been in touch with the SecretaryGeneral; we have been in touch with the Committee of Twenty-Four. We are making preparations, if it is desired, to transport Dr Santos and the advance representatives who are already here, to the island of Atauro to which the Governor of Portuguese Timor has transferred the seat of government.

page 565

QUESTION

TIMOR

Dr J F Cairns:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

-I ask the Prime Minister: Would he agree that the future of East Timor should be determined by its own people and not by Indonesia, Portugal, Australia, or any other country? If this is so, may it not be that the future of East Timor may have to be determined by the forces of FRETILIN and UDT and perhaps, most unfortunately, by the clash of those forces? Can he say which of these forces, if any, may now most fully express the will of the people of East Timor? Does he not consider it would be most unfortunate if Indonesia interfered in the internal affairs of East Timor?

Mr WHITLAM:
ALP

– Of course I would agree with the honourable gentleman’s first proposition. It is a proposition which has been espoused not only by the Australian Government but also by the Indonesian and the Portuguese governments. It is a matter of great regret to all the governments that the process which was being worked out for the decolonisation of Portuguese Timor, self-determination of the territory in accordance with the wishes of the inhabitants of the territory, has come unstuck. All governments had sought to bring about consultations between the political parties which have emerged in Portuguese Timor. They supported consultations between those parties, some in Dili, others in Macao. It is impossible to say which of the contending political parties has majority support in the territory as a whole. It is possible to make some assumptions as to the preponderant support in different areas. For instance, it would seem that FRETILIN has preponderant support in Dili and UDT in Baucau. The tragedy is, however, that the contending political parties have been so intolerant of each other. They have made the whole situation in Portuguese Timor and in our region difficult for everybody in the region and difficult for themselves.

page 565

QUESTION

DEFENCE SYMPOSIUM

Mr WENTWORTH:
MACKELLAR, NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Minister for Defence. I refer to the symposium on defence which is to be held at the University of Sydney next Saturday, 30 August, and which will be addressed by some of the most distinguished and knowledgeable retired officers of the Australian defence Services. I ask: What arrangements have been made for serving officers to attend this vital meeting as observers? Will these serving officers be permitted to participate in the discussions? If so, will they be confined to giving the official view or will they be permitted to put forward their own real views? Are serving officers entitled to participate in these discussions without open or covert penalty? Finally, will the Minister give a categorical denial to rumours that are current to the effect that the Government propaganda machine has been instructed to devote its resources to seeing that this conference is belittled and brushed aside?

Mr MORRISON:
Minister Assisting the Minister for Foreign Affairs in matters relating to the Islands of the Pacific · ST GEORGE, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-I am certainly not aware of any invitation having been extended by the Defence Council or defence group to serving members of the armed forces. I am certainly not aware of any invitation having been extended to me as Minister for Defence to participate in the conference, but I would be very happy to do so if such an invitation were extended to me. As for the last observation made by the honourable member, this Government is prepared to stand by its defence policy. It is a defence policy which is making up for the neglect of the previous Government in running down the expenditure on capital equipment. The Australian defence position requires a greater investment in capital expenditure at the present stage- I will be informing the House about this matter tomorrowbecause of the lack of decision on equipment by the Liberal-Country Party Government 4 or 5 years ago. At the present stage the Army is at the highest level for a volunteer force in peace time. The rate of retention in the armed forces is at a record level. The recruitment into Duntroon, the Air Force Academy and the Naval Academy is the highest on record. I believe that the observations made by the honourable member denigrate the members of the armed services of this country. They are quite capable of putting their point of view. They have put their point of view, and it just so happens that their point of view and the point of view of the Government are in harmony.

page 566

QUESTION

PHARMACEUTICAL CORPORATION

Dr JENKINS:
SCULLIN, VICTORIA

– My question is addressed to the Minister for Health. The Leader of the Opposition has stated that his Party in government would sell the Pharmaceutical Corporation which the Government would operate only at a loss. Can the Minister inform the House of the effect of the proposal of the Leader of the Opposition?

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

– If the knowledge of the Leader of the Opposition of other items in the Budget is as good as his knowledge of the health items it will be a sorry day for Australia if he ever sits on the Treasury bench. It gives new significance to the resignation of the right honourable member for Higgins from the Liberal Party. The Pharmaceutical Corporation which the Leader of the Opposition proposes to sell has not been established. An interim committee has been set up for the production of pharmaceutical products. It consists of one person. So there is nothing to sell.

Mr Lloyd:

– Have you purchased Fawnmac?

Dr EVERINGHAM:

– If the Leader of the Opposition was referring to the Fawnmac group of companies, he should have done a little more homework before he made his statement. It is a profitable enterprise. The Government expects that it will remain profitable. In the last financial year it made a consolidated net profit of more than $ 1 .3m. We bought it for $8.4m.

Mr Lloyd:

– Which is a bad ratio. If it was so profitable why could it not be sold for 3 years.

Dr EVERINGHAM:

– I note that the Opposition spokesman on health is interested in putting up that margin of profitability. He does not think that the drug firms are making enough. The company has been purchased so that the Government has reliable information about the cost of production of non- biological pharmaceuticals and can improve the range of expertise available to the government owned Commonwealth Serum Laboratories Commission. The Government has increased its understanding of the industry through this direct involvement in non-biological products manufactured by the Fawnmac group, which in the past has made contract arrangements with CSL to extend the variety of our biological products.

As Fawnmac runs at a profit, perhaps the Leader of the Opposition would rather sell CSL, the non-profitable part of government pharmaceutical production. Commonwealth Serum Laboratories is long established and until now an industry that has been accepted by all parties as a government enterprise. Because of its commitment to the production of unique products absolutely essential for the public health of Australia and unattractive or unprofitable for private enterprise it makes a loss in some areas such as the processing of free blood donations for the extraction of often rare components for use in life saving situations. The obsessive ideological extremism of the Leader of the Opposition and his spokesman on health matters would only terminate the manufacture of some products in Australia or lead to their manufacture by the private sector with substantial government subsidies.

Mr Hodges:

– Do you think the doctors will support you?

Dr EVERINGHAM:

– The doctors are just like the honourable member who interjects. They want to socialise their losses; they want to capitalise their gains. They want to do that in the drug field too. The Leader of the Opposition did not dare to specify any other areas in the health field which he would cut, yet health is the biggest single item in the Budget- one that we have rapidly increased. Would he cut the community health program? Would he cut back or, as he delicately put it, wind back the capital program?

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! I think the Minister’s answer is now becoming irrelevant to the question. I suggest that he should terminate his answer.

Dr EVERINGHAM:

– There is a suggestion by the Leader of the Opposition that he can save the Government and Australia money in the health field. Let him put up or shut up as to where he would do it. I think the Opposition should not tolerate such a dope in charge of its affairs.

page 567

QUESTION

NATURE CONSERVATION: LAND ACQUISITION

Mr HUNT:
GWYDIR, NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Minister for Environment. At a recent conference of Nature Conservation Ministers in Canberra, did the State Ministers congratulate the Minister for Environment on the way in which funds had been made available to the States under the States Grants (Nature Conservation) Act for the acquisition of land for nature conservation purposes? Did the Minister state that the agreement recognised that the difficulty in financing acquisition of land often involves lengthy negotiations before finality can be achieved? Has the Minister now repudiated this agreement with the States? Will this mean that some of the most fragile and ecologically important areas in Australia cannot be protected and may fall into the hands of subdividers? Is he aware that the proposed national park in Myall Lakes in New South Wales could be destined to be another Lake Pedder or Fraser Island because of the Labor Government’s repudiation?

Mr SPEAKER:

– Before I call the Minister I suggest to honourable members that long detailed questions may involve long detailed answers. They cannot complain about the number of questions if 10 or 12 questions are asked in one.

Mr BERINSON:
Minister for Environment · PERTH, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

– The Government has not repudiated any agreements and does not intend to, but I do not think that I should attempt to leave the question on that basis alone, since this is an area that has given rise to considerable concern and difficulty. The background to it is that during the last financial year the previous Minister for Environment made offers under the States Grants (Nature Conservation) Act to reimburse the States for the purchase of various tracts of land valued in all at about $9m. That sum was allocated in last year’s appropriations for those purposes and had the purchases been finalised by 30 June the matter would have proceeded to completion in the ordinary way.

Since 30 June we have come across conditions which were not originally expected and which I do not have to discuss in detail at this point. In the context of the general budgetary approach requiring constraint, which the Leader of the Opposition last night informed us was not severe enough, the Government came to the conclusion that it was not able to proceed with all the offers previously made. The reason I am able to say that this does not involve any repudiation of agreements is that the original offer was made subject to final agreements being entered into as required by the States Grants Nature Conservation Act. The problem in so many of these cases was that some of the States and, unfortunately, particularly New South Wales, where Violet Hill and the Myall Lakes are located, were slow to enter into a form of agreement which was mutually acceptable. I said at the Concom meeting, and I repeat now, that it gave me no pleasure as my first introduction to the State Ministers concerned in these areas to have to advise them that there would have to be a cut back in the original contribution which we proposed to make but that in line with our budgetary procedures, which are common to those of the States, funds which are not expended at the end of the year in which they are allocated are not automatically available in the next financial year. That is the problem with which we are now faced.

The Government has allocated $1.8m for the 1975-76 financial year. That amount is not inconsiderable. It is $1.8m more than was ever provided by the Opposition when it was in government. We are keeping the Act alive. It is a new Act and one which represented an important initiative of this Government Important tracts will be purchased with the allocation in this year’s Budget, The Act will remain alive and will enable, I hope, continuing discussions with the States with a view to identifying suitable areas for future allocation -

Mr Hunt:

-Myall Lakes?

Mr BERINSON:

-Since the question directly involved Myall Lakes, I should point out that the amount involved here is of the order of $ 1.2m. To proceed with that possibility would preclude proceeding in other areas where final agreements between the States and proposed sellers of land have gone much further towards completion. I should point out, since this area was specified in the question, that it was an area where we were faced with an unwilling seller and if the purchase were to proceed the State Government would have been required to implement its resumption powers. To that extent there is no breach of faith with any intended purchaser and we have been anxious to ensure that nothing would happen in any negotiation on any proposed State national park that would involve such a breach of faith. That is not the case with Myall Lakes and, in view of the amount of finance that would be required to complete that purchase and the great proportion of our total funds which it would absorb, I have had to advise the State Minister with great regret that we are unable to proceed with our original offer.

page 568

QUESTION

OPPOSITION BUDGET PROPOSALS-COST

Mr MARTIN:
BANKS, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Can the Prime Minister give to the House any information on the costing of alternatives to the Budget proposals which were put forward by the Treasurer on behalf of the Government?

Mr WHITLAM:
ALP

– I had occasion last week to suggest that the Leader of the Opposition should be rather more careful in preparing calculations for his speech last night than he had been in his comments last Wednesday, in particular in respect of Medibank. I regret to inform honourable members that my advice was disregarded. The mathematical calculations on which the Leader of the Opposition was so far astray on Tuesday night of last week were compounded in his mathematical miscalculations on Tuesday of this week. Let me go into some of the components he has to count up. I gather, and I appreciate the fact, that the Leader of the Opposition very responsibly said that he would support the overall mathematical Budget result which the Treasurer himself had calculated, that is, the same amount of deficit. But the calculations of the Leader of the Opposition as regards remissions and additional expenses seem to have been sadly astray. He said that in his view the Mathews proposals should be phased in over 3 years; the cost of that would be somewhere about $900m. He said that the new indirect taxes and the coal export levy should be cancelled; such cancellations between them would cost $720m this year. The honourable gentleman also proposed that personal tax reductions should amount to $500m and that there should be a 40 per cent investment allowance; that would cost $300m. He said that the beef export levy should be suspended; that would cost $20m. He said also that the Industries Assistance Commission’s interim recommendations on the superphosphate bounty should be implemented; that would cost $30m. It will be observed that the additional expenditures, the additional charges on the Budget which the honourable gentleman was suggesting, amounted to $2,470m.

On the other hand, he proposed a reduction in expenditure. On the items that he specified the reduction would not have amounted to $ 1 ,000m; it would have amounted to $630m. Therefore, taking his additional expenditures and his remissions, the deficit this financial year would be $4,600m. This would seem to be a prescription for roaring inflation, with devestating monetary measures and high interest rates leading to widespread corporate failures and unprecedented unemployment levels. Of course, the great gap in the honourable gentleman’s speech last night concerned the proposals on income tax. He said quite rightly that the system which we are now abolishing would involve a very large increase in tax revenue, amounting to 45 per cent in a full year.

Mr King:

– I rise on a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Prime Minister was criticising the Leader of the Opposition in relation to the accuracy of figures. I draw attention to the Budget papers -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! What is the point of order? So far the honourable member has dealt with matters of debate which have nothing.to do with the Standing Orders. What is the point of order? Under what standing order is the honourable member taking his point of order?

Mr King:

– The point of order is that the Prime Minister is giving inaccurate figures.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable gentleman will resume his seat. I warn him that if he tries that type of stunt in the House again I will name him.

Mr WHITLAM:

– This year alone the present system of personal income taxes, the system which is now being abolished, would increase gross collections by more than 45 per cent over a full year. The new scheme which the Treasurer is introducing this year would increase collections by less than 35 per cent over a full year -

Mr Sinclair:

– I raise a point of order. Is it appropriate for a Minister to canvass the subject matter of a debate currently in progress before the House?

Mr SPEAKER:

-The standing order states that a Minister may answer a question in any manner provided the answer is relevant to the question.

Mr Sinclair:

– Even if a debate is in progress?

Mr SPEAKER:

– Debates in progress are not excluded from mention during question time.

Mr WHITLAM:

– I have, of course, confined myself to the calculations which have come from the Leader of the Opposition. Quite frankly, I have not yet been able to compute the additional costs which would flow from remarks made inside the House and outside it by those who are currently named by the Leader of the Opposition as shadow Ministers. The calculations on his own statements last night would involve a total deficit in this financial year of $4,600m.

Mr Garland:

- Mr Speaker, I ask under the Standing Orders that the 3-page document from which the Prime Minister has been reading be tabled.

Mr SPEAKER:

– There is a request that the document be tabled.

Mr WHITLAM:

-No, I ask that it be incorporated in Hansard.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The request is that the document be tabled. Unless the Prime Minister says that it is confidential, he must table it. He may also seek leave of the House to incorporate it.

Mr WHITLAM:

– I ask for leave to incorporate the document in Hansard.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The document will be tabled. The Prime Minister now seeks leave to incorporate it in Hansard. Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted. The document will be tabled and will be incorporated in Hansard. (The document read as follows)-

page 569

PRESS STATEMENT BY THE TREASURER, MR BILL HAYDEN MP, ON COSTING OF THE OPPOSITION BUDGETARY PROPOSALS

Seriously defective costing by the Opposition could add as much as $1 ,800m to the deficit of the proposed Budget announced last night by the Opposition Leader, Mr Malcolm Fraser, the Treasurer, Mr Hayden, said today.

Mr Hayden said the phasing in of the Mathew’s proposal over 3 years, commencing this year, would add something of the order of $900m to costs which had to be met by the Government.

The abolition of indirect taxes and the coal export levy would cost another $720m.

Mr Fraser’s commitment to personal tax reductions of $500m, introduction of a 40 per cent investment allowance at a cost of $300m, suspension of the beef export levy and reintroduction of the superphosphate bounty, costing $20m and $30m respectively, would add to the enormous error of his calculations and bring additional Government outlays to a total of $2,470m.

On the other hand, Mr Fraser’s expenditure savings would reach a maximum of only $630m- well short of the $1 ,000m he claimed. ‘In short, Mr Fraser’s proposals, although well meaning and aimed at a fiscal result similar to the Government’s Budget would have a disastrous economic result’, Mr Hayden said. ‘It would take the total deficit to more than S4,600m and would be a prescription for roaring inflation, with devastating monetary measure and high interest rate hikes leading to widespread corporate failures and unprecedented unemployment levels.

It is certain that Mr Fraser does not intend this result, but a costing analysis of his proposals shows how ill-considered his strategy has been and how much more careful work is required from the Opposition if it is to present a credible, detailed alternative program of economic management.

One cannot deny the worthiness of his purpose in wishing to set Budget parameters almost exactly the same as those set by the Government.

But Mr Fraser will have to take his program back to the drawing board to avoid scorn and ridicule for apparently overreaching himself at a time of critical economic management, when restraint and responsibility should be key words.

The glaring defect in the alternative measures proposed by the Opposition was the total absence of a new personal income tax scheme.

Mr Fraser prefers to tinker with the present discredited scheme with its extremely penalising marginal tax rates.

This year alone the present system of personal income taxes would increase gross collections by more than 45 per cent, over the full year.

The new scheme would increase collections by less than 35 per cent over a full year.

More importantly, the new scheme the Government is introducing will provide equity, simplicity, and an unparalleled measure of justice and support for families and the less well off in our community ‘.

page 569

QUESTION

PURCHASE OF PATROL FRIGATES

Mr KILLEN:
MORETON, QUEENSLAND

– I direct a question to the Minister for Defence. Has the status of the memorandum of arrangements between the United States Government and the Australian Government relating to patrol frigates been changed? I invite the honourable gentleman to agree with me that this memorandum of arrangements is not an agreement for purchase but is an options agreement. If the status of the agreement has not in any way been changed, what justification is there for the contention made in a recent speech by the Treasurer to this effect: Last year we approved the acquisition of a number of major items for the Services, including patrol frigates?

Mr MORRISON:
ALP

-As the honourable member will be well aware, the memorandum was signed last year which made the final purchase arrangements contingent upon a report by the United States Government on the acquisition by the United States Government of the patrol frigates for the United States Naval program. That report will be made available to the United States Administration next month. It will then be forwarded to the Australian Government. We will have precisely 10 weeks in which to make up our mind and to make our decision upon whether we will join the United States naval program.

I think that the interesting feature of this method of approach can be compared with the rather unusual commercial arrangements that the previous Government made in relation to the Fill aircraft. On this occasion we will ensure first of all that the pricing is not an open-ended commitment as was the case with the Fill arrangement. We will also ensure that the United States Navy will be taking a minimum number of ships. We are also making sure that if we decide to go ahead with the program the Australian ships will be built in shipyards where United States naval ships are being built and that both our ships will be built in the same shipyard.

In the talks that I had with the US Secretary of Defense, I asked for and received an assurance from the US Defense Department that if there were any major modifications to be carried out on the patrol frigates after the beginning of construction, not only would we be consulted but also we would have to agree to those modifications which might increase the final purchase price. I am very happy to have this opportunity to reply to the honourable member for Moreton and to state that the procedures we are undertaking in relation to the patrol frigates are completely different from the rather extraordinary arrangements that the previous Government undertook in relation to the Fl 1 1 aircraft.

page 570

QUESTION

QUALIFICATIONS OF CANDIDATES FOR HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Mr WHAN:
EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I address my question to the Minister for Services and Property. What are the qualifications necessary for a person to nominate as a candidate for election to the House of Representatives?

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

– The qualifications for a person to be a candidate for the House of Representatives are clearly set out in section 69 of the Electoral Act. They are also covered by sections 43 and 44 of the Constitution. I refer the honourable member to those provisions. They are very wide, very broad, and they allow full scope for persons desiring to be elected to this place or to another place. I might be permitted to give the House an idea of how broad the spectrum is for persons who desire to nominate.

I understand that a Mr Michael Baume, a company director and an endorsed Liberal Party candidate for the next election, joined Patrick Partners in 1969. Under the Act as it stands, he can be the candidate for Macarthur at the coming election. He has been closely allied in recent weeks with Mr Fraser in writing his economic policy. I understand that on Budget night this candidate worked in Mr Fraser’s Parliament House office drafting statements for the Opposition Leader’s attack on the Government’s Budget proposals. He also helped to write the speech on the Budget which the Leader of the Opposition delivered in Parliament last night.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I suggest that the Minister may have some difficulty in making these remarks relevant to the question.

Mr DALY:

- Mr Speaker, I appreciate your ruling. I was pointing out the wide ramifications of the provisions relating to the candidacy of a person for membership of this House. I conclude after mentioning those facts by stating that Patrick Partners now owe about $2.5m. I hope that this gentleman’s economic policy works better for the Opposition that it did for Patrick Partners.

page 570

QUESTION

UNEMPLOYMENT AT GEELONG

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
WANNON, VICTORIA

– I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Labor and Immigration what the Minister intends to do about unemployment in Geelong which has now reached the level of 10 per cent. Does the Government intend to continue with its intention to bring Japanese motor producers to Australia, adding to unemployment in Geelong? Does the Government intend to continue with its present car plan which will destroy the jobs of 3000 people in Geelong?

Mr RIORDAN:
Minister Assisting the Minister for Urban and Regional Development · PHILLIP, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-Part of the question, of course, is beyond the responsibility of the Minister for Labor and Immigration. The Government, and in particular the Minister, are seriously concerned about the level of unemployment throughout Australia. The honourable gentleman’s proposals last night, if adopted by the Government- I assure him that they will not be- would lead to very serious further unemployment in the construction industry. If he examined for just a few moments the proposition he put to further curtail the civil works program he would see that in an already depressed area of industry his proposals will cause chaos, bankruptcy and total destruction of large sections of the construction industry.

page 570

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN LEGAL AID OFFICE

Mr MORRIS:
SHORTLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES

-I ask the Attorney-General: What would be the effect of the abolition of the Australian Legal Aid Office on the provisions of the Family Law Act? Will he assure the House that the operations of the Australian Legal Aid Office will be continued and expanded to ensure that legal advice, assistance and representation will be available to tens of thousands of Australians who could not otherwise afford legal services? Further, what progress has been made towards the establishment of an Australian Legal Aid Office in Charlestown?

Mr ENDERBY:
Attorney-General · ALP

-Some effects of the dismantling of Australian Legal Aid offices operating around Australia would become immediately clear and disastrously harmful to a lot of people. For example, in the time since the offices began operating- there are now some 30 offices operating around Australia- over 130 000 inquiries have been processed and dealt with. At the moment the offices are handling about 10 000 inquiries a month. Those figures are increasing. That is just a small aspect of the overall problem. The honourable member directs my attention to the effect of the dismantling of the offices on family law matters and on the Family Law Act. In the Family Law Act, which has not yet been proclaimed, there is specific recognition of the Australian Legal Aid Office as the agency for dispensing legal aid in Australia. I have taken out some figures showing the operations of the Office and I seek leave to incorporate them in Hansard.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Mr ENDERBY:

– I thank the House. The figures show overwhelmingly that in all States the greatest number of matters handled relate to family law. For example, in New South Wales in the period 2 June to 27 June, 1376 such matters were handled in the 8 offices operating in New South Wales- five or six times the number of other matters dealt with. Indeed, in every State and Territory except the Northern Territory, family law matters constitute the overwhelming majority of inquiries. But other matters that also rank high are, for example, inquiries about repatriation and rehabilitation matters. Most of these inquiries come from people who never go into a private solicitor’s office and the nature of the inquiries are often such that they would not be taken to a private solicitor’s office. So without the Australian Legal Aid Office those services would be taken away from and denied to the people in greatest need who are benefiting from them at the moment.

Another point I can perhaps make to honourable members is that recently we commissioned Australian Nationwide Opinion Polls to do a survey for us on certain aspects of the Australian Legal Aid Office. The survey indicated very pleasing results from the Government’s point of view. For example, 94 per cent of the people questioned recognised the need for the Australian Legal Aid Office and 71 per cent could not cite a single disadvantage flowing to Australia from the existence and the operation of the offices. All in all the results add up to one very strong point and it is this: The offices fulfil a great need in Australia at the moment. They are essentially designed to operate on a salaried basis but also, of course, to use a blend of the salaried service and the private practitioner. Indeed, until recently most of the work that the Office was handling was being farmed out to the private profession. It is proposed to have 28 additional offices operating this year. Finally, the honourable gentleman asked me about the possibility of establishing an office in Charlestown. I have received representations from him on that matter. I can say that it is the sort of area where certainly in the normal course of events we should like to see an office operating and given budgetary considerations, we will certainly keep the matter under review.

page 573

QUESTION

FAWNMAC COMPANIES

Mr LLOYD:

– My question is addressed to the Minister for Health and is supplementary to that asked by the honourable member for Scullin. What is the correct purchase price for the Fawnmac group of companies- $8.4m as indicated in the Budget or approximately $6m as reported in the newspapers when the purchase was announced by the Minister? Why is there the discrepancy of $2.4m? If the company has such a great profit record why has the management refused to disclose it when asked? It cannot be obtained by other means as the group comprises exempt companies. The present owners have been trying to sell it for the last 3 years. Will the Minister table the profit and loss, capital and stock valuation and other financial records upon which the Government based its purchase so that the Parliament can be the judge?

Dr EVERINGHAM:
ALP

– The $1.3m profit I cited is consolidated net profit. The honourable gentleman says that it is not enough. He wants the company’s private records as a private company to be tabled. Of course now that it is a government company annual reports will be tabled just as they are for the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories. I ask the honourable gentleman to contain himself. If he is patient he will get responsible reporting to this Parliament on all Government dealings.

page 574

QUESTION

TIMOR

Dr KLUGMAN:
PROSPECT, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the Prime Minister: Would it not help the position in East Timor and alleviate the fears of Indonesia if Portugal itself became a democracy? Will the Prime Minister use his good influence to encourage the establishment of a representative government in Portugal, including the Socialist Party which received the largest number of votes in the only elections held there? Will he discourage the military dictatorship by high officers who, for many years, happily served a fascist dictatorship and now call themselves Marxists- an insult to the memory of Karl Marx?

Mr WHITLAM:
ALP

-Of course the situation in metropolitan Portugal has made the process of decolonisation of the Portuguese Empire- the world’s oldest- particularly difficult in Angola and now in Timor. I hesitate to express views on all the matters upon which the honourable gentleman is kind enough to solicit my views. It is true that at the last election in Portugal the people showed at the ballot box that they wanted a democratic socialist government, such as there is in Scandinavia, Western Germany, the Netherlands, Britain, New Zealand and Australia. I hope the people of Portugal are able to obtain the sort of government for which, when they have had the opportunity to express their views, they have shown a desire.

page 574

QUESTION

OVERSEAS VISIT BY PRIME MINISTER

Mr STALEY:
CHISHOLM, VICTORIA

– I ask the Prime Minister: Is he considering another overseas trip later this year or early next year?

Mr WHITLAM:
ALP

– I shall consider the suggestion that the honourable gentleman is kind enough to make.

page 574

QUESTION

DISALLOWED QUESTION

(Mr Mathews having addressed a question to the Minister for Defence and Mr Morrison proceeding to reply) -

Mr SPEAKER:

– I think the question is out of order also.

Mr Morrison:

– It is asking for facts.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I uphold the point of order. I suggest that the Minister resume his seat.

Mr Mathews:

– I should like to speak to the point of order, Mr Speaker. The question which was addressed to the Minister for Defence was: ‘Had he noted the omission of proposals’. I would put it to you, Mr Speaker, that that is not a question asking for an opinion. It is a question asking for a statement of fact.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The Standing Orders provide that questions shall not be based on current debates. I call the honourable member for Forrest.

Mr Mathews:

– On the point of order -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I have given a ruling on the matter. If the honourable gentleman reframes the question I will call him again. The question is based on a current debate in the House and it is out of order.

page 574

QUESTION

INDUSTRIES ASSISTANCE COMMISSION: RURAL REPORTS

Mr DRUMMOND:
FORREST, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– The Prime Minister will recall that the 3 recent reports submitted to the Government by the Industries Assistance Commission dealing with rural matters, namely, superphosphate, tuberculosis, brucellosis and the farm income averaging reports, appear to have been ignored by the Government. Does he hold out any hope of the Government giving sympathetic consideration to the IAC report on the beef industry if that report suggests Federal Government assistance?

Mr WHITLAM:
ALP

– I did give an answer last week on one of these reports. The interim report on superphosphate will not be considered as early as 1 said. The Minister for Agriculture has circulated the report to various primary industry groups so that they can read and weigh the conflicting views expressed by the Commissioners. The matter will not be discussed by the Cabinet until the Treasurer returns.

Mr Hunt:

– It is a majority report.

Mr WHITLAM:

– But the quality varied greatly. Quite frankly, I would not rush into the consideration of this matter before the primary industry groups have considered it and in the absence of the Treasurer.

page 575

QUESTION

DEFENCE

Mr MATHEWS:

– I ask a question of the Minister for Defence. Is he aware of any alternative defence program having been put forward in this country? Can he say whether such proposals involve a substantial increase in defence expenditure? Can he say whether any timetable for implementing such an increase in expenditure has been proposed? If not, can he say whether this represents an appropriate sense of urgency about the matter?

Mr Wentworth:

- Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I draw your attention to the final paragraph of standing order 144 which reads:

Questions cannot anticipate discussion upon an order of the day or other matter.

It would appear to me that the matter raised by the honourable member infringes that standing order.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I do not uphold the point of order.

Mr MORRISON:
ALP

– I am not aware of any alternative defence program being put forward by the Opposition. I am also not aware of any costing of the Opposition’s defence proposals. The views that I have seen expressed about the Government’s policy of increasing equipment for the armed forces indicate that it has the general concurrence of the Opposition. I have certainly heard nothing to the contrary so, in response to the honourable member’s question, I can say only that in the absence of any alternative program, in the absence of any alternative costing, in the absence of any explicit criticism of the Government’s defence program the Opposition must be supporting the Australian Government ‘s defence program.

page 575

ELECTORAL: STATISTICAL RETURNS

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

– For the information of honourable members I present statistical returns for each State showing the voting within each subdivision in relation to the Senate election 1974 and the general election for the House of Representatives 1974.

Due to the limited number available, reference copies of these papers have been placed in the Parliamentary Library.

page 575

EDUCATION: TERTIARY STUDENTS

Mr BEAZLEY:
Minister for Education · Fremantle · ALP

– For the information of honourable members I present a report of a survey conducted in 1973 by the Department of Education in conjunction with the Australian Union of Students, entitled: Why Students Reject Tertiary Places.

page 575

EDUCATION: TELEVISION EQUIPMENT

Dr CASS:
Minister for the Media · Maribyrnong · ALP

– For the information of honourable members I present the report of a survey conducted in all Australian schools from May to November 1974 entitled: Television Equipment in Australian Schools 1974.

Due to the limited number available reference copies of this report have been placed in the Parliamentary Library.

page 575

PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE REPORT

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

-In accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969-74, I present the report relating to the following proposed work:

Telephone Exchange Building at Deakin, Australian Capital Territory.

Ordered that the report be printed.

page 575

QUESTION

SHIPPING AND TRANSPORT SERVICES

Discussion of Matter of Public Importance

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I have received a letter from the honourable member for Gippsland (Mr Nixon) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion today, namely:

The Government’s failure to honour its long-standing commitment to solve the shipping and transport problems of Tasmania and other isolated ports.

I, therefore, 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 NIXON:
Gippsland

-Nowhere can the Labor failure be more plainly seen and nowhere can the Labor failure be more explicitly defined than in its attitude to Tasmania’s shipping and transport problems. Nowhere can the sheer miscalculation or misleading by a government and the sheer deception of Labor policy be more clearly exposed than in the shipping problems of Tasmania. When Labor was in Opposition over 23 years it filled Hansard with the easy answers of how to solve the shipping problems of Tasmania. How simple were those solutions.

Neither the honourable member for Wilmot (Mr Duthie) nor the honourable member for Braddon (Mr Davies) is in the House at the moment which shows how little interest they have in this subject. Both honourable members and exDeputy Prime Minister Barnard found it so easy to solve the shipping problems of Tasmania. Senators in another place used to join the happy queue providing the simple answers. I ask honourable members to listen to this fine piece of hyperbole from thhonourable member for Wilmot: . . . today I directed a question to the Minister for Shipping and Transport (Mr Nixon) concerning the high freight rates charged by the Australian National Line for goods transported between Tasmania and the mainland. In one of the worst replies I have ever heard in this House the Minister raved about unions and what they were doing to the ANL, as though they were the causes of all of Tasmania’s troubles. The fact is that freight rates for most commodities have increased by 30 per cent in the last 2 years.

The honourable member for Wilmot then said:

I do not know how an island with and island economy, which is as isolated as Tasmania is and with a populaton of under 400 000, can continue meeting this type of freight rise.

That was a level of 30 per cent in 2 years. How does the honourable member for Wilmot like a level of 65 per cent in 2 years under the present Government? The honourable member is not even in the House, which shows his real lack of interest and concern for Tasmania. He is not even in the House to answer for his own failings.

Mr Viner:

– The honourable member for Braddon came in.

Mr NIXON:

– I acknowledge that the honourable member for Braddon has come into the chamber and I will deal with him in a minute. The honourable member for Wilmot also had this to say:

The Tasmanian mainland trade … is now to be slugged with a 1214 per cent increase in freight at one go. Tasmanian industrialists and primary producers, manufacturers and consumers are being asked to rescue the ANL from its losses last year. We regard this as unjust and detrimental.

What does the honourable member think of 40 per cent in one year if he is concerned about a 12V4 .per cent freight rise? No wonder the honourable member is not even in the House to answer for that. The honourable member, in the first quote which I gave, attacked me for blaming the situation on strikes. It seems that I am in good company because the Minister for Transport (Mr

Charles Jones), on 28 July in the Sydney Morning Herald was reported as follows:

The Federal Minister for Transport, Mr Jones, says strikes by maritime unions are the main cause behind the 40 per cent increase in Australian National Line freight rates.

So I am in good company- the Minister joins me and puts the blame on strikes. But there is a difference. The Minister and the Labor Party made an agreement with the unions, and told Tasmania .that they had made an agreement, that strikes would not be allowed to interfere with Tasmanian trade. What has happened to that agreement? It has been a failure, as the Government has been a failure.

Let us see what the honourable member for Braddon had to say about Tasmania when he was a member of the Opposition. He said:

I agree with business leaders in Tasmania who pointed out that industrial disputes can surely be settled and should not be allowed to take control of the Australian National Line business. If it is otherwise, the Minister should be sacked.

I agree with that proposition. I think the present Minister for Transport should be sacked. The honourable member for Wilmot has finally turned up to show some interest in the problems of Tasmania. Welcome to the debate. The Minister and the Government have both failed dismally in answering these very serious problems. The honourable members for Braddon, Wilmot, Franklin (Mr Sherry)- who is not here- and Denison (Mr Coates) go around the electorates in Tasmania like roaring lions complaining about -

Mr Charles Jones:

– I take a point of order. The honourable member for Franklin has a school from his electorate here at the moment.

Mr NIXON:

– They go around their electorates like roaring lions complaining about what we used to do in government in handling the Tasmanian problem. Now they sit here like tame pussy cats, saying nothing and doing nothing. That is how good they are to Tasmania. They have done nothing. The honourable member for Wilmot is the man who sent around a telegram urging an uprising of the Tasmanian members of Parliament on this question. Where is he now? He is sitting there like a lame duck, saying nothing and doing nothing. They are the honourable members who, when the Australian Shipping Commission Act was being changed, made great political capital out of the fact that under the new section 17 of the Act the Minister and the Labor Government would be able to solve all Tasmania’s problems because they would be able to subsidise any freight rates in Tasmania and would be able to maintain a steady level of freight rates. Of course, they have not done it.

When I was the Minister and when my colleague the Deputy Leader of the National Country Party (Mr Sinclair) was the Minister they were joined in their complaints over the years by other roaring lions in the Senate- Senator O ‘Byrne, who now holds the lofty position of President of the Senate, and Senator Wriedt who is now the Minister for Agriculture and the Leader of the Government in the Senate. They are 2 more roaring lions in the electorate but 2 tame lambs in the Australian Labor Party’s system. Senator Wriedt is a proven failure as Minister for Agriculture- the greatest disaster agriculture has had in the history of the nation. He has not done one thing for Tasmania. The really guilty men are the Minister for Transport and the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam). The Minister for Transport, who is sitting opposite me, used to harangue my colleague the Deputy Leader of the National Country Party and me with words like ‘disaster’, ‘shocking’, ‘sell-out’, ‘bungling’ and ‘incompetent’. They were all aimed at me by the present Minister for Transport.

Let me remind the House that in 2 years there has been a 65 per cent freight increase to Tasmania, all caused by the economic mismanagement of this Minister and the Government of the day. The Minister will respond with the greatest piece of rhetoric one has ever heard. He will respond in the good old angry Charlie Jones fashion, but he will do nothing. I warn the people of Tasmania that he will do nothing, as the honourable members who sit behind him have done nothing. The real ambiguity in Labor’s policy can be seen in the fact that the Minister will allow the east-west railway systems to lose some $200m on their freight lines. They have not moved their freights for 4 years and have forced the Associated Steamships Pty Ltd out of business in servicing Western Australia. That is what the Minister will allow. The railways will then have a monopoly. We will see what happens to the freight rates for servicing Western Australia once the railways achieve a monopoly.

Let us think of the effect of this catastrophic freight rise on Darwin which has been through the horrors of cyclone Tracy. Does the Minister not know that as a result of the 40 per cent rise it now costs $7 1 a tonne for steel to go from Sydney to Darwin? It costs only $30 per tonne from Singapore. From looking at those comparisons one wonders how we will keep Australian industry alive. The Minister has even had the cheek to imply that he fathered the $1.8m wheat subsidy. The fact is that the $1.8m is provided by the wheat growers of Australia and it is a convention which is enshrined in law in this Parliament; it has nothing to do with the Minister for Transport. His claim that it is a lofty Government action to help Tasmania is sheer nonsense. The real lack of credibility in this whole matter rests on the Prime Minister’s shoulders. He is the leader of the Government. It was he who said in 1972: ‘We will give an equalised freight rate to mainland capital cities’. What has he done? He has sat by and watched a 65 per cent increase in freight rates occur while the Nimmo Committee travels around the world at the taxpayers’ expense and does not report to the nation. Where is the Nimmo report? Why did the Minister for Transport not hold back with these charges until the Nimmo Committee reported? He has failed in his duty. I am told that in the Bass by-election the Prime Minister assured Tasmanians that there would be no freight increases and that the Opposition’s claim that there would be freight increases was bungling and untrue.

Mr Coates:

– That is not right.

Mr NIXON:

– The honourable member should read the Hobart Mercury of 24 July if he thinks that what I am saying is untrue. There is one other matter I want to raise in the time left and that is the Government’s refusal to allow the ship Wanaka to be imported by William Holyman & Sons Pty Ltd to enter the Tasmanian trade. The company wants to replace the William Holyman, which was built in 1961, with the Wanaka. Let us compare the 2 ships. The William Holyman requires 46 dock workers; the Wanaka requires 12 dock workers. The Wanaka is 3 times as fast. Is the Minister afraid to allow it to come in because he is scared that the dock workers will vote against Labor? Is he worried that he may lose a bit of union support? Is that his problem? Imagine the difference the Wanaka could make to the Tasmanian trade. I appeal to the honourable member for Wilmot and the honourable member for Braddon in the dying hours of their term in this Parliament. I appeal to the honourable member for Denison who has not said a word for the industries of Tasmania since he came here. He has said less than the honourable member for Franklin. I have not been able to find a quote in Hansard from the honourable member for Franklin on this issue. That shows how much he has done.

Let me come back to the issue. Imagine the difference the Wanaka could make in terms of costs to the Tasmanian trade. The day before yesterday the Minister received a telex advising that Holymans had 36 hours left. That time expired at midnight last night. But I am told that if the Minister were to contact Holymans immediately and give them permission to import the ship they could still make an arrangement to get that ship into the Tasmanian trade. I think there is a heavy responsibility on the Minister to let it in. I will tell him my attitude towards the shipbuilding policy. What is the difference between Holymans allowing the Wanaka to come in and the Minister allowing 6 oil tankers to come in without a requirement on the Australian companies to re-build those oil tankers in Australia? They are all 70 000-tonners, all capable of being rebuilt in Australian yards. But the Minister has not placed a requirement on the oil industry to rebuild those tankers at Australian yards. He has given them the right to import 6 tankers without a requirement to rebuild at Australian yards.

Mr Charles Jones:

– Where?

Mr NIXON:

– Never mind where. They will get them. He has not laid down one condition. I have seen the draft arrangement and there is no condition laid down that they should be rebuilt at Australian yards. The Minister will do it for the oil companies to promote his own nationalistic policy, which is stupid and costly anyway, but why will he not allow Holymans to bring in this ship and give them 3 years to put up a proposition to rebuild at Australian yards? The Opposition will expedite that view. It will help and support the Government in any trouble it has industrially or in any other way. The Government must solve the shipping problems of Tasmania. It has failed miserably in this whole matter. The Opposition will not make political capital out of it if the Minister allows the Wanaka in and gives Holymans 3 years in which to put up a proposition for rebuilding at Australian yards. The Minister said in a letter to Holymans:

As you are aware importation of a vessel can only be approved in circumstances where the company undertakes to comply with the policy.

That is what he said. He will do it for the oil companies. He has not mentioned replacement for the oil companies but he will not do it for Holymans. Why is that? Why is there an ambiguity and a difference? It is Tasmania that is suffering. At the moment we can get oil carted more cheaply by overseas ships than by Australian ships. It is $2m a year cheaper per ship. But the Minister will not replace those overseas ships and he will not allow Holymans to bring in the Wanaka under any conditions.

The Australian Labor Party stands condemned. The Prime Minister stands condemned for the action he has taken. The various members of the Labor Party who sit in this House have been condemned by the Tasmanian people in particular. I point to one honourable member here, the new honourable member for Bass (Mr Newman), who is proof positive of that fact. He beat the former Deputy Prime Minister of Australia, the leading Labor figure in the Tasmanian Labor Party from the leading Labor family for 40 years. The people of Bass recognise the humbug and hyprocrisy of the Labor Government. They recognise just how unfair and untrue it is in respect of its policies towards Tasmania. They voted overwhelmingly for my colleague the new honourable member for Bass. I warn each of the Tasmanian members sitting here that they are finished politically because they have failed. Their Prime Minister has failed. Their Minister for Transport has failed to do what he said for 23 years he would do. There has been a 65 per cent freight rise in 2 years. The Government has wrecked the Tasmanian economy. The Minister is responsible for wrecking the Tasmanian economy, and there is not even a blush on his face. Honourable members opposite are the guilty men, and I say that the Government stands condemned for what it promised when in Opposition for 23 years and for what it has not done in the 3 years it has been in office.

Mr CHARLES JONES:
Minister for Transport · Newcastle · ALP

– I am astounded that the honourable member for Gippsland (Mr Nixon) should come into the Parliament today and raise such a matter for discussion as a matter of public importance after the shocking, hopeless record that he had as Minister for Shipping and Transport in the former Government. The former Government did nothing- I underline the word ‘nothing’- to assist Tasmania with freight rates. Let us just look at his charming, magnificent record. In August 1970 he approved of an increase in freight rates on all Tasmanian trade of 1216, in July 1971 an increase of 12!6 per cent on Sydney-Tasmania freight, and increase of 8 per cent on Melbourne-Tasmania freight, in August 1972 a 12 per cent increase on SydneyTasmania dense cargo freight, a 25 per cent increase on Melbourne-Tasmania dense cargo freight- these are all in the one whack- a 20 per cent surcharge on hazardous cargo, a 17 per cent increase on newsprint, the removal of a 22 per cent concessional rate on heavy cargo and the removal of an 18 per cent concessional rate on industrial machinery.

The only response of the then Minister for Shipping and Transport was to ask a Senate committee to look at the matter. What did the Senate committee, which his Party, the then government of the day, controlled with its numbers, find? It found that the increases introduced by the Australian National line at that time were justified. What was the response? What was the answer to the problem? The former Government had no answer to it other than to commission a bureau of Transport Economics report. The Bureau’s report entitled ‘Assessment of Tasmania’s Interstate Transport Problems’ was presented tohe Parliament by me. If the honourable member for Gippsland had been the Minister the report would have been stuck under the table. No one would have ever known what it contained because the former Government did not believe in putting out reports and letting people know just what were the findings and what were the results of studies conducted by the BTE or anyone else. All that report, for which the former Government was responsible for setting in train as its only answer to the problems of Tasmania, did was to bring attention to where the problems did exist.

In the 1972 election campaign the Prime Minister Mr Whitlam) spelt out that when the Australian Labor Party became the Government it would take the appropriate action to ensure that Tasmania did not suffer any disadvantages in the transport of freight in comparison with the movement of freight between capital cities such as Sydney and Melbourne. We have moved on that. He said that we would set up an Inter-State Commission. But where have we got with the Inter-State Commission? It is locked up in the Senate, which is controlled by the Liveral and National Country Parties at the present time. It is locked up there and they will not let it loose. If ever there was a need to have it. It could examine not only the problems of Tasmania but also the farcical matter concerning Western Australia that the honourable member for Gippsland threw in on the side.

Let us get one point clear. On the Western Australia trade between the west coast and the east coast Associated Steamships Pty Ltd cannot compete with rail. At the Australian Transport Advisory Council meeting in Adelaide on the first Friday in August when I raised this matter with my State colleagues, the Ministers for Transport, for Western Australia, South Australia and New South Wales, they all said that they were making a profit on the handling of containers on the east-west operation. The Australian National Railways Commissioner, Mr Smith, informed me likewise. We gave him a long grilling on the Thursday before the ATAC meeting so as to be certain of 2 things- firstly that the railways can cany the cargo and, secondly, that they are operating profitably. Three

State Ministers said that their systems are making a profit and the Australian National Railways Commissioner said that he is making a profit on the east-west trade. So what do we do? Do we then subsidise a shipping operation to make it profitable and to be in competition with State and Australian National Railways’ systems? I say to the honourable member for Gippsland: Spell out where you are going and never mind sitting there laughing because you know as well as I do that you have not got the answer to the problem that exists.

The honourable member for Gippsland brushed over the problem of the cost involved in getting cargo to Darwin. He made passing reference to it. But what is his solution to the problem? He is like the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Malcolm Fraser). The Leader of the Opposition has no solution to the economic problems of today. We listened to a pathetic speech by him last night about what he was going to do. The honourable member for Gippsland is in just as big a mess with transport, as his record shows. He was one of the most pathetic Ministers for Shipping and Transport that this Parliament unfortunately has been burdened with. What did he do? The answer is nothing.

I come back to Tasmania. The Prime Minister said that we would move on the question of freights. We have. Look at the results of what we have done. There have been periods in the last 2 1/2 years when Tasmania has had freight problems, when there has been a bank up brought about because the Tasmanian industry was unable to forecast its requirements. It did not make the information available either to the Union Steam Ship Co., to ANL or to William Holyman and Sons Pty Ltd for that matter. I will deal with the question of the Wanaka in a moment. I will deal with the honourable member for Gippsland too. The Tasmanian industry was unable to forecast its requirements. It never got a better deal from anyone than it got from us, because every time there was a bank up I made sure there were ANL officers in Tasmania to confer with the people and to put ships into Tasmania. We took them off other runs. We used the Empress of Australia to assist the movement of cargoes. When Tasmania had a problem we assisted it to do something about it.

To deal with the problem in the long term we placed an order in 1973 for a Seacoaster. That ship will be launched within a couple of months. This is all a result of the lack of planning by the honourable member for Gippsland when he was the Minister. These are the problems which I inherited; these are the things I have done. We have placed an order for a Seacoaster which will be launched within the next couple of months. We knew there was a need so what did we do? We purchased overseas the Melbourne Trader, a 5000 ton ship, so as to provide additional tonnage in the trade. That ship was brought into operation in February-March of this year because the honourable member for Gippsland as Minister failed to plan for it and we had to pick up problems which he left as a tragic Minister for Shipping and Transport.

What have we done to assist the trade? The Empress of Australia was losing money and we put a subsidy of $lm a year on it in the 1973 Budget. The former Government could have and did not. What did it do about the Straitsman? It was not prepared to give Captain Houfe any assistance whatsoever. In Opposition we had a look at the position. We were given wrong information. I still believe that the Straitsman was not the right ship for the trade, but at the same time we assisted the Tasmanian Government, which wanted to retain the Straitsman. We wanted to get rid of it and bring on a ship we considered was more specialised for the trade. The State Government decided that it wanted to retain the Straitsman and so we loaned it the money, by way of a special grant, to buy the ship. The former Government was not prepared to do anything with Captain Houfe, with the Straitsman or with the Tasmanian Government. We could have and did. It could have and did not. This is the whole story of the tragic time when the honourable member for Gippsland was in office as Minister for Shipping and Transport. We loaned funds to acquire the Rah. The Tasmanian Transport Commission is so well equipped with ships that it now has the Joseph Banks on the market for sale. This is because we gave it assistance. We went on with the agreement to provide funds for Grassy. This is what has been going on.

I summarise very quickly the things we have done. We tried to set up the Inter-State Commission. The Opposition is frustrating it by holding it up in the Senate. We knew we would have problems with it so we asked Mr Nimmo to conduct an inquiry and report to us. My Department has assisted him in every possible way. My Permanent Head, who is a former equivalent of a Deputy Secretary in the Canadian Department of Transport, advised him where to go in Canada to look at problems similar to the Tasmanian problem. All the way through we have assisted him by providing consultants, and advising him on where to go and what to look for to assist him in bringing down a report. Unfortunately that report will not be brought down until late this year or early next year.

On the question of subsidy, certainly we increased freight rates last year but north bound freight was not required to pay the increase. Certainly we have increased freight rates this year by 40 per cent but that is completely justified and if honourable members opposite want details I have the facts and figures here. Even though we have increased freight rates on south bound and on north bound traffic, in each case we have subsidised it. Section 17 of the Australian Shipping Commission Act provides that when the Government directs the Australian National Line to provide an unprofitable service it has to subsidise ANL and so pay for the service. The previous Government was not prepared to do that. We did it. The previous Government could have and did not; we could have and did. We are now subsidising north bound freight rates to the extent of $4m to $5m. We have provided $ 1 m in respect of the Empress of Australia and have covered an additional loss of $1.7m on the Australian Trader and the Empress of Australia. That is a total of $2.7m. Certainly the amount provided under the wheat equalisation scheme has climbed to $1.7m. This could be reduced if the Tasmanians would adopt a more reasonable approach to it. Taken all round, we are providing subsidies to Tasmania on freight rates which will reach about $9m this year.

Now let us look at the Opposition’s pathetic record when in office. Its assistance was nothing. The best it could do was call for a report. The Senate Committee which it set up said that increases were justified. This Government is giving every household in Tasmania the equivalent of a subsidy of $80 or, in other words, $22.50 per person. There have been comments on the effects of the 40 per cent increase in south bound freight rates. The fact is that the increase in the consumer price index in Hobart has been less- I emphasise the word ‘less’- than it has been in any other capital city in Australia. These are facts which the honourable member for Gippsland cannot answer. In the pathetic wordy speech he delivered here a while ago he spelled out nothing.

I said that I would give a breakdown of costs which resulted in the 40 per cent increase in freight rates, and these details were included in a Press release I put out at the time. The breakdown shows that terminal and stevedoring charges went up by 38 per cent, a cost of $2. 8m; oil bunkers went up by 125 per cent, a cost of $1.4m; interest charges went up by 35 per cent, a cost of $.4m; ship operating costs went up by 15 per cent- that is a cost for which we are responsibleand cost $1.6m; administrative and cargo costs went up by 1 5 per cent, a cost of $ 1 .4m. It is for those reasons that the increases had to be made. It is perfectly true that the Government estimates that industrial stoppages cost the ANL $3m on general cargo operations this year and something like $6m on its total operation.

In the few minutes available to me I want to deal with the Wanaka. Wm Holyman & Sons Pty Ltd is basically owned by the Union Steam Ship Co. It is one of the major shareholders in Holyman. Who owns the Wanaka? It is the Union Steam Ship Co. There is the Union Steam Ship Co. in New Zealand and the Union Steam Ship Co. in Australia but it is still the Union Steam Ship Co. It is the same company which owns Holyman and it is the same company which owns the Wanaka. Who is fooling whom? Who is the humbug here? He is certainly not on this side of the House. I think it is the honourable member for Gippsland who has come in here to try to peddle this story. Why does he not tell the whole story? In 1971 he approved the Mary Holyman coming on to the coastal service on the condition that it was replaced within 2 years with an Australian built ship. I have given the company extension after extension to assist it to get over its problems. The previous Government required rebuilding within 2 years. That would have meant by 1973. It is now 1975. 1 am a terrible man, am I not, with horns and a tail- the lot? When we talk about the Wanaka we are talking about the Union Steam Ship Co. because it has a major shareholding in Holyman and owns the Wanaka. These are the facts.

In respect of oil tankers, I challenged the honourable member for Gippsland while he was speaking to produce proof that I had issued a permit for six 70 000 ton tankers without a replacement. No such permit has been issued and no such permit will be issued without an understanding on replacement of those ships in Australian yards. I wish the honourable member for Gippsland would get his facts clear.

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

Mr ELLICOTT:
Wentworth

– I am happy to speak out once again for the people of Tasmania. Understandably the honourable member for Bass (Mr Newman) has not yet delivered his maiden speech which, according to the traditions of this House, should not be unduly controversial otherwise he too would have participated in this most contentious debate. In the face of the continued refusal of the Minister for

Transport (Mr Charles Jones) to allow the ship Wanaka to be used, it is imperative that this debate proceed as a matter of urgency. The Minister’s refusal to allow the ship to be used is only the latest in a series of acts of the Labor Government which have added so substantially to the crippling burden of high costs imposed on the Tasmanian people. When the Minister announced on 23 July that the Australian National Line general freight rates to Tasmania would rise from 1 August, Tasmania was left stunned and demoralised. Was it any wonder that even Senator O ‘Byrne was moved to say that Tasmania was in virtual panic? Was it any wonder that the Tasmanian Acting Premier, Mr Lowe, said:

There now exists a state of war between Tasmania and the Federal Government on this matter.

Even the State’s Labor representatives in this House were at last forced into action. Let me read some reports of their reaction. The honourable member/or Braddon (Mr Davies) and the honourable member for Wilmot (Mr Duthie) described the increase in south bound freight rates as a king hit at Tasmania’s economy. In a statement they said:

It will increase the cost of living in Tasmania disproportionately to people living in mainland States, where freight rates change over road and rail and where only a fraction of items are carried by sea between States. With the ANL moving 75 to 80 per cent of Tasmania’s sea cargo, freight increases dramatically affect almost every farmer, importer, retailer and manufacturer who imports raw materials. We believe it is more equitable for ANL’s lossesif there are to be losses- to be distributed among all Australian taxpayers.

I wonder whether we will hear that from them today. I wonder whether they will be prepared to get up in this House and say things like that against the Government. They have the opportunity to do it and I hope that the opportunity to vote on this matter will soon be given to them. We will see then whether they have the courage to cross the floor.

There were still more shock waves to come. This was not all. By the end of July shipping fares were to rise by 30 per cent and air fares by 179, per cent. In this whole sorry story the Minister was right about only one thing. We remember what he said. He said that there are more votes in Newcastle than in Tasmania. My word, the people of Tasmania know that now. Honourable members remember how many votes the Minister got in Newcastle- 38 554- but his Party will be lucky to get that many votes in the whole of Tasmania at the next election.

Mr Charles Jones:

– I rise to order Mr Deputy Speaker. I did not say that there are more votes -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Dr Jenkins)Order! The Minister must come to his point of order. He is not allowed to make a personal explanation.

Mr Charles Jones:

– I will take it up later.

Mr ELLICOTT:

– The Minister has given 2 answers. He has said that high costs and the frequency of industrial disputes were one reason for the increased freight rates. As to this, it was the Labor Government which said that it would be able to get on with the unions, yet since this Government came into office we have had the greatest period of industrial unrest in Australia’s history. Then the Minister had the temerity to say that the Government has done better than the previous Government. He failed to mention to this House that it was in 1959 that the previous Government introduced roll-on roll-off ships on the Tasmanian run through the ANL. As a result freight rates were reduced by 45 per cent. For 1 1 years, from 1959 to 1970, there was no increase. On 1 August 1970 there was an increase, but the question of the increase was immediately referred to a Senate committee. In June 1971 that Senate committee reported and suggested that the matter go to the Bureau of Transport Economics.

In October 1971 the honourable member for Gippsland, as Minister, referred the matter to the Bureau of Transport Economics. In March 1973, just after this Government came into office, the Government had available to it the value of the report of the Bureau of Transport Economics. That is the record of the previous Government. The present Government was left with a clear indication of the problem. We had the promises of November 1972 to which reference has been made. We had the report of the Bureau. From March 1973 until April 1974 nothing happened. In April 1974 the Nimmo inquiry started. Why was that inquiry set up? It was done in the wake of an election in May 1974. The Government was suddenly stung into action. There was a 25 per cent increase in September 1974 which caused a great furore. The increase was to apply to both northbound and southbound cargo. What happened? The Government interceded in relation to northbound cargo but not in relation to bulk cargo northbound. Early in 1975 the Prime Minister said that he expected the Nimmo report within a few months. Now we are told that we are not going to get it until the end of the year. During the campaign in the Bass by-election the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Malcolm Fraser) claimed that there would be substantial freight rises. What was the report that came back? Official sources in Canberra denied that there would be an increase in ANL freight rates to Tasmania. A spokesman for the Prime Minister had stated that Mr Fraser was well wide of the mark.

Let us have a look at the situation in Tasmania. The effect of this increase is that the cost to Australian Newsprint Mills Ltd of the combined Union Steam Ship company’s freight increase which applied from 16 June and the 40 per cent increase of the Australian National Line which has been just announced will be $2. 15m a year. The company is incurring considerable additional costs because of a backlog of 20 000 tonnes of cargo which cannot be shipped and which must be stored. The cost of the 1974-75 freight increases by ANL to Associated Pulp and Paper Mills Ltd at Burnie and Wesley Vale is $1.1 2m for outwards cargo; there is no subsidy for northbound freight or bulk or paper products. In addition further costs will be incurred for imports to Tasmania of approximately 12 000 tonnes of raw materials, which will increase the total freight costs to about $1.5m. Exports of paper and paper board to the mainland are therefore seriously hampered by the increased freight charges, and that makes it more difficult for APPM to meet competition from overseas imports which benefit from the fact that the crews which are used on the ships are paid at a lower rate. This directly contradicts the statement made by the Minister for Transport in the House last week.

Again, the freight increases of the ANL will significantly affect the cost of shipping of 20 000 tonnes of concentrates to Port Kembla by Mount Lyell Mining and Railway Company. It will affect the import of heavy machinery and spare parts from other States. Other mining companies such as Electrolytic Zinc Company of Australasia Ltd at Rosebery and Renison Bell will also be adversely affected. Tyoxide Australia Pty Ltd will have to pay $250,000 a year more for imports of scrap steel, soda ash and machinery and spare parts. The cost of general cargo imports by Comalco Ltd will increase by $78,000 a year. Cadbury Schweppes Pty Ltd imports twothirds of its packing materials. It imports glucose from Sydney and dried fruit from Melbourne.

I could go on and give more and more facts about this. But what is the net effect of these things on the Tasmanian people? The effect is an increase in unemployment in Tasmania, an increase in the cost of living, further difficulties for some manufacturing industries to continue, and great difficulties in inducing new manufacturing industries to locate in Tasmania. They are the costs to the Tasmanian people. This Government has promised to do something about the situation. It is no answer to go back and rake over old ground. The people of Tasmania want this Government to take action. They want the Government to fulfil its promise, which was to do something about the situation. There has been no attempt, as far as we know, to try to stir up the Nimmo Committee in presenting its report. Yet from day to day the evidence which is given before that Committee shows the effects on the Tasmanian people of this Government’s actions. When is the Government going to act in relation to the dreadful state of affairs we find in Tasmania? When are Government members going to stand and be counted?

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

Mr DAVIES:
Braddon

– I wish to make a couple of comments before I reply to the remarks of the honourable member for Gippsland (Mr Nixon). The honourable member for Wentworth (Mr Ellicott) spoke about the costs in Tasmania. I refer him to the remarks made by the Minister for Transport (Mr Charles Jones) when he clearly pointed out that the figures produced by the Commonwealth Statistician show that the increase in the consumer price index is less in Hobart than the percentage increases for the 6 capital cities for the period since Labor took office. That should answer any criticism that the honourable member has regarding the increased costs brought about by the action of this Government.

The raising of this matter of public importance is only a political exercise. The honourable member for Gippsland had to raise this matter here today because of what happened in Launceston last weekend when the Deputy Leader of his Party was down in Launceston. According to the Press reports he went there to form a branch of the Party. Of the thousands and thousands of people who live in the city of Launceston, only 25 people turned up at the meeting. The honourable member’s Party realised that it had to raise this matter here today as a means of getting on the hustings and trying to make a mouthful out of the difficulties facing Tasmania. In reality the honourable member for Gippsland was the worst Minister for Transport that I have seen in my time in this Parliament, and I will bear out that statement in a few minutes.

The honourable member for Wentworth also spoke about Australian Newsprint Mills Ltd. I wish to correct a couple of things he said. It is a pity that the honourable members are not Tasmanians who understand the problem, because the exports of Australian Newsprint Mills are carried by the Union Steam Ship Company in a great percentage of cases. The honourable member spoke about the backlog of paper cargo at Australian Newsprint Mills which cannot be shipped. Of course, the Minister for Transport has given single voyage permits, as he has done in many other cases, in an effort to clear the backlog. When the honourable member talks about Cadbury Schweppes Pty Ltd, he does not realise that it exports its products at the 1972 freight rates. So it is a pity that the people who purport to speak for Tasmania in this House do not do their homework and come up with the facts and the correct figures first.

Speaking in this debate also gives me the opportunity to refer to the leading article which appeared in the Advocate of last week. It referred to the Australian National Line and said that there was a time when Bass Strait shipping did very well without subsidies. Of course, that is poppycock, because the previous Government in order to meet increased costs went along on its merry way increasing freight rates, despite all protests from all types of people. As the Minister pointed out, the previous Government did nothing at all to meet the increases in freight rates. It did not even adopt the recommendation that was brought down by the Senate select committee which looked into this matter.

I think it would be a worthwhile exercise to run over just briefly the increases that occurred during the last 2 years of the term of office of the previous Government. In August 1972 there was an increase of 12% per cent on all Tasmanian trade. In July 1971 there was an increase of 12!6 per cent on all Sydney to Tasmania trade and an 8 per cent increase on Melbourne to Tasmania trade. In August 1972 there was a 12 per cent increase on the dense cargo rate from Sydney to Tasmania and an increase of 25 per cent on the dense cargo rate from Melbourne to Tasmania. Those increases occurred under a LiberalCountry Party government. There was a surcharge increase of 20 per cent on hazardous cargo. The freight rate on newsprint was increased by 17 per cent. The 22 per cent concession on heavy cargo was removed in August 1 972 and the 1 8 per cent concession on industrial machinery was also removed. Of course, Tasmanian industries were placed at a disadvantage compared with their counterparts on the mainland.

What did the previous Government do, despite all the increases it brought in or sanctioned in freight rates from Tasmania? It is true that this was a very contentious issue, a very hot issue, at the time of the elections held in December 1 972. It was a terribly important issue to Tasmanians. The Leader of my Party promised that freight rates across Bass Strait would be equalised on a ton-mile basis with rail and road freights to the capital cities on the mainland. He promised the reintroduction of the Inter-State Commission to deal with our problems. The Opposition has held up the legislation for the reintroduction of that Commission and it is still holding up the passage of that legislation in the Senate. Fancy honourable members opposite stating that they want to do something for Tasmania. They can do something immediately. They can clear the decks in the Senate and let the Inter-State Commission legislation pass through the Parliament.

Labor has carried out its promises. In its first Budget this Government provided $55m for new ships and equipment. This was done in our first year in office. That amount can be compared with the $10m that was provided in the last Budget of the Liberal-Country Party Government. From 1 July 1973 this Government provided a subsidy of $ lm to assist with the passenger fares on the Empress of Tasmania and the Australian Trader. Those ships have lost $2.7m on the service they provide. Even with the $lm subsidy provided by the Government, the Australian National Line will stand to lose $1.7m. As an indication of the faith this Government has in Tasmania and in an attempt to assist the tourist trade and to stabilise the passenger rates the $lm was provided last year and is again provided in this Budget.

What happened in September of last year? Immediately this Government was confronted with a proposed increase of 25 per cent in the ANL freight rate to Tasmania it granted a $2m subsidy. When we look back to the position applying in 1972 when we took office, we find that the average freight rate was $8 a ton for northbound cargo and that there was approximately one million tons of cargo northbound from Tasmania. So a 25 per cent subsidy on this amounted to $2m and that subsidy was paid by the Government. Since then there have been other increases in the subsidy. The subsidy of $2m that was agreed to last September has now risen to $3.9m in this Budget. This subsidy, coupled with the $lm that is being paid by this Government in respect of the passenger services, now means that the Labor Government is subsidising Tasmania to the extent of $4m to $5m a year. Yet Opposition members say: ‘What have you done? Why do not you do something?’ I say to Opposition members: ‘What did you do as a government?’ The answer is that they did nothing; not a thing. The previous Government never allowed for the payment of a penny in the form of a subsidy. As the Minister for Transport pointed out, if we include the wheat subsidy the subsidies paid to Tasmania by this Government now amount to over $7m.

Opposition members talk about the Bureau of Transport Economics and say what a wonderful body it was. Then they criticise the southbound freight rate. Of course, they forget the relevant part of the report ‘An Assessment of Tasmania’s Interstate Transport Problems’, presented by the Bureau of Transport Economics. I wish to goodness that Opposition members would read the report. If they did, they would find this passage:

ANL, in their evidence to the Senate Committee of Inquiry suggested that Tasmanians were not ‘disadvantaged in their southbound cargoes’ due principally to the presence of price equalisation schemes.

The Government knows this to be the case. We have had the matter and all the evidence examined. The Government knows only too well, as the report goes on to state, the difficulties involved in subsidising imports because of the price equalisation scheme. If imports were subsidised, the price equalisation scheme could be dropped, which would be to our disadvantage. We Tasmanians know that full well. Anybody who has studied the price equalisation scheme on imports into Tasmania realises that the Australian National Line was correct in its evidence. Opposition members talk about this report as being their document. They had the report prepared but did nothing about it. They have not even read it. They do not know what it states about southbound cargo in any shape or form. I agree that the Minister for Transport has done an excellent job. Let honourable members make no mistake about that. He has assisted at any time there has been a backlog of cargo.

At this time last year Australian Pulp and Paper Manufacturers Ltd increased their paper output by over 30 per cent because there was supposed to be a worldwide shortage of paper. What happened? The paper merchants all over Australia started buying up paper. They still have it and we still cannot sell paper. Tasmanian paper mills are running at about only 70 per cent of capacity and in some places the mills are running down to 40 per cent of capacity. The paper merchants still hold paper stocks because of the scare that was created. The present position has nothing to do with imports. Without any reference to the Australian National Line or to the Government and without advising the Government APPM had increased its production of paper by about 30 per cent. Of course, there was a backlog of supply. But what did this Minister for Transport do? Immediately we advised him of the position he sent Captain Clarke of the Department of Transport down to Tasmania to examine the position in relation to the backlog. Immediately, ANL ships were sent on to the run to help relieve the position.

Last year ANL ships made 592 general cargo ship calls to Tasmania’s 4 main ports. This averages out to a ship call rate in excess of 1 1 a week. I could go on to explain what has happened in relation to the cargo handling facilities in Melbourne. At Devonport we have a new crane and at Bell Bay there is continuing expansion. All this has been done under this Government whereas the previous Government provided $10m for such works in its last Budget. It did nothing to provide for increased shipping and increased trade in Melbourne. A lot of our troubles stem from the lack of action of the previous Government. We did not have the port handling facilities to handle the increased cargo. But I say that this Government has done a very good job in providing the subsidy not only for the passenger but also for the freight. The Opposition did nothing. It talked about doing things. It left the Straitsman tied up for 8 months and did nothing about it.

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

Mr CHARLES JONES (Newcastle-Minister for Transport)- Mr Deputy Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Does the Minister claim to have been misquoted or misunderstood?

Mr CHARLES JONES:

-Yes. The honourable member for Wentworth (Mr Ellicott), in the typical fashion of Opposition members who continually distort and make statements claiming they are reading from true quotations when they are not, made a statement to the effect that I had said in Tasmania that there are more votes in Newcastle than there are in Tasmania. Certainly, he read that in a newspaper. He can read that in the newspaper but he cannot read the correction of it. If I might place on record -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– I remind the Minister that under the Standing Orders he may only explain where he was misunderstood or misquoted in relation to material he placed before the House on the matter under discussion.

Mr CHARLES JONES:

-I wish now to correct what the honourable member for Wentworth has said. I did not say at any time that there are more votes in Newcastle than there are in Tasmania.

Mr Nixon:

– There are more important votes.

Mr CHARLES JONES:

-There are more important votes in all sorts of places. I wish to read from the letter that I wrote to the Australian newspaper to correct the misreporting. It reads:

I must correct a misquote attributed to me in your editorial, Pity Tasmania (30/7). Your leader writer wrote: Perhaps the attitude of the Transport Minister, Mr Jones, is indicated by his reported statement that there are more votes in Newcastle than in all of Tasmania.

The honourable member was not even quoting the newspaper article correctly. The letter continues:

The ‘statement’ attributed to me was a classic piece of misreporting, which, through frequent repetition, has come to be accepted in some quarters as gospel.

My actual statement was that there were more people in Newcastle than Tasmania- and I would like to place that in context before it, too, becomes misinterpreted.

During a meeting with Tasmanian port authorities two years ago, I expressed concern at the duplication of port facilities on the north and north-west coasts. I compared the situation with the Newcastle-Hunter Valley region, which has a population in excess of that of Tasmania, and pointed out the region is serviced by the one port of Newcastle.

To prevent a further distortion arising, I wish to make it clear that while I personally believe that a smaller number of pons would help keep down shipping costs to and from Tasmania.

Mr Ellicott:

- Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise to order. I suggest that the Minister is passing beyond making a personal explanation. He is reading the rest of the letter which I suggest relates to some other part of the editorial.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-No point of order arises. I have been listening carefully on that point and I am sure that the Minister is very aware that I am listening.

Mr CHARLES JONES:

-I propose to terminate the personal explanation shortly, Mr Deputy Speaker. There are only a few lines remaining in the letter to quote. The letter continues: ports have traditionally been accepted as a State responsibility. Any decision to reduce the number of ports in Tasmania could only be made by the State Government.

The letter is signed by myself.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-As no further honourable members have risen, the discussion is now concluded.

page 586

LOAN BILL 1975

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 20 August on motion by Mr Hayden:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr LYNCH:
Flinders

-The Bill before the House seeks authority to borrow amounts for the financing of defence expenditure during 1975-76. It arises simply because estimated expenditures this year normally charged to the consolidated revenue fund substantially exceed the estimated receipts of that fund. In other words this is a device to pay for the prospective deficit in the Consolidated Revenue Fund. It is a device which explicitly avoids the need for Loan Council agreement in order to fund the Government’s deficit. During the debate on similar legislation in this chamber last year the Opposition parties emphasised their concern in quite clear terms. The Treasurer (Mr Hayden) and his predecessors would certainly have been aware of the views which were put down as a matter of record at that time. Last year the Government sector faced an estimated overall deficit of $570m. Yet, in a very short time because of this Government’s inconceivable financial and economic mismanagement that estimate was turned into an estimated overall deficit of $2,567m. According to the Budget figures this year’s deficit is now estimated to be $2,798m.

Mr Adermann:

– That is optimistic.

Mr LYNCH:

– As my colleague the honourable member for Fisher is right to point out with that alacrity which is characteristic of him, that figure must certainly be one of the most optimistic figures which the Government has put down because the real question at issue before this House in relation to the overall Budget forecast is whether this Government has the management and economic capacity to hold the figures which have been put forward in those forecasts. In other words, the Government deficit is now assuming alarming proportions. Its financing has become a question of central importance as far as economic management is concerned. Let me quickly illustrate this point by referring to the deficits which have occurred in recent years. In 1970-71 the overall deficit was $10m. The domestic Budget deficit amounted to a surplus of $5 19m. Until last year the highest deficit on record was $709m or $2 15m on a domestic deficit basis.

The present Treasurer is now treating the Budget result as being no different from what it was during these previous periods. This of course is clearly an irresponsible approach because the extent of this year’s projected deficit and last year’s projected deficit are unprecedented in circumstances which no honourable member of this House can recall on looking back into Australia ‘s history. The Treasurer in his Budget Speech gave no substantive indication of the direction monetary policy will take during this financial year. At no point during his speech to this House did he indicate how the deficit was to be financed. Since Budget night the Treasurer has been asked in this House and outside a series of specific questions relating to the Government’s monetary policy. He was asked a question about the overall financing of the deficit. You, Mr Deputy Speaker, would readily understand that such a question is central to any overall appreciation of the Budget which is before the House. Yet on no occasion have satisfactory answers been provided. On 19 August he was asked by the honourable member for Tangney (Mr Dawkins) for an explanation of the extraordinary deficit of $756m which occurred during July.

Mr Garland:

– The honourable member did not get an answer.

Mr LYNCH:

– As my colleague the honourable member for Curtin points out no answer was provided. That of course has become characteristic of the manner in which this Government and particularly those Ministers with financial and economic responsibility are prepared to flout the normal precepts of the running of this Parliament which would normally require that Ministers provide honest and frank information in reply to questions which are put to them. But I come back to the extraordinary deficit of $756m which occurred during July. The statistics for July expenditures showed an increase of 53 per cent when compared with the year earlier. This quite clearly suggests the difficulty of controlling expenditure during the course of this financial year. With Government cash balances of only $1 14m it was a question which required a full and thorough answer. No such answer was given. The Treasurer simply asserted that the level of the deficit in July was anticipated. This in no way can be described as a satisfactory answer.

On 20 August I specifically asked the Treasurer to indicate to the House the planned growth rate in the money supply and the general manner in which he proposed to finance the deficit. On that occasion the Treasurer, as has been his wont in recent days, chose to provide a purely political response. But the fact is that financing the deficit is of enormous consequence to the Australian economy. On the same day the Treasurer was questioned at the National Press

Club luncheon. Once again no answers of any substantial nature were forthcoming. This debate therefore provides an opportunity for the Government to give a broad statement to the House, a statement on the monetary impact of this Budget. Without such a statement it is not possible to consider properly the implications of this year’s deficit. Broadly speaking, of course, there are 2 ways in which the direction of monetary policy can go. The Government can decide to print money which would lead directly to an expansion of the money supply and an accommodation of continuing increases in the level of prices. Alternatively, the Government can adopt a more restrictive overall monetary policy which would lead to a higher level of borrowing from the public and have consequences for interest rates and for the level of liquidity available to the private sector.

Quite specifically, and as the Government is of course very much aware, the deficit can be financed by a range of mechanisms and options including: Net drawings under overseas credit arrangements; net proceeds of other overseas borrowings; net proceeds of bond sales to the non-bank public; net changes in Treasury notes on issue to the non-bank public; net changes in Treasury notes on issue to the banking system; net proceeds of bond sales to the banking system; and the use of cash balances with the Reserve Bank of Australia. Let me emphasise here that there is no expectation by the Opposition parties that the Government should outline in detail the financing of a deficit of this type. We are not listing a range of options with any intention of pressing the Government to the point of putting down answers to the extent of that detail. I believe that would be irresponsible and, frankly, the Government could not provide information of that type. But at the same timethis is the point we take very heavily in this debate- broad guidelines should at least be provided by the Government. All we have in relation to the overall financing of a deficit and of the broad lines of Government monetary policy is, frankly, a vacuum of information which I do not believe to be consistent with the capacity of this House to make a proper judgment of the Budget and, in particular, of the Budget deficit.

The Treasurer has clearly misunderstood the meaning of a Press statement which was issued by me on behalf of the Opposition yesterday. I emphasised, as I did a few moments ago, that all we seek is a general indication of how the deficit will be financed. The methods listed simply sought to put in context the various options available to the Government. What we require now is that general indication of which I have spoken. What we are primarily interested in is the extent to which the deficit is to be financed by those mechanisms which add directly to the money supply, such as the use of cash balances with the Reserve Bank, and those which do not, such as the sale of bonds to the non-bank public. This is the information sought.

We would ask the Treasurer through the Minister acting on his behalf, the Minister for Overseas Trade (Mr Crean), the former Treasurer, to take on board the comments which have been made and to provide the broad outlines of the information which the Opposition is seeking. I mention here in no sense of threat whatever that we believe that it is responsible to ask for this information. The Government has the capacity to provide it. If an adequate explanation is not forthcoming it is our present intention to hold over this BUI in the Senate for further questioning, probing and consultation. But at the same time I indicate quite clearly that it is not the intention of the Opposition to defeat this Bill. We simply require further information which we believe the Government has the capacity to provide. The Government ought to meet that capacity in the provision of the information we have sought.

Quite frankly, the Treasurer cannot have it both ways. He cannot, as he has done on the one hand, simply assert that the Government has no intention of printing money to pay for the deficit. He pointed out the dangers of this same course of action at the National Press Club. He cannot, on the other hand, say that the rate of monetary growth will be brought down without any consequent implications for the level of finance available to the private sector. But he has also, of course, asserted this broad proposition. If there is a balance between the 2 positions which the Treasurer considers to be appropriate to the needs of the economy during the course of the next 12 months, let him or the Minister acting on his behalf say so in clear and proper terms.

This Government has been notable for its consistent refusal to provide information on financial and economic matters. The suppression of its monetary thinking simply follows on from its refusal to publish the Treasury White Paper this year or last year and its consistent avoidance of parliamentary questions both here and in the Senate. If the Treasurer is prepared to make estimates of government receipts and government outlays for the year ahead, and consequently give some indication of the main lines of fiscal policy, why should he not be prepared to give broad outlines of the likely monetary policy and the financial arrangements of the deficit? Without such indications the Budget can be only a half statement of economic policy. The Opposition uses this debate for a responsible plea to the Government to provide in the area of financial and economic management open government and that form of information which necessarily a Parliament requires if it is to give adequate attention and have adequate access to that information upon which a broad judgment ought to be brought down. Therefore, I move the following amendment to the motion before the Chair:

That all words after ‘That’ be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: ‘while not declining to give the Bill a second reading, this House is of the opinion that the Treasurer has failed to provide an adequate explanation of how the record deficit for 1975-76 is to be financed and that this failure amounts to the further suppression of economic information and policy guidelines by the present Government ‘.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Dr Jenkins:
SCULLIN, VICTORIA

-Is the amendment seconded?

Mr Garland:

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

Mr CREAN:
Minister for Overseas Trade · Melbourne Ports · ALP

– I oppose the amendment, of course. I think, with all respect, that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Lynch) is using this occasion of the consideration of this purely technical measure the Loan Bill 1975, to enter into a larger debate. Similar Bills have been introduced in this House before both by this Government and by the previous Government. In fact I have been furnished with a statement out of the Budget papers for 1971-72. 1 point out that this was the second last Budget presented by the previous Government. Among the documents- similar documents are appended to this year’s Budget Speech- Budget statement No. 3 attached to the 1971-72 Budget Speech made this observation:

It is not possible to predict accurately what changes will occur in holdings of Commonwealth securities by the public on the one hand and the banking system on the other. These, as discussed earlier, will reflect monetary and other developments during the course of the year.

Deficits are nothing new, as the shadow Treasurer pointed out. More often than not deficits have been incurred on total budget accounts for the 12-month period. No Treasurer has ever given any indication in advance how he proposed to finance that deficit. At least the Opposition and the Government seem to have this much in common on this occasion, that last night the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Malcolm Fraser) agreed more or less with the level of the deficit of $2,800m in round figures. If he were going to work to the same sort of deficit he would have to employ the same sorts of mechanisms as are being employed here at the moment.

The Deputy Leader of the Opposition asked why the Government does not give more details about monetary policy and about how this deficit will be financed. I would draw his attention again to the documents to which I referred earlier, this time to statement No. 2 on the Budget and the economy. I submit that most of the matters that we are canvassing here are more properly the subject of the Budget debate itself. But the honourable gentleman has chosen to have a debate on this Bill when a debate need not really have occurred at all, the measure simply being passed as a machinery measure. There has been considerable economic analysis in statement No. 2. 1 submit with all respect that the statement does not seem to have been read by the honourable gentleman. It states:

The outlook presented here is also based on a number of more specific assumptions, any or all of which may turn out differently.

Much the same words were used in the same documents when the previous Government was in office. The statement continues:

The more important assumptions are:

The general stance of monetary policy will remain such that the liquidity of the banking system is sufficient to meet the basic immediate needs of the economy for finance without being fully accommodating to inflationary demands.

At least what is called these days monetary stance is spelled out clearly in that document. The honourable gentleman does not seem to have read it. I should like to draw attention to two or three other statements which it seems to me indicate the difficulty. In statement No. 2 is a table showing the formation of the volume of money. It starts by using the Budget deficit as the first item for the table ‘Formation of the Volume of Money’. It goes on to list the components that, in the course of the year, are responsible for the variations in the volume of money. I say again that none of them is predictable at this stage. The only figure we have at the moment is the projected deficit. One, of course, does not need to point out that there was a difference between the projected deficit this time last year and the deficit as at 30 June this year. The same sort of thing occurred under previous governments. The change in the deficit took place because of the change in circumstances.

Yesterday an honourable member misquoted something which I had said the day before. When I was asked about expenditure on the Regional Employment Development scheme I referred to the fact that when the last Budget was drawn up no provision was made in it for the RED scheme because the circumstances which made such a scheme necessary had not at that stage emerged. The Government appears to be being criticised now for nominating a particular sum. People are saying: ‘What will happen if that sum is not great enough?’. I simply make the point that we believe that on the assumptions on which the Budget is based the present sum is adequate. Some of the things that we posit may not turn out as we expect. Of course, one of our purposes in the Budget was to reduce the rate at which public expenditure increased this year as against the previous year. The purpose was to reduce the rate- not the absolute amount. No government would have been able to spend less this year than last year. But the rate of growth has declined from more than 40 per cent to about 23 per cent. We arranged that in order to allow more initiative for the private sector. If the private sector does not take up the initiative that is available to it, it may well be that more public initiative will be required.

Mr Lynch:

– The deficit could go much higher.

Mr CREAN:

-The deficit could be less. The deficit could be more. I do not want words put into my mouth about that. I do not think anybody will assert that the deficit will be exactly $2,798.3m, which is the exact figure the Govern.mernt has used in order to balance the Budget figures. I prefer to say that the deficit will be about $2, 800m. It seems to me to be a nice round figure. I do not believe that a Budget will have been a miracle if, instead of the deficit being $2,800m, it turns out to be $2,700m. Nor do I think it disastrous if the deficit instead of being $2,800m turns out to be $2,900m. I do not think one should be so silly as to believe that we could have that exactness. Words which used to be used to describe that sort of situation are ‘fine tuning’. They are nice words for economists and financial journalists who do not know nearly as much as they claim they know. They are nice words for them to use but they are far from reality.

So far as the volume of money is concerned, it is subject to all sorts of items that can fluctuate and change during the year. Some clever character was trying to draw some conclusions about the deficit in the month of July being many hundreds of millions of dollars different from the same month last year.

Mr Garland:

– Was it a Government supporter?

Mr CREAN:

– No. It was someone from the Opposition drawing attention to what we call the ‘Niemeyer figure’. Anyone who draws conclusions on a one month basis does not need his head read; he needs to do a rather extensive course in economic reading. To posit on the basis of 1 month’s figures what is likely to happen for 12 months is quite absurd. Everybody knows that in the early part of a financial year expenditure is uniform month by month but revenue is not. We get excess of revenue in certain periods for example, in May and June, because the big taxpayers pay their tax in that period. We have tried to get around that to some extent by having company tax paid quarterly and assessed on the previous year. It seems to me to be a sensible approach from a liquidity point of view.

Mr Lynch:

– It is all right in normal times.

Mr CREAN:

– Of course, in abnormal times, excuses are being found to shift that. Of course, it is nice to be the group of taxpayers who think they can shift their proper liability to a different time without penalty. The majority of the pay as you earn people might feel the same. They might feel that for economic reasons they do not want their tax deductions to be taken out, say, this month. But, of course, the system does not work that way.

I think we should have a more mature kind of debate in this House instead of- with all respect- the kind of flimsy pretence that is being undertaken by this amendment. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition knows as well as anybody- or he should know- that we cannot say: ‘The deficit is so much and we will finance it this way or that’. We had the highest loan on record announced yesterday. Nobody gives the Government any praise for that. That loan will certainly give us some funds to help to bridge this deficit. It probably will not be the last loan to be raised between now and the Budget wash up in June next year.

Another feature of the deficit to which I would like to refer is the difference between what we call the ‘deficit’ and the ‘domestic deficit’. Last year, of course, overseas activity, a favourable inflow of capital and an increase in reserves made a difference of $600m. Again, no one can forecast with any great precision now whether that figure will be plus or minus at the end of June 1975. My tip, if it is worth anything, is that it will be plus again and that there will continue to be- despite what the gloomy Jeremiahs opposite say- people outside Australia willing to risk their money in Australia. I wish, at times, that a few of our internal businessmen had a little more confidence than they seem to have at present. I wish they were prepared to do a little risk bearing themselves. The criteria of private enterprise, in theory, is that as well as being enterprising it is risk taking. It seems now that unless everything is guaranteed by the Government those people are not prepared to venture further.

I have said this in my capacity as Minister for Overseas Trade: I believe there will be people in 1976 who will be sorry that they did not take investment decisions in 1975. The economic climate will improve. One of the results of that will be a greater demand for consumer goods. That demand may outrun the capacity of industry in Australia to supply. Businessmen ought to be looking hopefully ahead rather than gloomily over their shoulders.

Another table to which I draw attention because it shows the difficulty of predicting what the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is asking for, appears in the Budget Papers on page 144. The table is headed: ‘Summary of Australian Government Budget Sector Financing Transactions, 1965-66 to 1974-75.’ That table gives the figures for 2 years under our Government and 8 years under the previous government. Again, it indicates the variety of items that go to make the composition of the deficit. This once again defies precision at this time of the year. I hope that the threat which the honourable gentleman made is not proceeded with in another place. I think that the sorts of things that we are talking about in this place today ought properly to be the basis of the Budget debate. This particular item is handled in this way to link with defence. Again, as the honourable gentle.man well knows, this is done to cope with the technical Loan Council procedures. There is nothing snide or underhand about it. I remember making a speech on a Bill similar to this one when I was in Opposition. In that Bill, I think for the first time, the sum that was projected was not mentioned. I suppose I made my play about the inaccuracy of estimating and so on. One can score points in that way but realistically both sides of the House would say that if in government at present they would be aiming for about the same level of deficit- about $2,800m. Whichever side was in power would have to introduce this kind of measure. No side would be in a better position to give the composition of the $2,800m now as against what it turns out to be eventually when we finally wash the accounts up at the end of June 1976.

I think there is a certain amount of sheer political play here. It is the sort of licence one expects in a Budget debate but to turn what is nothing more than a routine mechanical measure into an opportunity to suggest that the Government is destroying the currency or not indicating its monetary policy is inappropriate. I suggest again that honourable members opposite read the documents. I suggest they also read the annual report of the Reserve Bank. Of course, like most other annual reports, it tells what has happened rather than what is likely to happen. Nevertheless to some extent what happens is greatly conditioned by what has happened. I am sure members opposite will agree with that statement.

The Treasurer has given plenty of indications as to what he is aiming at with respect to volume of money. He has provided a table which shows its composition over recent years. He has indicatedI repeat the phrase- that monetary policy will be operating so as not to assist inflationary trends. In my view that is all anybody can sensibly say at this point. There will be seasonal ups and downs, as we know. I am hopeful that unemployment will begin to decline. If it does not do so we will have to take different sorts of measures to look after those who unfortunately are unemployed. I leave it at that. I hope that the Opposition might consider withdrawing its amendment.

Mr GARLAND:
Curtin

– I seconded the amendment and I can assure the Minister for Overseas Trade (Mr Crean) that the Opposition has no intention of withdrawing its amendment, for reasons which have been put by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Lynch) and which I will try to elaborate as I proceed. I interpose to say what a pleasure it is to see the former Treasurer in his formerly familiar role. One cannot help wondering whether, if he were still Treasurer, the Budget would be as it is presented to us with a deficit of the size proposed.

Mr Willis:

– Do not be so hypocritical.

Mr GARLAND:

– There is nothing hypocritical about that statement. If the honourable member had listened carefully to the Minister’s remarks I think he would have detected, as I did, that the Minister was indicating that the projected deficit was likely to change. He tried to confine that to a limit of about $ 100m on either side of the projection but his earlier remarks- I invite the honourable member to read them when they are published tomorrow morning- rather emphasised that one could not predict what the outcome would be. That tended to throw some considerable doubt on what the actual size of the Budget deficit might turn out to be. That is a point the Opposition has made somewhat forcibly in the course of the last week. From our knowledge of the history of Labor Government budgets there is little possibility that the real position by 30 June will be in accord with these proposals which are being discussed in such detail.

This Bill authorises the transfer of loan funds to Consolidated Revenue for defence purposes. Loan funds can be drawn on for defence expenditure or temporary purposes- a familiar phrase of late- and for such amounts as are agreed by the Loan Council under the Financial Agreement. That is provided for by section 105A of the Constitution. Consolidated Revenue draws its principal standing from section 81 of the Constitution which, since it is brief, I quote:

All revenues or moneys raised or received by the Executive Government of the Commonwealth shall form one Consolidated Revenue Fund, to be appropriated for the purposes of the Commonwealth in the manner and subject to the charges and liabilities imposed by this Constitution.

I should have thought the clear implication is that Consolidated Revenue therefore cannot go into deficit. Because it is provided by the Financial Agreement that funds can be drawn for defence purposes, this is a reasonably convenient method of supplementing the deficit that otherwise would appear in the Consolidated Revenue Fund.

I propose to raise a number of questions on this matter because there are some aspects that I do not understand. I am not sure whether the explanation is as I will suggest it to be, but I invite the Treasurer here or the Government on another occasion in the Senate to consider and to answer these questions and no doubt others that will be raised. Clearly we are operating in very difficult economic times and the size of the proposed deficit is so great that the Opposition believes it is entirely justifiable on this measure and others, to raise matters of concern to us which are certainly of concern to the people of Australia.

I refer to clause 3 (8) of the Financial Agreement because I think that the supremacy of the Financial Agreement is not always fully recognised; perhaps it is to a greater extent by some economists. It reads:

The Commonwealth and each State will from time to time, while Part III of this Agreement is in force, submit to the Loan Council a program setting forth the amount it desires to raise by loans during each financial year for purposes other than the conversion, renewal or redemption of existing loans or temporary purposes. Each program shall state the estimated total amount of such loan expenditure during the year, and the estimated amount of repayments which will be available towards meeting that expenditure. Any revenue deficit to be funded shall be included in such loan program, and the amount of such deficit shall be set out. Loans for Defence purposes approved by the Parliament of the Commonwealth shall not be included in the Commonwealth’s loan program or be otherwise subject to this Agreement.

I have quoted this clause because, I repeat, I believe the supremacy of the Financial Agreement is not always fully recognised. This Bill is substantially about that proviso in that clause of the Agreement in respect of defence expenditure and therefore a transfer is necessary.

It would appear to me, reading the document entitled ‘Estimates of Receipts and Summary of Estimated Expenditure for the year ending 30 June 1976’, which was tabled with the other Budget documents, that what is probably regarded as the estimated limit to be transferred is the sum of $ 1 , 1 52. 1 m set out on page 1 0 under the heading ‘Amount chargeable to Loan Fund ‘. That is the first matter I would like to have confirmed. That sum appears to be related, though not quite exactly, to the sum of $ 1 , 1 5 1 .9m which appears in Table 2 on page 7 of the same document under the heading ‘Reconciliation of Budget Statement Functional Headings with the Transactions of the Consolidated Revenue Fund, Loan Fund and Trust Fund’. I do not know what the difference is but I would like to know. So there are 3 questions which I would like answered. I would like to know whether these figures are the intended limit of the amount to be transferred in accordance with this Bill. Of course, the Bill does not set any sum; it sets a formula. As I understand the formula this is the amount that would be estimated by the Budget, although in reality it may turn out to be more.

Mr Crean:

– There is quite a substantial footnote to that.

Mr GARLAND:

– Yes, I will certainly refer to that footnote. I take it that the Minister is referring to footnote (c) on page 10?

Mr Crean:

– Yes, footnote (c).

Mr GARLAND:

-Footnote (c) reads:

The amount chargeable to the Loan Fund under the provisions of a proposed Loan Act -

And this is the proposed Loan Act- is a residual balancing item. The amount charged will reflect all the other variations from the estimated receipts and expenditure of the Consolidated Revenue Fund. Any ‘estimate’ must therefore be a highly qualified figure.

That was what I meant when I said that if the expenditure was greater or there were reasons for drawing more that would be something aside from what was being estimated in these figures. As I understand it, what is estimated at present is the sum to which I have referred.

Mr Crean:

– Table 2 on page 7, of course, has a functional purpose.

Mr GARLAND:

– Yes, quite. I think that might call for more explanation. The other point that strikes one is that the Bill seems to have been introduced very early in the financial year. I have not looked at tins aspect in great detail but I am aware that the 1969-70 legislation was passed on 20 June 1970 and in the following year on 17 May 1 97 1 . The only explanation that is apparent is that the Government’s deficit is so great that it needs the money more urgently this year. Here we are not yet at the end of August and the Bill has been introduced. An explanation as to why the Bill is necessary so early would be certainly helpful to the Opposition.

Mr Crean:

– Again, if you observe that about two-thirds of total defence expenditure is supposed to be covered in this way you will reach this stage fairly early in defence spending.

Mr GARLAND:

– Yes. No doubt the Government has advisers, some of whom I presume are busily advising the next speaker at the moment so that he can sound erudite. No doubt this question can be explained in reasonably cogent and hopefully persuasive language in due course. But as the Deputy Leader of the Opposition said in his remarks, what concerns us too is the effect of this legislation on economic policy as it relates to the financing of the deficit or financing of the whole Budget. We are particularly concerned, and we believe that the country is concerned, because of the tremendous deficit and the economic mess that the Government has got this country into.

In my view we cannot say that this legislation is a machinery matter, that we will just put it aside and we will vote for it blindly. We say that this is part of the economic package. The way in which these machinery matters are dealt with is important. We want some explanation of this. Therefore we have moved an amendment. The amendment recognises at this stage- I emphasise the words ‘at this stage’- that passage can be given to the Bill. We recognise that the Government has a majority in this place. But we are raising these questions for answer before the legislation is passed in the Senate- I emphasise the words ‘before the legislation is passed in the Senate’- because we believe that there are aspects that are very unusual.

I have briefly referred to a number of things that the Minister said in his remarks. He said that deficits are nothing new. Of course, deficits of this size are very new. It is the scope, the ramifications and the possible consequences because of the changed situation that makes us doubtful. We believe, and I say this deliberately, that we are entitled to some suspicion about these matters because of the very unusual circumstancesand I put it as mildly as possiblethat exist in the economic state and in the budgetary context that has been put by this Government to the Parliament. We propose to look at this matter and to call on the Government to come clean and not just to give us explanations which are patronising and which can, I suppose in some quarters, be described as waffle. We want to know what this all means and what its effect is likely to be.

I want to take up another technical point which relates to a difference between the drafting of this Bill, and the drafting of the legislation which was assented to on 20 June 1970, for instance. The words ‘from the Consolidated Revenue Fund’ in line 13 of clause 3-1 will not read the whole clause because not only is it lengthy but it is difficult to understand without a close, quiet reading- replace the words ‘apart from this Act’ in the otherwise identical Bill of 1970. That is a technical question to which we would like an answer. The answer may relate to drafting; it may be more substantial. We would like to know the precise answer.

I would now like to come back to the size of the deficit- an amount of $2,800m. We believe the likelihood of the Government confining the deficit to this amount to be very slight. Certainly the Treasurer (Mr Hayden) has said enough in answer to questions and the Minister for Overseas Trade has said enough to indicate certain doubt in their minds. One can look, for example, at expenditure on the Regional Employment Development scheme in this regard. As I said last night in the Budget debate, surely it is only a question of when expenditure for this purpose will be upgraded and increased by this Government. Will this happen next week- in 2 weeks, 4 weeks or 6 weeks? This will happen? The Government will push the button and as soon as it does that will be the end of the restraint in the Budget and the first departure will be made from the Budget strategy.

I asked the Treasurer a question yesterday to which he replied:

Every effort will be made to maintain the economic strategy which has been outlined in the Budget.

That does not sound very convincing; it does not sound to me to be a very strong will. On the contrary, it sounds to me to be a recognition that it is going to be almost impossible to keep to the Budget strategy. These are matters which are not of a machinery nature; they are matters that involve

Australia’s finance, the future security of Australians, their employment opportunities and their welfare.

The speech made by the Treasurer in introducing this Bill seems to me to be a little obscure in some parts. I refer to the beginning of the second paragraph which reads:

The prospective deficit in the Consolidated Revenue Fund, which is only part of the estimated overall deficit . . .

I emphasise the words ‘which is only part’. I am not sure whether I have made the right interpretation of that sentence. Does it mean that $ 1 , 1 52m is part of $2,800m? Perhaps that can be explained. The Treasurer went on to say:

When this Bill is enacted I shall move an amendment to Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1975-76, to permit defence expenditure specified in that Bill to be charged to Loan Fund.

Does that mean that it is to be reduced by $1,1 52m? If not, what sum is intended? In any case, since it is consequential on the passing of this Bill, that is an element of interest to the Opposition.

The Treasurer, in answer to a question that I asked him yesterday, made a number of intriguing statements. We have tried to press him to give us more information about his intention of financing this deficit. Really all we have had from him has been a lot of gobbledegook. He said:

No Liberal-Country Party government was ever able to give a precise or even reasonably general detailed program of the under-the-line financing of the government’s transactions.

Of course, no Liberal-Country Party government ever dreamed of having a deficit of this scope, even as a percentage. We are aware that in finding the money to balance that deficit the Government could let loose other forces in the economy such as a rise in interest rates, which would go right through the community. I am sure that that would be of interest to the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr Riordan).

The Minister for Overseas Trade (Mr Crean) said a moment ago that the Government had done well in its loan raisings and that they were the highest on record. That has to be discounted by the value of the money anyway. But making allowance for that, the repayments out of the $68 lm that was raised are $400m. So the net receipt of $28 lm becomes rather small compared with the amount of the deficit. The fact is that the Government’s prospects for raising loans of any great proportion are pretty dim. The Treasurer’s answer yesterday seems to indicate that he is looking for as much as he can get in the way of loans. I do not know why he did not say so more specifically. But he will have to raise a substantial amount of loan money and, to do that, increase interest rates. He said that there are a full 12 months to go yet. Of course there are not. There are only 1014 months. The first * Vi* months have shown an enormous deficit.

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

Mr WILLIS:
Gellibrand

-This debate is remarkable for the fact that it is taking place at all. This is basically a machinery measure, as the Treasurer (Mr Hayden) and the Acting Treasurer (Mr Crean) have pointed out. One would not have thought that the Opposition would have found anything in it about which to start hammering the Government. The debate is also remarkable for another factor, and that is the incredible presumption of the Opposition, firstly, for criticising the Government for doing something which it did itself a number of times and, secondly, for criticising the monetary policy of this Government when, according to last night’s outlining of the Opposition’s economic policy by the new Leader of the Opposition (Mr Malcolm Fraser), it would have a monetary policy which would be frightening for this country.

Let me develop some of those points. I want to make it quite clear that this Bill is a machinery measure. There is nothing devious about it. This course had been followed by the Opposition a number of times. In 1968, 1970 and 1971 similar Bills to this were put through the Parliament to enable the same kind of device to be used by the then Government as this Government is now attempting to use. It is in no way a devious Bill. I would like to explain some figures for the honourable member for Curtin (Mr Garland). He wondered where the figure of $1,151 billion came from. If he looks at page 46 of Budget Paper No. 4 he will see at the bottom of the column headed ‘Estimate, 1975-76’ a figure under the section ‘Loans Acts 1974 and 1975 ‘ of $1,152 billion. If he takes from that the second figure at the top of the column, the credit item of $ 1 96,800, which is repayment of a previous loan, he will get the figure which appears on page 7 against Defence under the column ‘Net transactions of Loan Fund’ of $1,1 5 1.9m. So that is quite simply explained. I do not claim that it was my genius that worked it out. I found it out from the Treasury officials advising the Government. However, that is essentially by the way.

The remarkable thing about this debate is that the Opposition is attempting to criticise the

Government for doing something which it did a number of times. Honourable members opposite are suggesting that we are hiding something by not saying how the deficit will be financed. The fact is that they did not explain how they were going to finance their deficits either. No government is going to say at the outset of a financial year. ‘This is exactly how we will finance our deficit’. What it does in the course of a year will be dictated by the economic requirements of the dme. As the year goes on all kinds of variations in the economy occur which require a differing monetary policy from time to time. So the way in which a government would finance a deficit would be dictated by the requirements of the economy. It would be absurd for the Government to commit itself at the outset to any particular form of financing the deficit.

Having made that broad point may I also say that I think it is highly unlikely that the Government would try to cover the deficit by a massive borrowing program, because to do that it would probably need to raise interest rates substantially. So I suggest that it is not likely to be financed by a program which would lead to a massive increase in interest rates. The most remarkable part of this debate is that the Opposition is trying to lecture the Government on its monetary policy, suggesting that the deficit is a remarkably high deficit. In fact, according to last night’s outlining of the Opposition’s economic policy, it would propose a deficit which would be substantially in excess of the one for which the Government is budgeting this year. The domestic deficit for which this Government is budgeting is just over $2 billion. On the figures given to the Parliament this morning by the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam), that figure would be almost doubled by the Opposition ‘s economic program.

Mr Adermann:

– That is rubbish.

Mr WILLIS:

– The honourable member may say that it is rubbish, but the fact is that the Opposition has not put all the figures before the Parliament. When one works out the cost of all the things the Opposition proposes to do, the handouts it would make and the minimal cuts in government expenditure which have been outlined, one finds the Opposition would have a domestic deficit approaching $4 billion and a total deficit of about $4.6 billion. That would be a remarkable deficit and would be by far the highest in the history of this country. I am almost overwhelmed at the presumption of the Opposition in lecturing the Government next day about the size of its deficit and about the irresponsible economic program and monetary policies which the Government is supposed to be adopting. What incredible effrontery!

The fact is that if the Opposition were now the Government and if it carried out that program it would increase the money supply through its domestic deficit far more than the Government is doing in its economic program. The result of that would be that it would then have to cut back enormously on other forms of increase in the money supply. The result would be that there would be a very substantial increase in interest rates which would be quite crippling to private enterprise as well as to home buyers and others. What the Opposition would be trying to do for business on the one hand by making handouts in the form of tax concessions it would be offsetting by the massive increase in interest rates that would be required to finance a domestic deficit of that kind.

The Opposition is in the incredible situation now where it has proposed a domestic deficit which is far higher than the one the Government has proposed and yet it now lectures us about responsible monetary policy- an incredible situation. It is compounded even more by the fact that the mover of this amendment is the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Lynch), the same man who the day before the Budget was announced by the Government was writing in an article in The Australian about the need for a smaller deficit. A week or so later the Opposition proposes a deficit which is almost double the size of the domestic deficit which the Government has proposed.

I suggest that this debate is a remarkable debate. It is an insight into the thinking of the Opposition. It criticises the Government for bringing in a Loan Bill in the way in which it did many times. It criticises us for not explaining how we would finance the deficit. This is something it never did when it was the Government. It never explained that. Most importantly of all, it attempts to berate the Government for an irresponsible monetary policy which it would exceed enormously if it were the Government. I suggest that the amendment is an utter absurdity and should be totally rejected by the Parliament.

Mr ADERMANN:
Fisher

-The motion for the second reading of the Loan Bill the Opposition does not oppose, but we are not going to give the Government any pats on the back for it either. I support the amendment. As has been stated by the Treasurer (Mr Hayden), the estimated expenditures for 1975-76 normally charged to the Consolidated Revenue Fund substantially exceed the estimated receipts of the Fund. Given the Government’s past performance and the doubtful reliability of its estimates, it is certain that this deficit will in fact be larger than is indicated in the Budget papers, because so transparently deficient are the bases for the estimates that this is unavoidable. For the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam), who leads a government that cannot do its sums, to come into this House this morning and concoct some figures and talk about an Opposition projection of a deficit of $4,600m is a load of rubbish. I would suggest that that might well be the figure that he thinks the Government’s deficit might end up being as a result of the Government’s inability to estimate properly and to keep within those estimates. That is the necessity for this Bill. It is this situation that brings this Bill to us. That deficit has to be met. By this Bill some expenditures which should appropriately be met technically from the Consolidated Revenue Fund are to be charged to the Loan Fund. This Bill in fact authorises certain defence expenditures from approved appropriations to be charged to that Fund.

As I have said, the Bill itself is not opposed nor is there any equivocation on the part of my Party, the National Country Party of Australia, or our coalition colleagues about approval for provision of defence expenditure. What does concern us considerably- it is just not a talking point- is the lack of information, detail and explanations in this Bill and in the Treasurer’s non-answers. Why can the Government not tell us at least a little more specifically more about the financing of this deficit? We have all sorts of people telling us that the deficit is reliable and that the figures can be relied upon although today considerable doubt has been cast upon them. The Government is pretty definite about that. If it is definite about that, why can it not be more definite about telling us how the deficit is to be financed? For instance, how much is to be appropriated as a result of a Bill such as this?

The Treasurer says that it is not possible at this stage of the financial year to be at all precise, and he uses some vague innocuous words like ‘certain moneys from time to time’. I am not asking for impossible precision, but if the deficit in the Consolidated Revenue Fund does exceed the estimates by even more than the estimated amount- I do not think that is an unreasonable hypothesis or supposition- how much or how little of the estimated defence appropriation will be able to come from Consolidated Revenue, or how inadequate will be the Consolidated

Revenue Fund to meet, for instance, our defence expenditure? We will get on to the technical aspects of that later. Already we are told that it is inadequate. Already we are told that the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) will have to be amended although it was presented only a week ago. The honourable member for Curtin (Mr Garland) commented that this seemed to be an unusually early time in the year to bring in a Bill like this to authorise us to dip into the Loan Fund to finance the deficit. Despite the figures that the honourable member for Curtin and the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Crean) have mentioned across the table, there is not very much in the Treasurer’s speech to tell us really where this Bill is likely to end. Where will it end and what amount would a Bill like this authorise? I think they are questions that are fair enough. I think the questions that have been asked by the Opposition this morning are fair enough. The Government has used defence as the vehicle. Is it not reasonable to ask how much of our defence expenditure is going to depend on appropriations from loan funds? It might not be possible to be specific, but we really have no information at all. I think it is reasonable to ask for those sorts of assurances, because as the deficit in the Consolidated Revenue Fund grows- it will continue to grow- this sort of Bill might become more important than it looks at the moment. It could well be more than a machinery Bill.

Why defence? I suppose it is the best way to get around the Loan Council requirements. I suppose constitutionally it is the safe way to appropriate defence expenditure from the Loan Fund because it is doubtful just what other avenues of expenditure can be so appropriated.

Mr Kevin Cairns:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

– It is a very clever way.

Mr ADERMANN:

– Yes, it is a clever way . The fact that other governments have done it in the past- the honourable member for Gellibrand (Mr Willis) made some issue of that- is begging the question as far as I am concerned. It does not matter whether somebody before me has perpetrated a criminal offence. Because of a precedent, it does not mean that I ought to go out and perpetrate a similar offence. I am talking about this Bill and now. Defence does come into this Bill, and because it does that worries me. We were told yesterday, for instance, that it costs too much to maintain the school cadet corps. That is the first casualty. I think that its abolition is a retrograde, shortsighted and very stupid move. This Bill tells us: ‘We are not going to be able to meet all of our expenditure so we have to authorise some of our defence expenditure to come from the Loan Fund’. In other words, defence expenditure in toto will not be able to be met by Consolidated Revenue. This worries me, because if we did not experience a chill down our spine at some of the attitudes and remarks of particularly left wing Government members on aspects of defence in debate in this House, I would be most surprised. Yet we are asked to pass this Bill happily. We are accused of wasting time on a Bill like this. We are assured that this is a machinery Bill, but is it? A number of questions have been asked which have not yet been answered. No attempt has been made to give us information which I believe we ought to have, which it is our right to have and which the people of Australia have a right to have, because this Bill can have massive implications.

Why is it necessary now, a week after the Appropriation Bill was introduced in this House? How crucial is it that so soon we have to bring in these Bills and juggle our funds to meet the expenditure? How reliable are the Estimates, and how reliable is the deficit? Is there any significancewe are led to believe there is not- in the abnormal deficit already in the month of July? Is it naive to believe that our defence should be adequately attended to in a budget from Consolidated Revenue and that we ought not, at least at this time of the year, to have to worry about Bills such as this? It would be understandable if the year had gone on a little or if there were unusual or extraordinary circumstances. Then we might get some idea of the implications of this Bill. Then we might expect a Bill like this.

Sitting suspended from 1 to 2.1 5 p.m.

Mr ADERMANN:

– I will talk for only a short time more. I want to keep faith with the Leader of the House ( Mr Daly). He knows how reliable I am in these matters. The Opposition will be forced to proceed with this amendment which has been forced on us because it is the only way in which we can get the type of information we want. Also it is forced on us because the answers to questions asked on this Bill are not good enough. The Bill says that the amount will not exceed what is considered necessary to avoid a deficit in the Consolidated Revenue Fund. That is delightfully vague. In the second reading speech we find words like ‘We cannot yet be precise’, or ‘We cannot specify an amount’, or ‘The timing will be determined’, or ‘We just do not know’. Perhaps the last is fair enough. I do not think the Government does know. It has had only one Budget this year and the honourable member for Lalor (Dr J. F. Cairns) has already indicated that it could be as little as a fortnight before we see the first mini budget appearing in this House. However, if it is good enough to ask the Parliament to pass this Bill it should be good enough to provide a few answers. The only thing that is definite in this Bill and the only thing which we can accept without any equivocation is that this Bill does not indicate that there will be any over-expenditure or additional expenditure on defence. We did not have any illusions about that. We knew that that would be so. We did not need that assurance. The Government might over-expend everywhere else but we know that there is no danger at all of its squandering any money on the defence of this country.

Mr McVeigh:

– Or on primary industry.

Mr ADERMANN:

-Or on primary industry, as my colleague the honourable member for Darling Downs so aptly interjects. The only thing I can say is that I fervently hope the loan funds will prove pretty robust if the defence of our country and other appropriations are to be heavily dependent on it. My Party, the National Country Party, therefore supports and endorses the amendment moved by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. The amendment was moved, as the Treasurer and the Minister for Overseas Trade have been advised, not in any sense of obstruction but because we feel that it is the only avenue by which we can have answered some of the questions posed by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and by the honourable member for Curtin and perhaps the one or two I have added. That is the purpose of the amendment and we support it.

Mr CREAN:
Minister for Overseas Trade · Melbourne Ports · ALP

– Having already spoken in the debate I seek leave to make a short statement to answer, a couple of questions that have been asked of me.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Mr CREAN:

– I was asked: Why has the Bill come in earlier than usual? The principal item of expenditure is defence and there is a total provision for defence expenditure of $1,71 lm. It is proposed to use approximately $1,1 52m of that expenditure from the loan account. I think it can be seen that as it is now the end of August 2 full months of the financial year already have gone. Two-thirds of the total estimated expenditure on defence is to come from this form of finance and one of the reasons for the Bill coming in now is that it cannot be retrospective. Expenditure can come from the Loan Fund only after the passage of this legislation and if the Opposition intends to delay the Bill in the Senate it may be another week or two yet before it is passed. By that time we probably would be facing difficulty meeting defence expenditure out of ordinary revenue.

The Government has been accused of not divulging reasons. I am endeavouring to say here that the Bill is early because the drawing of defence expenditure is substantial- two-thirds approximately of the total projected expenditure. I thought if I gave that explanation it might help to allay some of the Opposition’s worst fears.

Amendment negatived.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation for proposed expenditure announced.

In Committee

Mr WENTWORTH:
Mackellar

– There are certain things about this Bill which puzzle me and I do not put them forward as something which is entirely novel or which has arisen only under this Government. I want to look first at section 8 1 of the Constitution which, of course, no Bill can abrogate. It reads:

All revenues or moneys raised or received by the Executive Government of the Commonwealth shall form one Consolidated Revenue Fund, to be appropriated for the purposes of the Commonwealth in the manner and subject to the charges and liabilities imposed by this Constitution.

I think this is quite clear and it cannot be affected by anything that is done by an Act of this Parliament. Any moneys raised, whether by tax or by loan, must be paid into the Consolidated Revenue Fund in terms of section 81 of the Constitution. I am interested to know how in the past and in the present Treasurers have formally complied with this section and what is the exact mechanism that has been used. If monies are raised they must be paid into the Consolidated Revenue Fund whether they are raised by taxation or by loan and they can, of course, be appropriated out of that Fund to a trust fund or to a subsidiary loan fund or to some head of expenditure. The matter becomes important because of the rather unusual nature of the Bill before us. It is an open-ended borrowing and it is obvious that it is being done in order to circumvent the Loan Council. Commonwealth powers of borrowing are limited in terms of the Financial Agreement which is incorporated in the Constitution. The Commonwealth can borrow without the Loan Council’s sanction for temporary purposesthat is an expression we have heard recently in this Parliament- or it can borrow for defence purposes. What is happening under this Bill is that the Government is really intending to borrow for the deficit by the simple device of charging all of the defence expenditure of whatever character not against the Consolidated Revenue Fund but against the Loan Fund. That is the effect of clauses 3 and 4 of the Bill.

Mr Crean:

– Not all of it; two-thirds of it.

Mr WENTWORTH:

– I am sorry; where is this two-thirds mentioned?

Mr Crean:

-It is $ 1 , 1 32m out of $ 1 ,700m.

Mr WENTWORTH:

– Where is the two-thirds mentioned in the Bill? I am talking about the effect of the Bill.

The CHAIRMAN (Dr Jenkins:
SCULLIN, VICTORIA

-Order! The Committee will come to order.

Mr WENTWORTH:

– I think it is in order perhaps that the Minister should be asked the question because he has told us now something of the Government’s intention which is not included in the Bill. In other words, the Bill does not set out what really is the Government’s intention or, more to the point, does not bind the Government to carry out its stated intention. I am worried about this aspect because it does not seem to me that clause 4 of the Bill is really necessary in order to get around the Loan Council, unless the Government really has some kind of financial trick up its sleeve.

Under this Bill the whole of the defence expenditure, including all current expenditure, could be chargeable against the Loan Fund up to the limit of the total deficit in the Budget. Of course, the total deficit in the Budget is likely to be far higher than the total of the defence expenditure, so that limit does not really have any practical significance. But what the Government is doing- I do not want to describe it as underhand because it does not seem to me that the Government has really made its position clear in the matter- is in some way giving itself the opportunity of charging the whole of the defence expenditure against the Loan Fund and thus fiddling the accounts. It is open to the Government to do that under this Bill; it would not be open to the Government to do that if this Bill were not passed. So I am worried about it. I am worried about it particularly when I look at the implications of section 81 of the Constitution. No doubt the Minister will be able to tell us more about these things in a moment.

One of the peculiar effects of this legislation may be that it will limit the power of the Senate later to call the Government to account by refusing Supply. Before the Bill passes through the Senate I think that that aspect of it will have to be very carefully considered by honourable senators. Of course, they would not want to have limited in any way their power to act in the future against a government which, to some of us, seems to be misbehaving, financially and otherwise, in such a terrible fashion. So let us just ask the Minister for some explanation of these things. Why is it necessary for clause 4 to be included in the Bill? It does not seem to be necessary because the money will be paid to Consolidated Revenue anyway and it cannot be taken out of Consolidated Revenue except by an appropriation. Why is it that the Bill seeks to give a facility to charge the whole of the defence expenditure against the Loan Fund?

If the real reason for the inclusion of clause 4 in the Bill is to satisfy the conditions of the Financial Agreement, may I point out to the Minister in all respect that the Government was not so sensitive about satisfying the conditions of the Financial Agreement when it proposed to raise either $2,000m or $4,000m for temporary purposes, because in that circumstance the Government thought, whether rightly or wrongly, that its mere avowal that the moneys were for temporary purposes would in some way take the matter outside the ambit of the financial agreement. If that is so, why would not the mere avowal that the money is for defence purposes similarly take it outside the ambit of the Financial Agreement? Many things need to be explained by the Minister in regard to this Bill. I am just wondering whether there might not be a little bit of concealed subterfuge, even perhaps concealed treachery, in its seemingly innocent clauses.

Mr CREAN:
Minister for Overseas Trade · Melbourne Ports · ALP

– The honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Wentworth) grieves me by bis suspicion. He says that he is worried about the situation now. The situation is that the practice being followed now is no different from that which was followed by his own government. It is not an open ended commitment at all. It does not allow all the defence expenditure to come from the Loan Fund; it allows such an amount as is determined by the deficiency between the Consolidated Revenue Fund receipts and the projected outgoings from that Fund during the year. At this stage it looks as though there will be a deficiency in the region of $1,1 32m. That is the figure that was mentioned by the Opposition spokesman here this morning.

Mr Garland:

-It was $ 1 , 1 50m.

Mr CREAN:

-I do not have the figure readily available. It was either $ 1, 1 5 1 .9m or $ 1 , 1 52.2m, depending on which table we consult. The practice which we are following has been adopted in other years. True, it has not been done to the same level, but previously it was not needed to be done to the same level. I take the point that the deficit on this occasion is higher than it has been in other years. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Malcolm Fraser) suggested last night that he thought that it was about the right kind of deficit. So, had Opposition members been sitting on this side of the chamber instead of on that side of the chamber, they would have had to bring forward a measure somewhat similar to this.

The other point is that the money spent on defence, whether it comes out of Consolidated Revenue or the Loan Fund, cannot be of an amount greater than the total provided in the Budget. I think the honourable member ought at least to be fair about that. The figure mentioned in the Budget is something like $ 1,750m. Again I do not have at my finger tips the precise figure. We cannot spend more than that amount on defence. Whether it comes out of the Loan Fund or whether it comes out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund- I want to say something about section 81 of the Constitution for the honourable member- it has got to come out of one or other of those funds. On this occasion a larger amount than usual will come out of the Loan Fund because of the large size of the deficit. I am afraid that that is as much explanation as I think I can give. I hope that the honourable member is not suspicious that we are trying -

Mr Wentworth:

– I am.

Mr CREAN:

– I know the honourable member is, but he has no reason to be. I am just trying to be frank in the answer I am giving. The honourable member referred specifically to section 8 1 of the Constitution. He was good enough to indicate to me before lunch that he intended to raise this matter, and I in turn sought some information on it. Again this is not anything new. It was a practice followed by governments of the political persuasion of the honourable member. I point out that the Treasurer (Mr Hayden) said in his second reading speech the other evening:

The Australian Government’s financial transactions are recorded in 3 separate funds- the Consolidated Revenue Fund, the Loan Fund, and the Trust Fund.

They are recognisable divisions of the internal bookkeeping, but I am told that in terms of section 81 of the Constitution the legal people regard the term ‘Consolidated Revenue Fund’ as embracing all 3 aspects and not just the Consolidated Revenue Fund itself. That is the best explanation I can give to the honourable member. It is the explanation which has been given to me. I am not a lawyer. Perhaps the honourable member is better versed in the law. The point is that even though we call the funds by 3 different names- the Consolidated Revenue Fund, the Loan Fund and the Trust Fund- for the purposes of section 81 of the Constitution they are all embraced by the term ‘Consolidated Revenue Fund’. If the honourable member is not satisfied with that explanation I think that the matter would have to be taken up on a legal basis.

The honourable member for Curtin (Mr Garland) who is sitting at the table opposite me asked why certain words that were contained in a previous similar Bill were left out of this Bill. I am told that upon looking at the matter a second time the advisers wonder why the words were necessary on the first occasion. I do not think that there is anything devious or subtle there. Apparently, it is just that those words that were contained in similar Bills in other years are regarded as superfluous. They do not add to or subtract from the Bill. That is the explanation given to me and I hope that it is satisfactory.

Mr WENTWORTH:
Mackellar

-I accept what the Minister for Overseas Trade (Mr Crean) has said about this practice in regard to section 8 1 of the Constitution not being novel in the hands of this Government, but I am still worried. I think that this Government and previous governments may be legally at fault in what has been done and I believe that the matter needs to be looked at further. There is just one other point I wish to raise. I do not think that the Minister understood what I was saying. I will repeat it because it is at variance with something that he said. It is true that the limit on the defence expenditure which can be charged to Loan Fund is the deficiency in the Consolidated Revenue Fund as a whole. But since it may well be that this year the deficiency in the Consolidated Revenue Fund will exceed the figure of, I think it was, $ 1,700m the Minister cited as the defence expenditure, there is in point of practical fact no limitation. Contrary to what the Minister said, there will be in the Government’s hands, if we pass this Bill, the capacity to charge the whole of defence expenditure against the Loan Fund. That, I am afraid, is the fact.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendments; report adopted.

Third Reading

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

page 599

APPROPRIATION BILL (No. 1) 1975-76

Second Reading (Budget Debate)

Debate resumed from 26 August on motion by Mr Hayden:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Upon which Mr Fraser had moved by way of amendment-

That all words after ‘That ‘ be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: ‘the House condemns the Budget because it does not provide an adequate program to defeat inflation and relieve unemployment nor does it restore confidence in the private sector of the economy’.

Dr EDWARDS:
Berowra

-We resume the debate on the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1975-76 from last night, the last speaker then being the honourable member for Cook (Mr Thorburn). Among other matters, he had something to say about natural gas. I can say in passing that from his subsequent performance there is no shortage of natural gas in this chamber, especially on the Government side.

Mr Hewson:

– That is manufactured gas.

Dr EDWARDS:

-That is right. He argued that the proposed 5 per cent cut overall in Government spending which is proposed from this side of the House would affect the money supply. In fact, the Opposition last night made proposals that accept the size of the deficit proposed by the Government, as just noted in the previous debate. So the problems of financing the deficit and the associated money supply remain much the same. However, our proposals and in particular the implementation of the Mathews Committee recommendation would greatly alleviate the associated problem of the potential ‘crowding out’ of the private sector from the capital market. That is very important. Incidentally, one might note in passing that the Press statement of the Treasurer (Mr Hayden) released this morning and the comments of the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) during question time on the Opposition’s proposals were totally inaccurate. In fact, they were a load of rubbish. I will mention just on point. The Mathews stock valuation allowance proposal is put in that statement at costing $900m. That is quite wrong. It would be less than half that amount. To be precise, it would be about $3 80m in the manner it is proposed to be implemented and when account is taken of maintaining the company tax rate at 45 per cent. I add in that respect that it is the intention or the guarantee of what we would do which is virtually as important as the actual size of the immediate benefit of the proposal.

But when this and much more has been said about this Budget there remains one central issue to be considered: Will it restore- I make it a little easier for the Government- will it contribute to restoring the capacity and the incentive of the private sector to move forward again? When I say ‘the private sector I refer to the nongovernment sector of the economy, Australian businesses small and large throughout this land. Will it enable or induce the private sector to turn its attention once again to growth, development and new horizons, with all that that means in terms of providing jobs for Australians and a higher standard of living and the very capacity the better to meet those aspirations in the education, health, welfare, defence and other fields where community demands have outrun the ability to provide? Is it to do that- or do we stay within the present situation of grim preoccupation of businesses large and small with mere survival? It is the tragedy of this Budget that it fails in this central strategic requirement of moving to restore the capacity and incentive of the private sector, as the next six or nine months will surely show. Because the Budget fails in that, whatever else can be said for and against this Hayden Budget, it will be of no avail.

I have heard it said that the Budget is a workmanlike job. In anything the Treasury does the workmanship is bound to be good. But the broad thrust and content of the Budget is the Government’s. It is not the Treasury’s but the Treasurer’s, and the Government of which he is a part. As I have said, the Budget is lacking and it is inadequate. Whatever the ingenuity and capacity of the Treasury, the Treasurer and the Government are locked in by past mistakes, by their existing and new spending commitments and by Labor ideology which gives priority to this and that- to just about everything- ahead of halting the bleeding of Australian business, albeit to halt that by implementing the Mathews Committee recommendations- that is the Government’s Committee; it set it up- is a major condition for restoring Australian jobs on a lasting basis. So the Budget misses out on that crucial requirement of policy, the restoring of the private sector’s incentive and capacity to take up the ‘room ‘ which, according to the Treasurer, the restraint on public sector activity will provide.

Let me fasten on the point that the Government has, it says, been very restrained with a view to making ‘room’- that is a quote from the Treasurer- for the private sector to resume growth. Government speakers claim that therefore the Budget is not only workmanlike but is responsible. Total outlays are to increase by only 23 per cent, they say. I repeat that they they say that total outlays will increase by only 23 per cent- by only $4,084m. It is a massive increase in spending to be financed by a massive increase in taxes. Apparently, that is what the Government means by ‘consolidation and restraint’. That is a good phrase and it is found here near the beginning of the Treasurer’s speech.

Mr Cadman:

– Are they the Treasurer’s words?

Dr EDWARDS:

-They are the Treasurer’s very words in his speech. How about that? The Government has vastly expanded the government sector by dint of a 46 per cent increase in public spending last year while at the same time cutting back the private sector through a variety of policies squeezing on profits and thus on jobs. We have government employment up 93 000 and non-government employment down 150 000 over this past 12 months. That is socialism in practice. Ever since Federation federal Government spending has built up gradually but then in one year it increased by 46 per cent. Having done this, the new relative sharing of the total of production activity is now to be consolidated. The Government has built it up by this vast expansion of the government sector and by this cutting down of the private sector, and now this new division of the total activity is to be consolidated, we are told. Honourable members might ask how it is to be consolidated. The answer is by spending up to ensure that the Government shares proportionately in the projected 5 per cent increase in real activity- and more than proportionately, of course, if that estimate proves optimistic as, unhappily, likely it will.

Mr Kelly:

– I reckon that the Government has milked the private enterprise cow dry.

Dr EDWARDS:

– That is the whole problem and the tragedy of the present situation. The increase in spending is to be financed by a massive increase in taxes and by the deficit we have been discussing. People are running around with the idea that somehow personal income tax has been greatly cut. For some people there have been cuts but overall that just is not so to any significant extent. The Treasurer states explicitly in the Budget Speech that the change in net PAYE receipts, other than a reduction due to the more accurate PAYE reductions which will be matched by a lower refund cheque later, is a mere $30m. We are told that for a full year the estimated reduction is about $205m- but then, of course, anything can happen in some future full year. The fact is that in 1975-76 net PAYE receipts are to go up by $2,6 12m or 43 per cent. The figure is explicitly stated in the Budget papers. That is by far and away the biggest increase of all time. Increase? I think ‘rip-off’ would be a better word.

The total of taxation on individuals in 1 975-76 is estimated at $ 10,340m. To get some perspective on that item we need to recall that in 1972-73, the year which saw the change in government, the total of taxation on individuals was $4,000m. Thus that over the 3 years to 1975-76 there will be a 2^-fold increase. Of course people’s incomes have risen, but only half as fast as taxes. With a continuation of these trends the average tax rates in 1975-76 are up. In point of fact, if we look at 1972-73 and take PA YE payments as a proportion of wages and salaries- I am looking at a table which was prepared in the first instance by my colleague, the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Wentworth)- we find that the PA YE take as a percentage of wages and salaries was 14.1 per cent. In 1975-76, depending on which estimate of increase in employment we take, the proportion is approximately 20 per cent so the tax take as a percentage of wages and salaries is up from 14 per cent in 1972-73 to 20 per cent in 1975-76. The increase to 20 per cent is from 17.3 per cent last year. That is the biggest increase in the average weight of taxation in wages and salaries in any one year. Mr Speaker, I seek permission to nave this table incorporated in Hansard.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted. (The table read as follows)- (Official Budget Estimate assuming 1 per cent increase in employment.)

Dr EDWARDS:

-In addition to that, there are higher taxes on drinks, tobacco, petrol and higher postage charges. The cost of postage stamps is up 80 per cent. Altogether these things will cost Australians upwards of another $ 1,000m. These increased charges will boost inflation directly, perhaps by as much as 2 percentage points in the December index. Combined with the almost negligible overall reduction in income tax, these costs put the future of wage indexation and hence the possibility of any significant reduction in inflation in jeopardy. It is true that the Treasurer has, by the new system of income tax, very cleverly reduced the marginal rate of income tax, particularly in the vital range of incomes from $5,000 to $10,000. 1 congratulate him on that- and I take this opportunity in passing to stress that the Opposition does not oppose the rebate principle; we oppose only the way it is applied under this particular tax system. In the absence of the Treasurer I put to the Acting Treasurer (Mr Crean) this question: Does he really imagine that the unions will ignore the increase in the average income tax and higher prices from increased indirect taxes for beer, cigarettes and petrol? Together these increases will undo the potential benefit of the marginal tax change. The Government has turned its back on a deal with the Australian Council of Trade Unions and with the unions which would hold out a real prospect of making wage indexation work and thus of moderating cost induced inflation. Hence our view is that there should be a cut of $500m in personal income tax as the first stage of implementing, over 3 years, the Mathews Committee recommendation for full personal tax indexation. That is not just what we, the Opposition, want. It is what the ACTU wants. It is the only reasonable basis for making wage indexation work.

I turn to the dominating criticism of this Budget. Just as it will do little to curb inflation, unhappily it is more likely to increase than decrease unemployment. As I have said, the tragedy of this Budget and of the Government’s overall economic policy is the inadequacy of measures to restore the health of the private sector. Health in this context means a reasonable profitability which, of course, is just what industry is not getting. If we look at the National Income and Expenditure 1974-75 White Paper which is part of the Budget papers, we see now company income was reduced. In 1973-74 it was $4,458m but in 1974-75 it was $3, 170m, a reduction of $ 1,300m. In that context depreciation of assets is charged at ordinary historical cost. If the Mathews Committee estimates in that respect were to be taken into account that income in 1974-75 would be reduced to less than the tax paid, which is shown at $2,359m. As the Leader of the Opposition said last night, company tax paid in that year was more than 100 per cent of real company profits. That is the situation we are in.

This is where the Labor Party’s ideology- its antipathy to private enterprise- gets wholly in the way. There was no way in this Labor Budget that concessions to business would get priority. I stress that when I talk about reasonable profits it is not a matter of pandering to big business or anything like that; it is talking about jobs. As profits have taken a nose-dive in the past year, correspondingly unemployment has shot up. There is no escaping the connection between the two.

But what happens? In this Budget the Mathews recommendations are put aside. There is a trivial cut in company tax, offset by COS.1 increases from postal charges, petrol, and so on. There is a very minor deferment of tax because of accelerated depreciation to become effective in 1976-77. There is the prospect of higher interest rates as the Government hopefully seeks to finance the deficit in a way to restrain a runaway growth in the money supply. There is the potential blow at the insurance companies. There is the coal tax. There are the cuts in industry assistance. In this Budget the only expenditure items in which a cut means a cut rather than a lesser increase, are housing and industry assistance.

Mr Cadman:

– No incentives.

Dr EDWARDS:

– There are no incentives, as my colleague says. Very importantly, in the key growth sector of mining exploration and development ‘Connorism’ appears to be staying. The savage dead hand of the Minister for Minerals and Energy on new exploration and development is well known to this House. Above all, industry will be hit by the prospect, as I have argued, that stable growth conditions in the economy generally are still far from being realised. Accordingly, the Opposition proposes among other measures the implementation over 3 years of the Mathews Committee recommendations on company taxation, significant investment allowances and other measures to restore the very capacity as well as the incentive to industry to move forward. These measures in 1975-76 would cost a further $500m. The 2 major proposals totalling about $ 1,000m would be made without increasing the Budget deficit by an across-the-board cut of 5 per cent in proposed government spending. Unless this Budget is modified in accordance with these proposals the prediction by Bob Hawke of 500 000 unemployed next year is, unhappily, only too likely to be realised.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Mr OLDMEADOW:
Holt

-I welcome the opportunity of participating in this debate. I think it is significant that the honourable member for Berowra (Dr Edwards) made brief reference to the increase in postal charges. But last night, for the life of me, I could hear no indication that this was one of the concessions that would be handed out in the alternative proposals of the Opposition. Mr Speaker, I draw to your attention that a few days after the Treasurer (Mr Hayden) presented the Budget to this House and to the nation, a pamphlet bearing a photograph of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Malcolm Fraser) was delivered to homes in my electorate and, I think, to other electorates in Australia. The heading on this pamphlet read: ‘The REAL Facts About Labor’s Budget are these . . .’.I must confess to being more than a little intrigued with that phrase ‘The REAL Facts’. After all, facts are facts. If they are facts they are real; if they are not facts they are unreal. So it is possible that the writer of the pamphlet emphasised the word ‘REAL’ to obscure the unreality of the rest of the pamphlet.

The pamphlet, as one would expect of a Liberal publication, was highly critical of the Government’s Budget. It was written in terms which implied that there would be handouts if the Opposition were to be in power. Last night we heard the Leader of the Opposition reply to the Budget Speech. Again, this same sort of unreality was the characteristic. There was no relationship between his proposed cuts in government expenditure and the handouts which he proposed. Yet he was critical of the size of the Government’s deficit. Of course, he spoke in some detail of his proposed handouts- the introduction of the Mathews Report proposals over 3 years, abolition of increases in indirect taxes, increased personal tax deductions, reintroduction of the superphosphate bounty and the like. But he failed to give any detailed costing.

As the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) pointed out this morning, these concessions would amount to a massive $2,470m. Yet when it came to the cutbacks in government expenditure the Leader of the Opposition simply gave a few examples of where these cuts would be made. But when one does the calculations- one would have thought that in this respect the honourable member for Berowra, who is an ex-professor, could have helped him- one finds only about $630m. Despite the statement of the Leader of the Opposition that the present Government’s deficit is too high, if he had done his arithmetic accurately he would have found that the total deficit under his proposals would have soared to a figure approximating $4,600m. There is no doubt what the Leader of the Opposition would do when faced with such a deficit if he were to get into government; he would make further massive cuts in government expenditure. He would pay for the handouts by dismantling the social program that this Government has introduced over the past Vh years. In other words he proposes to rob the poor to pay the rich.

To take just one example, one of the few proposals he mentioned is the one to dismantle the Australian Legal Aid Offices. What a disaster that would be. The Attorney-General (Mr Enderby) pointed out this morning the tremendous response that has come forward since these offices were first put into effect. They help the very people who desperately needed the reform. I think the Attorney-General mentioned that there had been about 130 000 inquiries. These were made by people who in the past under the Liberal-Country Party rule were never able to get legal advice. But I guess that is not important to the people sitting on the other side of the chamber. Their concern has never been for the poorer people in the community.

Mr Sullivan:

– Do not talk rot.

Mr OLDMEADOW:

– I am not talking rot. I am going on a record. The honourable member should look back through the history of social reform. I have no doubt as to the feeling and the reaction in my electorate where it is proposed to establish one of these offices in Springvale. We know there is a desperate need which is being ignored by the Opposition. It was ignored for 23 years. The Leader of the Opposition has used the words ‘hoax’ and ‘deception’ to describe the Government’s Budget. If ever those words are appropriate they are to the alternative proposal put forward last night. In fact, I would go further and describe the Opposition proposal as a gigantic fraud. The pamphlet I have mentioned and the Opposition’s attack on the Budget were exercises in unreality.

The feature which strikes me most forcibly is the Opposition’s blatant appeal to people’s cupidity which all of us possess to a greater or lesser extent. If the Opposition had been honest it would have stated clearly where the massive Government expenditure cuts would have taken place if it were in government. The record of the Liberal Party and National Country Party when in power shows clearly that they do not want social reform. The truth of the matter is that if the Opposition were in power the fields of education, health and social services- areas of major expenditure by this Government- would have suffered disastrous cutbacks. Community health centres, schools, pensions and the like would have been areas in which the slack would have been taken up- the gap that is totally unexplained by honourable members sitting on the other side of the House.

Mr McVeigh:

– We would abolish the Petroleum and Minerals Authority and save $59m.

Mr OLDMEADOW:

-We have heard all about that. If we were to add all those figures together we would not get within a bull’s roar of the figure that has been laid down. History shows that whenever the Liberal-Country Party coalition has been in government and has faced an economic crisis its immediate and only remedy has been to create a vast pool of unemployment. We could well have done this in the 1975 Budget. We could have reduced outlays sufficiently to bring the deficit well below that of 1974-75. This budget, have dealt a severe blow to inflation but the cost would have been the deliberate creation of massive unemployment- a course which the Opposition might be prepared to take but one which the Government totally rejects.

If we were a Government with one eye fixed firmly on public opinion polls and if we had wanted simply to curry favour with the electorateas the Opposition is prepared to do at any price- and if we had wanted simply to buy popularity we could have done so by bringing down a handout Budget. However a handout budget has more than economic consequences. I suggest to the House that it also involves grave moral and ethical considerations. It panders to the type of selfish attitude expressed in the question we hear asked all too often in the community: ‘What’s in it for me?’. This in turn leads almost inevitably to the cynical corollary to that question: ‘Look after number one. If you don’t, nobody else will’. One of the greatest problems we face in the community today is the ‘What’s in it for me?’ and ‘I’m all right, Jack’ attitude, which presupposes one ‘s enmity against one ‘s fellow man. It ignores man’s reliance on all other people and the fact that social relationships have encouraged and developed a growing interdependence from person to person. I suggest that the success of the 1975 Budget depends to a very large extent upon a decisive change in this attitude- a change to an attitude of restraint in the name of the common good.

At I see it, we could have approached out Budget planning in one of 2 ways: We could have said: ‘What sort of Budget do the people want?’, or: ‘What sort of Budget do the people need to help us to find a solution to the country’s economic problems?’. We could have adopted the first course by allowing for a deficit in the order of $5,000m. We could have made massive concessions to private enterprise and allowed this Government’s social reform program to go ahead at the same rate as in the years before. We could have found a thousand and one ways to inject finance into all sectors of the community. But I submit that such a Budget would have been totally irresponsible in the same way that the alternative proposal put forward last night by the Leader of the Opposition is irresponsible. We would have abdicated our responsibility to the people of this nation. We would have stimulated a brief period of hothouse prosperity and temporary popularity but we would have stored up an inevitable economic recession of similar magnitude to the great depression of the 1930s. Had we sown the winds of sudden and temporary prosperity we would have reaped the whirlwind of uncontrollable inflation and unmanageable unemployment. The chickens would have come home to roost with a vengeance but this time in the form of vultures waiting for the economy to die.

We rejected this course, for the aim of good government should be to recognise the totality of man’s individual needs. But good government should apply itself also to the wider and more comprehensive aims and aspirations of all people. Society must be seen in its entirety, with social justice for all. Food, shelter, security for old age, health, education, mental, cultural, spiritual and emotional fulfilment are the essential building blocks of our society. The basic human rights- to work, to establish a family and to enjoy the benefits of creative leisure- are not privileges for the few although there are those who think they are. There are those who owe allegience only to the growing gimme cultgimme this and gimme that- and who are so greedy that they would swallow whole the false promises of the Leader of the Opposition.

These are factors which have been carefully weighed in framing this Budget. The major realisation is that the cost of an ordered society can never be measured simply by calculations on a personal balance sheet of material profit or loss. It can be measured only by a broader interpretation of social and personal values. It is for this reason that the strategy which we have adopted in framing this Budget is the second course I stated earlier in this speech. We have asked ourselves: ‘What sort of” a Budget do the people need to help us to find a solution to the country’s economic problems?’ We have recognised that there are some early signs of recovery in the economy. We have recognised the fragile nature of these early signs and the main aim of this Budget is to take those economic measures now which will promote the growth of a slow and steady recovery. If these measures are not taken we could quite easily be faced with a situation in which the private sector would lose confidence and this in turn would lead to inflation and unemployment rising to uncontrollably high levels.

The Budget has been designed specifically to avoid such contingencies. I feel that what the Treasurer (Mr Hayden) said in his Budget Speech is the central theme of the economic proposals he has put forward and I disagree entirely with the feelings which the previous speaker has indicated towards those proposals. I quote from the Treasurer’s Budget speech:

Some sacrifice and patient restraint is called for from all of us in our demands for more resources, whether it is additional public services that are wanted or higher personal incomes. … the keynote of this Budget is consolidation and restraint rather than further expansion of the public sector.

The Treasurer made also the significant point:

It is not possible to provide more and more government services or transfer payments from the Budget without ultimately having to pay for them through cutting back aftertax earnings via increased taxes. It is not possible to get quarts out of pint pots. In this Budget, we have exercised restraint. That restraint needs to be shared throughout the whole community. There must be a community will to combat inflation. There must be action to back up that will.

This Budget provides the foundation for that action. I suggest that such action is in direct contradiction of the approach of the Liberal Party and the National Country Party which have based their appeal, both in the pamphlet to which I referred earlier and in the concessions that were talked about last night, on the ‘What’s in it for me?’ attitude of selfish individuals.

I should like to make brief mention of one area in which we seek this consolidation that was spoken of by the Treasurer: That is, the area of education. If we look at the record we see that in the last full year of office the Liberal and Country Party coalition gave a total of $73,998,000 to the States in grants for schools. In the last financial year we had increased that figure to almost $434m, more than a six-fold increase. In its first full year in office this Labor Government almost doubled expenditure on education. Last year it almost doubled it again. We are maintaining, in 1975-76, the high level of expenditure now reached with a total outlay of an estimated $ 1,908m. In addition to that figure an amount of $70m is provided for indexation. The advances we have made in education since 1972-73 are a reflection of our determination to make up for the neglect of those opposite when they were in government. We would not have had to spend such large sums if something had been done earlier but for 23 years virtually nothing was done. This was the legacy we received, but we have acted responsibly.

Finally I refer to a criticism that is often made by our opponents opposite- that we do nothing to encourage the federal system. I suggest that members opposite should look carefully at what has been given to the States by way of general revenue assistance this year. We know that this has not made any difference to the claims of some States. Although the States are getting 34 per cent more than they got in the past, Ministers and leaders of State Liberal governments are complaining bitterly about cutbacks. So much for their support of their Federal leader’s claim that he wants cutbacks in government expenditure. In the field of local government we see the same picture. This Government has increased the funding of local government from $56,345,000 last year to an estimated $73,908,000 in the coming financial year.

Mr McKenzie:
Diamond Valley · ALP

– Local government got nothing in the past.

Mr OLDMEADOW:

– The Opposition when in office gave exactly nothing to local government despite all its lip service to the federal system. When it came to putting money where its mouth was, the Opposition did not act. We are not backsliding in relation to our commitments; we are consolidating them.

I believe it would be remiss of any Government supporter to speak on this debate without paying some special attention to what I am sure will go down in history as this Budget’s most striking and, one might say, most revolutionary feature. I refer, of course, to the sweeping reform of the personal income tax system. We know that this reform is long overdue but, after all, the inequities that have grown up under the old system grew up over most of the time when the Opposition was in office. We have done something about this matter. We realise that this is the first step. I quote from an editorial in the Age of Thursday, 21 August: … the fundamental reform of our personal income tax system … is likely to stand as a permanent monument to the almost frenetic energy which Mr Hayden has put into his job as Treasurer in the last 3 months.

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

Mr WENTWORTH:
Mackellar

-In fairness let me say that there are some good points in this Budget. I refer particularly to the rebate system of income tax and the fact that it has given some relief to families, particularly those in the lower income group. Having said that, I believe I can leave it to supporters of the Government to praise the Budget. I should like to come back to a little bit of harsh reality.

This Budget is inadequate to meet the problems of inflation and recession which now stand in front of us and which can be combined in a kind of slumpflation which has succeeded stagflation. We are not just seeing increasing prices and a stagnant economy; we are seeing increasing prices and an economy whose activity is receding. I believe that this recession in employment and productivity is much greater than the Government has realised and to overcome it we need far more drastic measures than the Government is now prepared to undertake. There will be no time for me to go into figures in detail. I am concerned not so much with the cutting back of public expenditure as with an increase in assistance to private enterprise because such assistance is necessary to give the Australian economy the forward drive which has characterised our past history.

I want to be positive and to make some recommendations which perhaps will fall on deaf ears in the Government. Nevertheless I believe they are the right things to be said at this moment. First we need to reduce taxation and charges and to do so in a way which will combine an attack on inflation and costs with the encouragement of enterprise and the concurrent increase in employment. As it happens the first thing we should be looking at is something which lies not exclusively but mainly in the domain of the States and that is a plan for a reduction of those charges which bear most heavily upon costs and add most to the problem of inflation. Unhappily I have to say that the financial policy of this Government is forcing the States into taking action which is inevitable for them because of the straitjacket in which they are placed by the Federal Government but action which is, in its ultimate effect, inflationary.

We should be reducing, not increasing, the indirect charges which bear upon costs. Let me instance the five major ones. They are freights and fares on public transport, electricity costs and water supply charges, land tax and rates, payroll tax- so far all in the State or local government sphere- and, finally, postal charges and telephone charges which lie in the sphere of this Federal Government.

I believe we should have an attack on all these charges as part of a plan to reduce costs, to reduce inflation and to get the economy going again. I am sorry that the Government has not seen fit to have any coherent or proper plan in this direction. I know that this has to be done in co-operation with the States because as it happens the main indirect charges which bear upon industry costs and contribute to inflation and price rises lie in the hands of the States. If the Government looks at the Budget which the States are now preparing it will see that in nearly all of these vital areas the costs are not being reduced but are rising. It is impossible for these tilings to happen without increasing inflation. This Federal Government has done its share towards that by permitting the inordinate increases in postal and telephone charges which are now upon us.

Let me come next to income tax, which is the main component in the Government’s Budget and which I think honourable members would agree is its most important feature. I have already said that although I think that there are some aspects of the way in which the rebate system has been applied which are good, there are some aspects also which are bad. What I want to say first is that income tax rates themselves are an important component in the inflationary process because they do add to the pressure for wage rises. These pressures are perhaps the most important part of the whole inflationary process. So when we talk about income tax we are also talking about a tax which in a sense is a cause of inflation.

The Treasurer (Mr Hayden) has told us that he has reduced income tax. What he means apparently is that he has failed to allow it to increase by reason of automatic inflation. But he has not reduced it; he has in point of fact increased it. Let me give the House some figures. I have the permission of the Minister for Education (Mr Beazley), who is at the table, to seek leave to have them incorporated in Hansard, and I shall take this course later. The figures give tax as a percentage of incomes and salaries. I have taken them from the official Budget figures. The papers tabled with the Budget give us the figures for wages and salaries for each year until 1974-75. They give us the Treasurer’s estimate of what the figures will be in 1 975-76, the current year. The Treasurer has based his figures on a 2 per cent increase in employment and a 22 per cent increase in wages and salary rates. These are the figures which he gave us in his Budget speech and, as I have said, I have taken them from the official document. In 1972-73 net payasyouearn tax took 14.1 per cent of wages and salaries. In 1973-74 it rose to 15.4 per cent. In 1974-75 it rose to 17.3 per cent. This year, on the Treasurer’s own official estimates, it will rise to 19.8 percent.

Does the full enormity of these figures sink into the consciousness of the Government? The Treasurer boasts that he has reduced personal income tax. Actually there is the most savage increase in net take by income tax as a percentage of wages and salaries that has ever occurred, outside the war emergency, in the history of Australia. It has risen from 17.3 per cent last year- and that by itself was monstrous- to 19.8 per cent on the Treasurer’s own official figures. I think that the Government had better take another look at this aspect before it starts talking about reductions in income tax.

It is important that we should really reduce income tax. Particularly it is important that we should get tax indexation of the reduced income tax because whatever we do will not be fair and reasonable if we allow inflation to raise rates and take people into higher income tax brackets when the real value of their earnings remains stable.

I regret that we on this side are not pressing, as I believe we should press, not for the phasing in of indexation but for indexation here and now and in total because anything less is unfair to the taxpayer, anything less means that the Treasury intends to exploit inflation and to live on inflation. This should not be. In my view we should immediately and without any hesitation or qualification see that when the new income tax rates are set they are indexed for the future in accordance with any change in the price level so that as prices rise- and I am afraid that whatever is done they are still going to rise for some timewages and salary earners will be paying only the same rate of tax on the same real wage or salary. Anything less than that is unjust and unfair and I do not see why we should in any way compromise with it.

Mr Deputy Speaker, do I have your permission to incorporate in Hansard the table which I mentioned earlier? It sets out the figures on which I have based my argument.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Dr Jenkins:

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

Mr WENTWORTH:

– I thank the House. I am not going to consume my time by analysing the way in which the Treasurer has fiddled the tax accounts so that he has been able to boast of a decrease when in point of fact there is this savage increase in average rates. But I may summarise by saying that the trick depends on 2 things: First the ignoring of the inflationary process on taxation; and secondly the comparison of tax before rebates with tax on income struck after rebates. It is a complicated matter and the Treasurer has been, I am afraid, very skilful in concealing what he has really been up to.

As for expenditure- and unhappily I will not have time to go into this- I think it is not the quantity of expenditure which matters so much currently as the quality of it. We know that there has been immense waste on the part of the Government. Expenditures have been undertaken for which there is no real productive return. We know that there have been abuses of the money in the Treasury. AU of these things are true. We should be concentrating on improving the quality of expenditure and cutting out the waste and the extravagance. We should remember that private enterprise, which at the present moment is faltering because of the Government’s POliCY, is still to a great extent dependent upon public expenditure. That being so, we should be ruthless in the future in cutting back public expenditure when there is a competition for real resources with private enterprise. Private enterprise must receive preference.

For the present we need to maintain our capital works and to improve their quality. This is another of the avenues in which the Budget falls down. It will be said: ‘If you are going to reduce charges and taxes, if you are going to maintain expenditure, what about the deficit?’ At first glance that is a reasonable criticism, but let me point out that at the present moment the deficit is not of prime importance. It is true that the deficit adds to the money supply, but if the money supply becomes too great and if it is desired to cut it back, it is easy to do this by the simple expedient of increasing what is known as the statutory reserve deposits- the SRD. If by reason of a deficit the money supply becomes too big- this could happen- the increase in the statutory reserve deposits will cure the trouble, and the money supply does not enter into it. I believe that as soon as the economy recovers we should go from a deficit to a surplus and we should once again go back to normal financing. But at the present moment, as I have said, it does not seem to me that the deficit is of prime importance, particularly as there lies in our hands the instrument to correct any over-supply of money by increasing statutory reserve deposits.

There are 2 things I have to say in passing. Firstly, I believe that one of the prime mistakes of the Government has been the tariff slash. This was ill considered, ill conceived and has had disastrous consequences. Any tariff changes that have to be made should be made gradually. We now have to retrieve the position of Australian industry which has been undermined and invalidated by Government policies. Some reconsideration of the Government’s tariff policy is necessary if we are to have any kind of Budget equilibrium combined with stability, full employment and an increase in productivity. The second thing that I would say is this: We have to make certain that the pressure of wage increases does not overwhelm us. The irony of the situation is that the present rate of money or real wages could easily be maintained without inflation if only we could get rid of the unreasonable restrictions on productivity which we see all around us imposed by industrial action through the trade unions. This is happening in Australia It is happening on a bigger scale in Great Britain. If only we could get rid of the strikes, the industrial dislocation, the planned stoppages, the feather-bedding and the unreasonable impediments to production it would be possible to maintain the full present wage without inflation, and it would be possible to increase productivity and to go on to higher standards of living for the whole Australian community.

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

Mr KERIN:
Macarthur

-When our distinguished colleague, the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Wentworth) was praising some aspects of this Budget I thought that he would have mentioned the fact that the Government has been able to promise another step in the abolition of the means test for pensions. Over many years he was one of the keenest advocates of the abolition of the means test. As we know, his Party when in government did nothing about it. Stripped of aU the rhetoric, I suppose that a lot of what we are talking about today is whether there should be a little more Government involvement in the economy or a little less. It is clear that Australian Labor Party governments have always opted for a little more involvement, whereas Liberal governments have always opted for a little less, in the belief that they will therefore have more money to spend on services. The problem is that this expenditure on services in so many areas never occurred and that is the reason this Government, in its 2 terms of office, has opted for more Government spending on the services for which the people have so long called.

There is nothing sacrosanct about the various levels of Government expenditure. The only problem is the rate of change by which one adjusts the various magnitudes of expenditure. The honourable member referred to tariff cuts. I hope and plead that the cause of tariff reduction and tariff reform in Australia will not be lost or overthrown because the Government’s across the board tariff cuts may have had some adverse effects in some industries. If one looks at the tariff cuts in reality and if one looks at the rise in wages and salaries in the industries affected, one sees that the tariff cuts are rather miniscule in effect.

I take this opportunity to congratulate the Treasurer (Mr Hayden) on the delivery of his first Budget. He was very careful to explain the choices before the Government. He was very careful to explain that there are a lot of other actors in the economic arena. He was very careful to explain that what we are setting out to achieve is based on a long run strategy. That sort of strategy is to be directed particularly towards the private sector, which everyone used to call ‘business’. This psychological factor, this factor called ‘confidence’, is something that must be maintained and guaranteed by a government. But one cannot have business confidence or expectations based on some of the unreal expectations and unreal speculations of past times. I could refer particularly to the unreal speculation or boom in mining securities in the late 1960s and early 1 970s. Even now we see the collapse of one firm- Patrick Partners- which reflects back directly to the mining boom and the mining collapse in 1971. 1 will not mention too many of the Patrick partners as I understand that my opponent in the electorate of Macarthur is somewhat sensitive on this matter.

One thing that I would say about business- it seems to be a valid criticism- is that when all governments talk about business they seem to refer entirely to incorporated business. Enough attention never seems to be given to measures which could induce confidence in or give incentive to non-incorporated business. Too often we seem to think that the economic world of Australia is composed of big business, big unions and big government. I believe that the economy of nearly every town or suburb in this nation is composed basically of small businesses. We probably have too many of them but they are a very real factor in the health of Australia’s economy. I do not think that this Budget is expedient; I do not think that it is political. I think that it is sensible; I think that it is reasonable; I think that it is to be respected, and I think that it is gaining respect. It is one of consolidation.

I was particularly pleased to note that the defence budget amounted to over $ 1,800m this year. I believe that the Minister for Defence (Mr Morrison) when he explains this in greater detail will be able to point to real rises in expenditure on capital items. As he explained today at question time, it is essential that the capital component of our defence budget goes up. I point out that expenditure overseas on capital items for defence is not inflationary. I was more happy that the education budget exceeded $ 1,900m, because this is one of the areas in which the Labor Government has been opting for increased expenditure. I thank the Opposition for spelling out exactly what it would do. This was a refreshing change. Some of the matters raised last night by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Malcolm Fraser) were purely ideological. This fits in well with his basic approach that he will spell out the ideological differences. He still is opposed to Medibank. He is going to sell off the Pipeline Authority. He is going to sell the pharmaceutical corporation or whatever it is that does not exist. He is going to ban legal aid and he is going to ban the Prices Justification Tribunal. This is all part of the ideological attacks by the Opposition. I was even more amazed last night to hear this same ideology reflected in the speech of the honourable member for McMillan (Mr Hewson). His first speech here was all about the red, white and blue. Now he is slamming the mother country, the English sickness. Where has his loyalty for the mother country gone? Again this is the ideology. Apparently the Opposition thinks there are some votes in slamming England.

Some matters were straight out economically silly or impossible- for example, $2,700m, the total cost of implementation of the Mathews Report. As the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) pointed out this morning, the Opposition’s list of extra revenue items comes up to $2,470m, the cuts to $680m, leaving a deficit of $4,600m. I suppose there will be a lot of debate about the figures. Where the heck is the circuit-breaker effect in the aggregates and magnitudes of expenditure that the Opposition is coming up with? We can speculate as to what sort of mess the Opposition would have had the economy in now if we take some of its previous statements into consideration. For example, the National Country Party of Australia would not haverevalued. It would not have cut tariffs. It would not have done a whole lot of things this Government did in 1973 when it was faced with quite a few economic problems as a result of the last Government’s policies. Even now the Country Party is calling for the implementation of the Industries Assistance Commission’s report on equalisation. I think it should be particularly aware that even if this were implemented this year it would have almost nil effect on the farming sector.

Mr McVeigh:

– Tell us about superphosphate.

Mr KERIN:

– Even the superphosphate bounty of $ 12 a ton when the absolute price has gone up by $45 a ton- I do not think you are centering your attention on the main problem.

Mr Anthony:

– You do not care.

Mr KERIN:

– I do care. Some matters in the statement of the Leader of the Opposition were disastrous. I need only refer to my electorate and to his policy on the growth centres. He is going to wipe them. He is going to wipe the area improvement programs. He is going to wipe the Housing Corporation.

Some matters in the statement of the Leader of the Opposition were totally absurd. He is going to wipe out the Australia Police. All they have done has been to change the name tags. Apparently the Australian Capital Territory is not going to have any police anymore. Then he is going to do something about the embassies. But these are embassies that the last Government approved. There are many matters which in the speech of the Leader of the Opposition are simply unanswered. Is he going to pull the coal tax off? Is he going to pull the postal charges back? What about some of the unpopular measures we- have taken? Is he going to repeal them or not?

Mr Daly:

– What about the means test?

Mr KERIN:

– Is he going to repeal the means test? Is he going to continue with this or not? The Opposition fails to realise that the economy has changed world wide, that we are not dealing with some of the certainties we were dealing with through the 1960s. The engines of economic growth in all economies such as ours are quite different now in the 1970s. In fact, I do not think one engine of economic growth is engines. Economic behaviour is not predictable. Services are what are in demand in economies such as ours. We only have to take the effect of the tax cuts last year. Savings rose from about 10 per cent to 17 per cent. There are many imbalances in an economy such as ours now. I only have to refer to acquaintances in my own Australian Labor Party branches. Many people are on $100 a week and some are on $600 a week but all have the same requirements and needs. This is why I am particularly thankful that the Government has seen fit to introduce a new tax structure and the rebates. Some 500 000 people will pay no tax. A man on an income of $5,000 with a dependent wife and 2 children will pay nothing. If we had the old system the tax bite would be 45 per cent on average. Now it is going to be less than 35 per cent.

It would appear from the statements of the Leader of the Opposition last night that he still does not understand the difference between deductions and rebates. He gave a table- I do not know why- and said that $9,000 represented the tax at the new rate and that if you looked at the old rate it would have to relate to a figure of $7,500. Unfortunately all you can compare is $9,000 with $9,000 and $7,500 with $7,500. If a person is getting more money or if he will be getting $9,000 at a certain time in the future but is getting only $7,500 now he will still be better off even if he is paying more tax. Of course we have reduced the number of brackets. There are now only 7 brackets. I am not sure how many there were before. In other words a person can stay within one tax bracket for quite a considerable time. If we are talking about taxation I do not think I shirk from the fact that if people demand more services we should be a high tax-paying country. I understand that we are still only eighteenth out of the 23 countries belonging to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. The very people who demand the services are typically those with middle and higher incomes. I think it is quite reasonable and understandable that they should pay taxes for the services they demand. It is not so much a reduction. Maybe you could allow that, as the Opposition has said, but this is based on a much fairer structure. If we accept this structure inflation will not any longer be able to feed some increases in public spending. In other words, the percentages we now have will hold.

The speech of the Leader of the Opposition was marked by some of his ideology. Let us recall his comments in Press releases on the night of the Budget. He said that the Budget reduced freedom of choice of individuals, provided an incentive to spendthrifts and penalised those who want to save and those who want to provide a different education. Perhaps he still seems to think, as he said in a statement in my electorate, that it is only parents who send their children to a private school who are interested in education. Apparently he has not changed his mind. The tax structure does not penalise these people. It simply removes a socially unjust and economically expensive incentive to save in a particular way at the expense of the general public. Nearly $400m a year was going into the insurance deduction system, and that was at the expense of the general taxpayer. That is exactly the same sort of government handout as a dole cheque or any other government payment. It was simply government intervention that skewed people’s spending in this direction, and it is all based on the idea of the Leader of the Opposition that the only reason people save is the tax concession. What this simply gives in fact is more freedom of choice. The Budget helps young families with children.

I am particularly interested in some of the other ideological aspects of the speech of the Leader of the Opposition. He says that he would wipe expenditure on growth centres. This is economically disastrous for my electorate. It would have the greatest effects on the Campbelltown growth centre. There is some $25. 8m in the Budget for the Bathurst-Orange and south-west sector growth centres. To refuse this would have a disastrous effect. I believe that my opponent is now working for the Leader of the Opposition. Let me read this quote:

On Budget night -

My opponent- worked in Mr Fraser’s Parliament House office, drafting statements for the Opposition Leader attacking the Govern ment’s Budget proposals. He is also helping wnte the Budget Speech Mr Fraser will deliver in Parliament on Tuesday night.

If this is the sort of thing that a candidate for Macarthur is going to write for the Leader of the Opposition I think it must be spelt out that it is disastrous for the electorate of Macarthur. He would wipe out expenditure on the growth centres. He would wipe out expenditure on the area improvement programs. He would wipe out expenditure under the Housing Corporation. These economically stupid and politically slanted ideological statements are as vacuous as some of the statements my opponent is making in my electorate. For example, he has said that the Government is in so much economic trouble because of Blue Poles. He has said that we cannot sell beef because of Connor’s resources diplomacy. He seems to think that the beef tax is not a levy, and he seems to think that the coal prices we are getting from Japan are bad.

Mr Daly:

– Is he not a partner in Patrick Partners?

Mr KERIN:

– I understand so. The Leader of the Opposition also said:

Where is the sense in spending on growth centres when there is no growth?

Let me explain what growth is in a growth centre. I will just nominate some of the housing projects under way. In the suburb of Ambervale there are to be 1500 houses. In Macquarie Fields the number is 1230 with 600 under construction to be finished by late 1975. In Kentlyn-Bradbury 1676 houses are to be constructed. Five hundred are presently under construction and the first 600 are to be delivered in September 1975 and the balance by October 1976. In Minto 1483 houses are under way with completion dates between December 1975 and July 1977. In Claymore 1118 houses are under construction, to be delivered between January 1976 and May 1977. Ingleburn will get an extra 200 houses and Bowing 1500 to be completed between October 1976 and December 1977. This is a growth centre. This is where the Leader of the Opposition is going to cut expenditure. All this money is committed. The State Government has agreed to this development. It is not affected by anything in this Budget. However, it does need servicing. This sort of growth centre development needs public expenditure. It needs it in respect of transport, schools, hospitals and other facilities. It also needs it in respect of jobs. Already in the industrial estate at Campbell town 580 acres have been sold and 33 industries have been approved. There are projects under way involving cooperation between private contractors and the New South Wales Housing Commission. The same sort of arrangements can be made between private contractors and the Australian Housing Corporation. Even today I received from a private firm a planning study which fits in well with this growth centre.

There are thousands of coal trucks pounding the roads in my electorate every day and it is essential therefore that there be public expenditure on roads for use by private companies. What is wrong with this sort of public expenditure? The coal industry is flourishing in my electorate.

There are 3 new coal mines going in at present. This Budget is made for my electorate and consequently I am particularly pleased that it is a Budget of consolidation and a Budget that continues to expand the public programs that benefit directly all the various aspects of the economic community in my electorate. With an electorate such as mine it is essential that there be public spending in nearly every avenue that this Government has chosen from its options. The New South Wales Government has come to a series of arrangements with the Federal Government, particularly with the Department of Urban and Regional Development with respect to land commissions, sewerage and the funding via the South- West Sector Development Board. It is absolutely essential for the future of Campbelltown that this sort of expenditure continue and is not wiped as it would be by the Liberals if they were in office.

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

– You just cut them in your Budget.

Mr KERIN:

– We have not. The same sort of situation prevails throughout my electorate. Further south on the south coast the same sort of basic infrastructural needs are present. The Broken Hill Pty Co. Ltd plant on the south coast has relied on the public provision of infrastructural projects and this is the way it has always been. If this industry is to develop there is a need to develop transport linkages from it to the rest of Australia. There is a need for more port development. There is a need for roads to provide transport for the people who will work in the industry and serve the urban centres around the industry. This is what is going on. It is absolutely essential that money be allocated for the upgrading of the Macquarie Pass. It serves the seventh biggest city in Australia and whenever there is heavy rain the Macquarie Pass simply collapses and the city is cut off and cannot serve the south-east of New South Wales.

In all matters this Budget has consolidated the various areas of public spending. For example, the Minister for Education (Mr Beazley) will know the impact that education spending by this Government is having on a growing area such as my electorate. Over $750,000 has been spent on pre-schools already in the area and the Budget estimates do not reflect any cut in this spending. Of course, from now on with respect to preschools and child care help more emphasis will be placed on the additional usage of facilities which are already there. Often it is not realised that by planning we can utilise services a lot better. If we are talking about cutting our expenditure on growth areas this means in turn that planning cannot proceed and that savings of government money cannot be effected.

Two technical colleges are under construction or nearing completion at Dapto and Moss Vale. Again funds from this Government, funds administered by the Minister for Education, have gone into these 2 important technical colleges. Earlier Budgets for the first time provided that we pay all the fees of people who go to technical colleges and institutions of tertiary education. I commend the Budget to the House and totally dissociate myself from the amendment.

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

Mr ANTHONY:
Leader of the National Country Party · Richmond

-The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Malcolm Fraser), on behalf of the Liberal Party and the National Country Party, has offered to this Parliament and the Australian people an alternative to the Budget presented by the Treasurer (Mr Hayden). The choices facing us are, on the one hand, to revitalise and strengthen our free enterprise economy after seeing it bashed and belted for the last 2Vi years or, on the other hand, to succumb to the dispiriting, deadening philosophy of socialism. This is the decision the Australian people have to make. They must decide whether they want to be encouraged to develop their own resourcefulness and rely on their own initiative or become prisoners of the socialist attitude, dependent on government.

The massive increase in Government spending- up 100 per cent in the last 2Vi yearshas set the nation on a course which must lead to economic disaster, high unemployment and hardship unless someone is prepared to show the will and the determination that will get the country back on the rails. The Opposition parties are determined to encourage and re-activate the private sector by redirecting more government finances back into this all important productive part of the economy.

This Government has proved to be a dangerous spendthrift. Today Australia is facing an economic crisis of a kind which threatens to undermine our whole society. We aU know the cause of the problems- It is the mismanagement by this Government which is bent on pursuing socialist policies. The Government even admits that the main cause of our economic problemsinflation is of the Government’s own making.

On page 6 of Budget Statement No. 2 there is an admission that Australia’s inflation is not imported, but home generated. It says:

Australia has been comparatively insulated from the oil price rises and the downturn in world activity also reflected in only muted fashion the demand for Australian exports.

The question which every Australian must ask is whether this Budget will help to solve our economic problems. I do not believe it will. In fact, I believe this Budget will only worsen the crisis which is gripping this nation.

To have any real meaning, a Budget must reflect an honest attempt by the Government to present a detailed examination of its expenditure and receipts. Unless expenditure and revenue estimates are honest and credible, the Budget is a meaningless document.

The Budget is not an honest document. The Government’s estimates of expenditure are woefully inadequate, and the economic consequences of this understatement might well be disastrous. The Budget provides for an increase of 23 per cent in Government expenditure to produce a debt of $2,800m. But last year’s Budget allowed for an increase of 30 per cent and ended up with an increase of 46 per cent, an increased expenditure of over $2,000m. How can we accept this year’s estimate? Goodness knows what Medibank alone will cost.

Last month alone the Govenment spent $700m more than it obtained in revenue- one quarter of the whole deficit in a single month. This suggests to me that we are close to a situation where the Government is losing control of its own finances. In the same way, the Budget estimates of revenue are simply not credible. The honourable member for Lalor (Dr J. F. Cairns) has already said that ‘possibly within weeks’ the Budget may have to be revised. In fact the Treasury itself, in its Annual Review of the Economy states:

It would hardly be surprising if the broad picture outlined here were to prove in retrospect an inaccurate picture of 1975-76.

That is about the strongest apology the Treasury can make for the official estimates it has presented. The revenue estimates are based on a 5 per cent growth figure. The Treasurer says that ‘there are now some early signs of a recovery in the private sector- retail sales are improving and business inventories are falling ‘. But the Government has peddled this theme for the last 2 1/2 years. Its welfare and national development programs presented to the people in 1972 were predicted on the promise of a 6 per cent or 7 per cent growth rate. Instead we are now in a 2 per cent negative growth position.

Mr Deputy Speaker, falling inventories do not necessarily mean sales are booming; they mean that production is falling off because of rising costs and falling profits, and that businesses are winding down or going bankrupt. The result can only be increased unemployment. The 5 per cent growth rate on which the Budget is based is poss: ible only if immediate and substantial incentives are given to the private sector. The only new assistance the Budget offers to the private sector is a 2Vi per cent cut in company tax and an extension of the depreciation allowance. But when corporate profits are down by 50 per cent and farm incomes by 68 per cent in the last 2 years, this benefit has minimal and selective advantages. Furthermore, these paltry concessions are more than wiped out by the increases in costs to companies resulting from higher fuel costs, postal and telephone charges.

The 2 main problems we face today are inflation and unemployment. This Budget tackles neither, and the prospect is that it will only lay the foundation for a further serious decline in the economic situation. One of the basic ways in which to tackle inflation is to increase productivity. The productive section of the economy must be brought back into full production. As long as the Government seeks to expand the unproductive public sector without at the same time increasing overall production in real terms, then the result will be inflation.

This Budget does not diminish the size of the public sector’s share of national resources. We will’ not see any decrease in the rate of inflation or improvement in the economy until the size of the public sector is cut back. That means that government expenditure on goods and services must be checked. Unemployment will be brought down only by restoring the private sector. It is the private sector of the economy which provides three-quarters of the jobs in Australia. The private sector is far more important than this Government seems to recognise. The private sector is the foundation of our economic and social system. This country is built on private enterprise. It does not simply mean the big corporations; it also means the thousands of small enterprises and small businesses which alone provide over 40 per cent of the total jobs in this country.

The Budget not only fails to help the private sector; it contains 2 potential threats to the private sector. One is that the investment funds provided to industry by the life insurance offices will be affected. There is a disincentive to take out life insurance under the new tax rebate system. This will have serious long-term consequences on the capital market which supplies the private sector. Of even greater potential for harm is the possibility of a squeeze on finance for industry because of the size of the Budget deficit. This deficit will have the effect of crowding out the private sector in the search for finance.

One of the few bright spots in the entire economy- the coal industry- has been dealt a cruel blow by the imposition of a new levy on coal exports. This is the first tax to my knowledge ever to be placed on an export, although I must admit that the Government was considering such an imposition on beef exports 2 years ago. However, the coal industry is one of the few areas in which some real investment and expansion could take place, providing an impetus to the economy and creating new jobs. Instead, the coal levy will mean that some mines will almost certainly have to close down and plans for development in some cases will be shelved.

Mr Duthie:

– What rubbish you talk.

Mr ANTHONY:

– We hear the wisdom of an honourable member from Tasmania. The wisest thing he could do is to get out before he is beaten. The $120m tax take per annum is equivalent to 70 per cent of the capital required for the expansion program over the next 10 years if the expanded export orders are to be filled. This is a retrograde tax and a bad principle. It is a tax on exports. It is to be levied irrespective of a mine’s profitability. The differential tax, depending on the quality of coal, will produce a fiasco within the industry. Why, some of the big Queensland mines will have to pay only $2 a ton in tax whereas some of the small mines such as those down near Lithgow will be paying $6 a ton in tax. Does the Government call that equitable and fair? It cannot even make proper rules to administer its taxation system. Let it be a warning that this tax sets a precedent for taxing any export commodity which might have a price boom. It takes no account at all of the poor years that might have been suffered. Tomorrow it could he sugar or wool or tin or copper or iron ore which is affected. Look out if you find a profitable market.

What does the man in the street get from this Budget? How does it help him to meet the inroads of inflation in managing his own weekly budget? The immediate effect of this Budget is to increase his cost of living substantially. Additional indirect taxes on beer, cigarettes, petrol and higher postal charges will all make the weekly pay packet shrink even further. Indirect taxes are the result of the Government’s desperate need to finance its own extravagant spending. Every Australian, especially every working man and woman, must realise that to finance this Government’s grandiose and often wasteful schemes the Government not only has to tax those with means and wealth but also has to reach down to tax the average man and woman.

It is worth noting that under this Government that has had so much to say about cheap petrol, the price of a gallon of super grade petrol has gone up by 16c, and because of this Budget it is now going up by as much as 10c on top of that, making it approximately 25c in total. For people in country areas the rise is much more because of the abolition of the petrol price equalisation scheme. As our own oil reserves are depleted in the next 10 years and we become more dependent on imported oil, the price will skyrocket. What a great legacy for the next generation!

What of the new taxation system? Because it is new, most people do not know what it will mean for them. Because of its novelty it also has a superficial appeal to academics and to journalists. But, make no mistake, this new taxation system is a savage attack on the Australian wage earner. Total income tax receipts are estimated by the Treasury to increase by 43 per cent when average wages are estimated to increase by 22 per cent. The Government might well boast that half a million people will not pay tax, but the rest will pay 43 per cent more tax. Of this half a million who benefit, most are students and part time workers.

Even if wages remain at their present level, 2 groups of wage earners will be savagely hit- the single person and families where both husband and wife have jobs. For a single person on $6,000 a year, tax will increase by 26 per cent. This is another cruel blow to those who had hoped to save enough money in their early years at work. This Government has now totally destroyed any hope which young married Australians once had of owning their own home.

Basically, the people who are likely to gain anything from this Budget are those who have no deduction for health care, education and life insurance. The former system of deductions encouraged people to care for themselves. The new system encourages them to turn to the Government to provide for their needs. The cost of Medibank represents over half the total Budget deficit, and this is only the beginning of a scheme which is uncosted and open-ended in its commitments.

The rural industries, as was to be expected, have been dealt yet another blow by this Labor

Government. The assistance provided in the Budget for the rural industries is down $2 10m, from $449m to $239m. This Government has shown many times that it is not interested in or does not care about the needs of people outside the great capital cities. I am especially concerned about the damaging effects of the new postal and telephonic charges on country people and country newspapers. Country newspapers are much more than a source of news for country people. They are a real part of the community. To make matters worse, we are now hearing of plans to impose much higher charges on the landlines on which country radio stations depend for their news, sporting and other programs.

The superphosphate bounty should be restored immediately, as the Industries Assistance Commission has recommended. The IAC’s recommendations for brucellosis and tuberculosis eradication also should be implemented. The embattled beef industry has been brutally and callously treated. Formerly Australia’s largest industry, the beef industry is now in a state of collapse. A refusal to assist the beef producers to keep their breeding herds together must inevitably lead to shortages in the future and send up the price of beef to consumers. The export levy should be suspended immediately and beef producers and farm employees should be eligible for unemployment benefits. To force them to leave their farms and homes to gain unemployment benefits is unproductive and lacking in compassion.

The serious depression in the farm industries is having a very great impact on country towns and cities. The economies of these towns are being undermined as the effects of the collapse of the beef industry and the difficulties of other primary industries cut into the cash flow in their business areas. Coming on top of the burdens already being borne by small business through inflation, this extra load is proving intolerable for many. This is a point which the Government seems to have overlooked completely, not only in this Budget but all the time. The policies of the Liberal and the National Country Parties do not overlook it.

This Budget does not tackle the major problems we face. It does nothing for the private sector. It will not reduce unemployment. It will add to inflation. Yet many people seem to have been brainwashed into accepting the Budget as an example of great responsibility and restraint. I repeat what I said at the beginning: There are signs that the Government is losing control of the economic management of the country. This is a serious situation. Someone has to have the courage to call a halt to the extravagance and recklessness which the nation has seen over the last 2Vi years.

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

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

– We have just listened to a diatribe of the problems facing the nation, all attributed to what is deemed to be the inability to control the economy. If ever there was the tide of ‘dismal Doug’ we could give it to the Leader of the National Country Party (Mr Anthony). Anybody listening to him today must have been amazed at what he said compared with what he said 12 months ago. The same dismal Doug 12 months ago said that the only way to have taxation was by direct or indirect means. Today he has just finished a speech in which he said that that is the wrong way to do things. He said to the Government, in effect: ‘Why do you want indirect taxes?’ This is the same Opposition which, when we sought to gain control over prices by way of a referendum in 1973, said it did not want anything to do with that.

Mr Anthony:

– Tell us about the Prices Justification Tribunal and how it is working.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
Minister for Manufacturing Industry · KINGSFORD-SMITH, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-I will lead up to that. Let us look at what the Opposition did. It opposed the introduction of any effective price control on the basis that the States could do it. Yet the Leader of the National Country Party is in the Parliament today worrying about the problems of the person who, in his mind, is the so-called little man because he cannot afford to pay his way. Have honourable members opposite looked at the increases in rents which are controlled by State governments? They have escalated beyond all reasonableness. Is it any wonder that the average wage earner would want to be reimbursed for having to meet those rents? Have honourable members opposite looked at the increased prices of textiles and food which have to be met right at the level of the wage earner? Is it any wonder that the wage earner would seek wage justice? The Opposition ran a campaign which encouraged the defeat of a referendum which would have given this national Government the same economic tools as any other government has to control prices- it is the only one in the world which does not have these powers. Wages have always been controlled. It is a weak old approach for the Leader of the National Country Party to come into the

House today and talk about the problems in the rural industry.

I assume that the National Country Party is still part and parcel of the Liberal Party. Let us look at the speech made last evening by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Malcolm Fraser). Apparently, the National Country Party still has to adopt a subservient attitude to the Liberals. One of the things the Leader of the Opposition said is that the Opposition would do away with the Overseas Trading Corporation if it came to power. Is this the policy of the National Country Party? The one chance the Country Party ever had of selling all the products from the primary field was with the Overseas Trading Corporation’s techniques. Is it any wonder that the beef market is in complete disarray because there are no buyers? Are National Country Party members waiting like Micawber for something to turn up in the European Economic Community which might buy our beef again? They know the EEC will not. If honourable members opposite had been in Moscow recently they would have found some poor unfortunate person there representing allegedly the Australian beef producers trying to sell meat to the Russian Government. He would have had as much support as any Tom, Dick or Harry wandering around the streets of Moscowan incredible situation.

Mr Corbett:

– When were you there?

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:

-It is not so long since I was there. I was there in January. One of the things that could have happened from the point of view of a government to government negotiation was the opportunity to sell meat in huge quantities. It is about time members of the National Country Party woke up to the position in planned economies. It is not much good worrying about what will happen to the beef producers. I will tell them now what will happen to the beef producer- he will go out of existence because there is no market for the produce in sight. There is a market if we want to deal with some of the countries with planned economies. They are anxious to buy food. But these things are arranged through Overseas Trading Corporation techniques. The members of the Country Party have cut their own throats by saying that they will leave the matter to the Liberal Party. The Liberal Party could not care less about beef producers. Members of the Country Party know that. Members of the Liberal Party laugh at them. Is it not understandable that wheat is sold virtually through the same sort of process, that is, through the Australian Wheat Board? We do not leave it to every Tom, Dick and Harry to try to sell our wheat -

Mr Anthony:

– Another Government corporation.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– I remind the Leader of the National Country Party that he was heard in silence. I think that he should extend the same courtesy to the Minister.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:

-Admittedly, Mr Deputy Speaker, I am provoking the honourable gentleman because he has no policies that will help the people who elect him. I am trying to encourage him to fight the Leader of the Opposition and to take advantage of the opportunities that are available. If the Opposition wants to dispense with the Overseas Trading Corporation, that is its mistake. Let us have a look at another situation. Mr Fraser stated: ‘We will suspend the growth centres’. That means that AlburyWodonga will go into ice and that nothing will happen. I wonder what the honourable member for Farrer (Mr Fairbairn) thinks of that. Or is it just a secret way of attacking the former State member, the former Honourable Wal Fife who now has an opportunity to represent the area.

Mr Corbett:

– Have you given it away?

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:

-Yes, he must have given it away. The point is that the Leader of the Opposition is coming in to fight an election on the basis that there is to be no growth centre for Albury. What an incredible situation. It is great pOlitiCS in this speech. Is it because honourable members opposite do not like Mr Fife or is it because Mr Fairbairn is leaving? Is that why the Opposition would suspend the growth centre? So we come to another prize mistake which was made last night by the Leader of the Opposition. He stated:

We would have suspended the Australian Industry Development Corporation’s capital advance of $75m.

The AIDC was not our invention. We supported it and we expanded it. I do not think it was the idea of the Liberal Party. We give credit to Sir John McEwen for thinking of the AIDC. We say that only for him there may not have been an AIDC. It comes out now, of course, with the likes of the worthy Malcolm saying: ‘We will get rid of AIDC and save some money’. That clearly shows that the Liberals did not want to do anything to assist industry. A loans Bill in relation to the AIDC was approved by this Parliament. It was endorsed and warmly accepted by the Opposition. The AIDC was authorised to borrow up to $250m so that it would be able to assist industry. The provision in the Budget is part of that authorisation. In other words, there is no need for an appropriation in this Budget to get that authorisation. The AIDC already has authority under existing legislation. How is it that the Leader of the Opposition can come in now and say: ‘Well, we did not mean to support that legislation’. Honourable members know what he said last night. It means that he will have to introduce a piece of legislation into the Parliament to repeal the legislation which already approves of money for the AIDC. How can the Opposition honestly say that it wants to assist industry if that is the way it handles its economics.

The whole idea of giving the AIDC some financial muscle, which was applauded in the past, was to guarantee that there would be assistance to industry. There we have another attack on the AIDC. The Leader of the Opposition mentioned the secrecy of the AIDC. The provisions in the Australian Industry Development Corporation Act were inserted by the Opposition when in government. There has to be an annual report. If there is anything wrong with the annual report honourable members opposite can get up and criticise it. They should not leave it to a Budget debate to make snide attacks on the very distinguished people who have the responsibility of running the AIDC. The AIDC is like any other lender. Naturally it cannot disclose every item and every personal problem associated with a borrower’s application. Where are the secrecy provisions about which the Leader of the Opposition was so worried? The legislation is his legislation, or it should have been. But it is rejected. This is the problem which we face in this Budget. What are the facts which cause some of the difficulties associated with the present economic climate. Not all the problems were in Australia. Let us make that clear. They were clearly associated with a world-wide economic downturn. When we inherited government after 23 years of Liberal-Country Party Government many things had to be corrected. As honourable members know all these matters were the subject of open investigation.

Mr Hunt:

– The Government might have over corrected.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:

-The over correction would have been in the right quarter. If the honourable member wants to have a look at how we had to correct the situation, let him look at the item of education. I applaud the National Country Party of Australia in this House because only the National Country Party support for the Government enabled us to pass the provisions which gave money to schools. I do not know why members of the National Country Party want to kowtow to the Liberal Party all the time. The Liberal Party opposed our suggestions on the basis that there was nothing wrong with the previous system and that it was quite fair to give the same grant to every school. We had evidence as a result of the Karmel Committee report that the resources in some schools, particularly country schools, were well below those which other people in the community were getting.

Honourable members will see on page 16 of the report that as a result of research it was essential that there be a rapid increase in money being made available for those schools in need. Some schools had less than a quarter of the resources which were available to the top schools. It followed, as the report states, that nearly half of the students entering the universities were those of the professional class but only 22 per cent entered the universities from the great working class group of 60 per cent of the population. That is a valid argument to correct by a budgetary method. Honourable members will see that in this Budget education gets $ 1,900m. That is a substantial increase on the provision when we inherited government. That quadruples the amount originally given. Surely nobody in his right mind would say that we should cut that amount. If we look at the position in the Karmel Committee report we will see clearly that the increase was necessary to benefit every child in this country. If there is any inequality during the early stages of a person’s development or position in life, that inequality is usually maintained throughout the life.

We see from the report that in country schools the level of schooling and participation in higher education was conspicuously lower than in the city schools. Again there was a need to improve this position. That might have been the valid and proper reason why the National Country Party supported the legislation. Last night there was no suggestion by the Leader of the Opposition that he might alter that vote but there was a suggestion that there should be a 5 per cent reduction across the board in expenditure. Is it that he wants to affect education, even though he has said it another way? In effect, he said: ‘I do not applaud those concessional deductions being altered in the way they were. They ought to go back as they were before. I am convinced that the Liberal philosophy is to give still more to people who do not need it and to take money away from those people who are desperately in need.

Nobody could criticise the welfare payments which are being made to people who are in need. We increased the pension to equal 25 per cent of average weekly earnings. It is a valid exercise of political judgment and it cost $4.7 billion. We cannot cut that amount. Admittedly, when the Opposition was in government it did nothing about pensioners. The only time there was an increase in the pension rate was when there was an election or a crisis in the Party. Usually the increase was a lousy 50c or $ 1 which had nothing to do with the needs of the people.

We come again to the real problems of this Budget. We are duty bound to assist the States. Honourable members will notice that out of $2 1,000m, $8,400m goes to payments for the States. Did I detect in the Leader of the Opposition’s recent economic analysis and policy the suggestion that he would encourage the States to come back into the income tax field? What will that do to the Australian taxpayers? The States are getting $8,400m now out of the same taxpayers. How much more do they want? Do honourable members think the Australian taxpayers will be satisfied that the system will be more efficient because they will be levied tax by an Australian government and a State government? I think not.

If honourable members want to look at the record of what happens in the administration of moneys given to the States I suggest they look at New South Wales. I suggest that they look at what New South Wales does to its citizens. New South Wales, of which I am a constituent, is the most heavily taxed of any Australian State. Last year Mr Lewis received about $780m out of the Australian Government under a tax reimbursement formula plus other substantial amounts of millions of dollars by way of complementary legislation. But what did Mr Lewis do about the payroll tax for the industries about which the Leader of the National Country Party is so worried. He extracted from those industries another $450m in payroll tax. There was no mention of that here in this debate. If the Australian Government is giving so much funds to the States- an increase of 32.2 per cent- why is it that the Premier of New South Wales cannot reduce payroll tax of $450m and give industry some relief from that burden? Last year the Premier raised about $80m by way of land tax. The people in the country pay a land tax as do the people in the cities. There is no efficient economic management in State administration.

We have tried to show with the Karmel Committee and with inquiries into the State health services how the States can improve the standard of living of Australians. All we get from the Opposition in this House is that it will cut expenditure. Another prize example was the statement that the Opposition would have the Public Service remain at zero growth. Do honourable members know that the greatest growth in the Public Service is in the State governments? Do they know that the next greatest growths is in local government? We did try to hold the Une on growth. One per cent was the level of growth -

Mr Anthony:

– Who are you kidding? It was 5 percent.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:

-The Leader of the National Country Party should not look too disgruntled. It does not do his image any good to look as serious as he does. Under the previous Government Public Service growth averaged 4 per cent.

Mr Anthony:

– We did not have any problems of inflation and unemployment.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:

-The previous Government never had any problems because it did nothing for people. All it did was to look after a few of its wealthy friends. Because we want to help youngsters in need, because we want to look after people who need a proper health service -

Mr Hunt:

– Nonsense.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:

-The honourable member has to say ‘nonsense’. It is a periodic interjection. He is becoming like a cockatoo just yelling out. Here we have the policy of the Opposition: ‘Stop all growth centres. Stop the Australian Industry Development Corporation. Abolish Public Service growth. Abolish the Overseas Trading Corporation. It will increase company tax’. I am sure my company directors will be delighted with that.

Mr Anthony:

– At least we are honest.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:

-Oh no. The Opposition is pot honest because it then says: ‘We will help the worker with wage indexation’. Have a look at the taxation scales for workers’ wages about which the previous Government did nothing for years. As honourable members know, the average yearly income is in the vicinity of $7,000. If one looks at the present tax scale introduced by the previous Government and which we have now altered- we have reduced the steps from fourteen to seven- one finds that there are at least five steps in the taxation rate on taxable incomes from $5,000 to $10,000. For every dollar in excess of $5,000 the taxation rate is 32c, 38c in excess of $6,000 and 44c in excess of $7,000. Let us just stop there . The rate now is to be 35c for every dollar between $5,000 and $10,000. In other words, the marginal rate of tax from $5,000 to $10,000 will be a lot less than imposed by the previous scales. So there is no question of indexation being a problem. Average yearly earnings are not likely to escalate to $10,000 in the next 12 months. If they did the worker would pay only 35c in the dollar as against, under the previous scales, 44c between $7,000 and $8,000, 48c between $8,000 and $9,000 and 52c between $9,000 and $ 10,000.

The Leader of the Opposition said: ‘We will help the worker. We will have tax indexation’. If indexation is introduced on the previous ratesthey are the rates he wants- the worker will pay more. It is a bit late in the day to come in here with the Opposition’s simple mathematics and assume that nobody will examine the figures that have been suggested. The real issue in this problem that we have is the difficulty of controlling the economy because of the problems that have been foisted upon us by the Opposition. It has opposed every reasonable bit of legislation with which we had a chance to control prices. The Opposition is now reaping the whirlwind in the sense of the private enterprise system it is so anxious to applaud. Members of the Opposition complain about markets and the superphosphate bounty. What is the good of a bounty when one cannot sell the produce? Do honourable members think it would matter if the farmer received a bounty of $ 1 1 a tonne when the cost is now $55 a tonne? The Opposition suggests with a bounty gimmick that it can assist the producer but it should face up to the fact that it has done nothing for the primary producer. At least we have helped wool production by providing about $300m. If one supports a system of private enterprise which produces something which nobody will buy then you must go broke.

The real criticism of the Opposition is that it has no economic plan. It has a yo-yo system. It says: ‘Perhaps we can get away with this this year because things will be good somewhere else’. But the world has changed for the Opposition and it has not realised the problems of the community. I am astounded to think that the Leader of the National Country Party made no constructive proposition as to where he would reduce this Budget deficit by one dollar. The amendment proposed is a spurious one. It deserves no support at all. It does nothing to assist in any effective way. Manufacturing industry relies on confidence. It gets nothing from this Opposition except a dismal picture.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The Minister’s time has expired.

Debate (on motion by Mr Macphee) adjourned.

page 618

TASMAN BRIDGE RESTORATION BILL (No. 2) 1975

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

Second Reading

Mr WHITLAM:
Prime Minister · Werriwa · ALP

– I move:

That the bill be now read a second time.

Honourable members will recall that on 10 April 1975 I introduced a Bill to provide for the restoration of the Tasman Bridge following its collapse into the Derwent River after the S.S. Lake Illawarra had collided with it. The Bill was passed by both Houses of the Parliament and received the royal assent on 19 May 1975. The Tasman Bridge Restoration Act 1975 provided for the establishment of a Joint Tasman Bridge Restoration Commission to superintend and direct the combined salvage and rebuilding operations.

Honourable members will also recall that shortly after the disaster the Australian and Tasmanian Governments agreed to establish a joint expert advisory commmittee on a second Derwent crossing. This committee has suggested that concurrently with repairs to the Tasman Bridge, provision could be made for it to be widened to provide a fifth traffic lane. It is proposed to make use of the roadway on both the eastern and western sides of the gap in the bridge for fabrication of some elements of the new superstructure and for erection work. It is therefore necessary for the widening and reconstruction work to be closely co-ordinated and it is considered essential for both projects to be under the control of the one authority in order to avoid difficulties which could arise if 2 authorities were to be operating in the same area at the same time.

Accordingly, I agreed with the Premier of Tasmania that the work involved in widening the Bridge should be undertaken by the Tasman Bridge Restoration Commission and that the Government of Australia would meet the cost of this work estimated to be $3m. The Bill now before the House provides for approval of a supplementary agreement between Australia and Tasmania to modify structurally the Tasman Bridge to accommodate 5 lines of traffic concurrently with the restoration of the Bridge to full operational condition.

The agreement empowers the Commission to perform any functions additional to its present role to enable it to complete its task, subject to the same conditions and powers which it exercises under the Tasman Bridge Restoration Act 1975. 1 should point out to honourable members that funds for this work are provided in Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 1975-1976 under Division 964, item 03. The works proposed will greatly enhance the carrying capacity of the Tasman Bridge when reconstruction is completed and will do much to reduce traffic congestion in the period between reconstruction of the Tasman Bridge and completion of construction of the second crossing. I commend the Bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr Anthony) adjourned.

page 619

NATIONAL HEALTH (PHARMACEUTICAL BENEFITS CHARGES) BILL 1975

Bill returned from the Senate without amendment.

page 619

APPROPRIATION BILL (No. 1) 1975-76

Second Reading (Budget Debate)

Debate resumed.

Mr MACPHEE:
Balaclava

-The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Malcolm Fraser) and other senior members of the Opposition have analysed in detail the failure of this Budget to give the necessary stimulus to the private sector of the economy. In doing so they have been more positive in saying what we would do if we were in Government now than anyone expected them to be. They have put forward a program which would revive the economy, reduce inflation and restore the employment picture. Despite warnings from virtually every sector in the economy and every organ of opinion including the Australian Council of Trade Unions and left wing economists such as Mr Wheelwright, the Government has pursued its own pet theories to the detriment of the private sector and therefore the economy as a whole.

Whether the Government likes it or not, it must achieve its social reforms within the economic system that we have. The system has evolved and will continue to evolve but it is the one which we have now and it is the one which will provide a larger gross domestic product from which social welfare programs may be funded. This Government has tampered with the system without either understanding it fully or having a substitute system ready. Like our system of parliamentary democracy and federalism, our economic system has imperfections but it is still the system we will have until a better system evolves or otherwise commends itself to the electorate.

Our present system of private ownership is not immutable. Perhaps there may be a radical change in the next couple of generations but this will occur only after debate about alternatives or after the evolution which is necessarily the result of consensus. This will not be achieved by destroying the existing system without replacing it with something capable of meeting rising and costly expectations. The nature of these expectations is changing slowly but they are not less COStlY. Yet last year the then Treasurer, Mr Crean, when presenting the Budget stated in his conclusions:

The key note of this Budget is social progress. We are looking to create a fairer and better Australia. The year ahead will be a difficult one. The world is beset by severe economic problems. Australia cannot insulate itself from them.

One may say parenthetically, Mr Speaker, that some of the statements attached to this year’s Budget show that indeed Australia has been largely insulated from overseas economic problems. I refer in particular .to page 6 of the statements attached to this year’s Budget. Mr Crean went on to say:

The Budget, together with our other policies, is designed to make the best of things as they are in the world today- to maintain employment opportunities and to protect those who most need protection from the ravages of inflation. At the same time we are looking to the longer term- to the way Australia develops as a nation in the decades ahead. The problems immediately ahead have to be dealt with but in doing so this Government will remain steadfast in implementing its programs.

The price of that steadfastness- that stubborn suicide- has been great for Australia in terms of unemployment, inflation, loss of great and loss of national purpose and morale. It has been traumatic for those whom it was designed to help. When presenting the first Budget of the Labor Government the then Treasurer, Mr Crean, said that he was clearing the ground for further reforms. When he presented last year’s Budget it was felt generally that the honourable member for Lalor, Dr J. F. Cairns, had largely written the Budget and we now know that that Budget failed to grapple with the real problems of the economy. The new Treasurer, Mr Hayden, then had the unenviable task of trying to adopt what he calls the ‘middle course’ and in doing so he made a plaintive call for co-operation from the whole community.

The Government therefore has failed to provide the responsible lead which economic advice from across the entire spectrum told them must be taken. The Government has made gestures rather than taken substantive measures. It has introduced a restructured tax scale but has taken the benefits away by not coping with inflation. Several newspapers described the Budget, the day after its introduction, as ‘a matter of give and take’. It. has been ably demonstrated by previous speakers just how false are the so called benefits contained in the Budget. For example, the total cost to the Government of the taxation concessions is offset by the total gain to the Government of the increased excise on beer. Likewise the benefit to industry of reduced company taxation is offset by the increased cost of fuel used by industry.

The 3 Labor Budgets show an old-fashioned philosophy behind Labor policy. I am not denying that some of the ideas in Labor’s social program are reformist. On appropriate occasions in this House and elsewhere I have indicated my support for many of Labor’s social objectives but I have indicated also my disagreement with the means adopted to achieve these objectives. The means adopted is that which underlies the welfare state in Britain and is really a form of outmoded government paternalism. That paternalism has raised the Government to a position of superiority over those whom it is supposed to represent and to serve.

It is paradoxical that when in individual families wives and children are rejecting the notion that father knows best the Labor Government is acting as though it knows best. It justifies this by claiming that it has a mandate for everything it does. The political reality is that after 23 years of government by one coalition the people of Australia decided that they wanted a change. There were perfectly understandable reasons why they should feel that way and there were some attractive features of Labor Party policy. But it is impracticable in a general election campaign for political parties- especially those in Opposition, as Labor then was- to spell out in detail the precise way in which they will introduce their programs and assess the costs of their programs. Electors therefore have to make continuing judgments about the performance of the Government they elect and the Government has no right to assume that because the electorate endorses the aims of the Government it necessarily endorses the means by which the Government is prepared to achieve those aims or to underwrite the costs.

This is a point which the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) and his Government have steadfastly refused to acknowledge. As a result, there is a decreasing capacity of industry to reinvest because, as was illustrated by the Mathews Committee report, companies are virtually transferring huge sums from their resources to the Government in order that employees may have a real increase in wages which is commensurate with increased cost of living due to inflation. It is a crazy merry-go-round in which the Government is the only entity in the community not suffering a loss of income. To pacify industry and the unions in the short term, the Government makes concessions, such as its submissions on wage indexation and its platitudes about the role of the private sector. It has made revaluations of our currency and tariff cuts which have affected industry adversely. It has then made temporary assistance available to some industries and thenemployees in order to protect them from these measures. All the time however, the Government has been determined to gain control of key sectors in the economy in order to pursue its brand of socialism.

While the Prime Minister’s views have been set out in some writings- such as the Chifley Memorial Lecture in 1967- the majority of people are unaware of the extent to which this Government wishes to dominate the most important economic areas. At first the Government was given the benefit of the doubt and was described as incompetent but now it must be said that not even this Government is so incompetent that it can express support for the private sector, analyse the problems in the economy fairly accurately and still not take any genuine action to rectify these problems. Such a government is not merely incompetent but is stubbornly determined to destroy the large companies- both Australian and overseas owned- upon which our economy is dependent.

Debates in this Parliament have referred to the damage done to the mining and transport industries and the changing policies of this Government towards the automotive industry and its component parts industry/There has also been much discussion and criticism of other sectors of the economy, such as those affected by the 2 airlines agreement, which have been the subject of the Government’s prejudices. The question resolved itself when the Mathews Committee considered the matter and discovered that industry was unable to keep up with its further debts. This is the reason why the Opposition believes that the Mathews Committee recommendations should be implemented.

Above all, industry requires the confidence of knowing that the Government of the day recognises the role which the private sector plays and also that Government demonstrates that it genuinely wishes the private sector to play the major role in employment and economic growth. After this Budget no one in industry, whether large, medium or small, can doubt that the Government is hostile to industry and does not intend to adopt policies which will assist industry to restore the economy to its proper state of health. It is not good enough for the Minister for Manufacturing Industry (Mr Lionel Bowen), who preceded me in this debate, to say that industry should have confidence in the Government. Neither industry nor individuals require the meddlesome paternalism which this Government offers.

With increased education, greater affluence and rising expectations, the Government does not know best how individual citizensindividual taxpayers- wish to spend their money or live their lives. This Government wishes to regulate the activities of both companies and individuals and this is as objectionable as would be a return to laissez faire capitalism. We all recognise that governments have properly increased their involvement in all affairs of society, but the difference between the Government and the Opposition is that we wish that government involvement to protect as far as possible the limited range of choices which is open to individuals. By increased public spending the range of choices is becoming still more limited, partly because individuals have less money in their pockets and partly because the Government wishes to do their thinking and spending for them. That philosophy is as outmoded as is the philosophy of capitalism to which it was responding when first formulated.

The welfare state mentality is irrelevant in Australia today. About 70 per cent of Australians own their own homes and most Australians aspire to do so. The socio-economic system which is evolving will not be unchangeable but it will be changed by a far greater demonstration of public will than this Government can claim to have. So far as can be ascertained from the elections, public opinion polls, political meetings, letters from constituents and letters to editors of newspapers, the majority of Australians want the Government to create the overall economic conditions which will enable them to use their education and talents to live their lives with as much choice as the network of rights and obligations in the community will allow. The old-fashioned welfare mentality with its paternalism and centralism has usefully focused public attention upon economic and political philosophies relevant to the last quarter of the twentieth century. We now see federalism as an important defensive buffer to protect citizens from exploitation, not by the capitalist system but by an elected government.

The Government cannot claim a mandate for the effect of what it has done in this or its previous Budgets. The Government was not given a mandate for centralism or for its vindictive policies against big business which had such drastic repercussions for small business and for those employed in or dealing with all business. It does not have a mandate for the bad housekeeping and the wasteful spending which is the record of this Government. It does not have a mandate for the extra cost of beer, cigarettes, petrol, telephones and letters necessitated by the Government’s programs. Debates in this Parliament on major pieces of Government legislation have queried the cost and the consequences of meeting all of these programs in this way at this time, but the Government has plunged on and has not heeded any caution. Even on the notice paper for this session of Parliament is more legislation which is entirely unwarranted both in principle and in cost.

The Government claims to be assisting the poor but, in fact, it has not adopted the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry into Poverty. It is possible to assist those in relative poverty without having the expensive centralist complex of government departments which the present Government has established. At least three of the excellent reports produced by the Inquiry into Poverty are relevant to the immediate needs of those in poverty. The Government would have done better to have studied and implemented those reports than to claim that it is exempting 500 000 people from taxation because they are disadvantaged. We all know that many of those who are exempted are from relatively affluent homes but they happen to be working only part time or they have other forms of government assistance as they pursue studies of various kinds. In many cases those in the greatest need will still go unaided as a result of these taxation proposals.

One does not need to agree with all that Professor Milton Friedman says to accept his notion that governments simply cannot spend the individual’s money as well as the individual can. The Government, or its advisers, may believe that they know best, but the individual should have as much say as possible in determining how to dispose of his income or assets. How the Government thought that it was improving the plight of the disadvantaged or the general economic situation by introducing income tax concessions and then cancelling them out with indirect taxes is beyond comprehension. Perhaps those persons on a low income who do not drink, smoke, use the telephone, write letters or drive a car may benefit from this application of the consumer pays principle, but for the Government to imagine that such persons are numerous is to misunderstand human nature and is bad economics. It is at least consistent with the other examples of bad economics which litter this Government’s record- Commonwealth Public Service pace setting, general expectations of all unions, 25 per cent tariff cuts, revaluation and the Prices Justification Tribunal. The combined effect of these measures when added to the public spending program of the Government has been hyper-inflation and unemployment of disturbing proportions. All of the economic advice which the Government received, including that from the Australian Council of Trade Unions, said that incentives were required for both individuals and companies, but the give and take nature of the Budget has guaranteed that the Budget will not achieve these necessary objectives.

The Government never seems to remember that there is only one gross domestic product from which all demands can be met. Government spending and wage demands have so exceeded increases in profits and prices that for 2 years we have had the signs of the investment crisis which is now well and truly upon us. This is the kind of background against which the Treasurer made an appeal for co-operation. The kind of co-operation for which the Treasurer should be asking is the kind which will be forthcoming only when the Government adopts policies which provide the maximum incentive to all who work within the economic system. I should like to draw a contrast between that call and a call made recently by Sir Robert Menzies. It is fashionable for this Government to quote Sir Robert Menzies so I feel it may be appropriate to put into Hansard some words which Sir Robert said in his most recent political speech on 1 1 August 1974 on the occasion of the conferring upon him of the freedom of the city of Kew. I think the essential message of the speech is worth noting by the public. He said:

What is needed today is not some economist ‘s theories but a great mood of unselfishness in our country- a great realisation in our country that unless we are prepared to be on the list of contributories we can complain not a bit of other people who pursue selfish interests. Now that means, of course, and I think that this is a fair thing to say, that an economic crisis of the kind that we are contemplating is a moral crisis for the citizen. It must give him furiously to think. He must more and more realise that unless he is prepared to make a little sacrifice, to withhold a little of the claim that he is making, to restrict the advantage that he seeks, unless he is prepared to do that then he cannot expect that anybody else will. And if there is one thing that can bring us down it would be unbridled greed on the part of all sections of the community. I don’t believe for a moment that Australians need very much to be reminded of this.

I was sustained in my political life for over 20 years by one firm belief and that was that the vast majority of the Australian people are good and decent people. This was a thing that sustained me. Otherwise I wouldn’t have bothered about politics. You don’t go into politics in order to play a game on behalf of this group or that group and with no idealism in you. But when you know that your people are decent people then you owe them, in your turn, decency, an appeal to decency, an appeal to moderation. You know, I think it was the Apostle Paul who said that ‘we are all members of one another’. It is a lovely phrase you know. It is a lovely expression. It means that no man lives to himself, that every man who lives in a community is a member of that community. He shares his membership with other people in it and, political friend or political foe, he owes them every good thing that he can contribute to the life of the country.

I think that is a very important expression from Sir Robert Menzies because it points to the type of co-operation that a Treasurer of this country today should be calling for, not co-operation based on lavish public spending programs designed to make the community more and more dependent upon the Government.

Mr DUTHIE:
Wilmot

-What a pity that such an excellent member of Parliament as the honourable member for Balaclava (Mr Macphee) should deliver such a shocking, negative speech as he gave this afternoon. His speech was full of negativism, criticism and knockerism the like of which we are hearing all over the country ad nauseam night after night, day after day. In spite of everything the Opposition has poured out in the Press and over the television and radio in recent months, 85 per cent of the Australian people have never been better off than they are today. This is something that one cannot get through to the people or the critics. The amount of purchasing power in the community today can be illustrated by the fact that savings banks deposits rose by $3 11m in June this year to an all time peak of $ 12,768m, and these deposits are earning very substantial interest.

According to the Opposition the country has gone bankrupt, but there has never been more money circulating in the country, there has never been more families with 2 motorcars than there are today, there have never been more families with a full range of home appliances than there are today.

Mr Bennett:

– There have been record sales of colour television sets.

Mr DUTHIE:

-In the first fortnight in which colour television sets were on sale in Launceston, 10 sets were purchased and every purchaser paid cash. Yet we are hearing all this tripe and talk of gloom day after day from the people all over the country who are trying to convince us that we are living in the worst country in the world. Opposition spokesmen whom we have heard in this debate would make Jeremiah, the prophet of gloom, by contrast appear to be the happiest man in the Old Testament.

Retail sales have never been healthier. What is all this grizzling, growling and whining by private enterprise? Private enterprise controls the bulk of the Australian economy. It always has done and it always will. This Government has done nothing to stop private enterprise. Look at the number of factories in Australia owned by private enterprise. The number of employees working in those factories is increasing, year by year. Yet we are supposed to be wrecking private enterprise. The old cry that we hear day and night is that business confidence is languishing. This is the cry of people who run private enterprise- people from this heaven-sent sacrosanct private sector. It is essentially a political cry. We are a Labor government and they support the Liberal-Country Party. They are doing their utmost to sabotage the Australian Government. That is what it is all about. So much of this criticism is deliberate sabotage of the Australian Government by private enterprise. Let private enterprise point out any one field in which by government action we have destroyed it or caused it to lose profit apart from sections of the textile industry. The Government has taken no such action in any centre deliberately to try to sabotage private enterprise. The story is completely the reverse.

The real destroyers of confidence in this country are sections of the media and the Opposition in the Parliament. They have sought to do this by an outrageous exaggeration of the situation, by falsehoods, by misinformation to the public, by wild accusations and by extravagant comment repeated over and over again. The mental outlook of this Opposition is appalling. It is also frightening and dangerous. The Opposition is bereft of vision, new ideas and an ideology. It cannot get above the gutter level of constant nagging criticism of this Government.

Mr Cope:

– They do not have any brains either.

Mr DUTHIE:

-Well, I am not saying that. Members of the Opposition are a conglomeration of ultra conservatism, blind negativism, subversion and planned sabotage of confidence and hope in this country. One of the reasons we lost the Bass by-election was the constant harping I have been talking about. The lack of confidence in Australia exploded in one electorate at one point of time. It was Goebbels who said: 4 T-1 a lie for long enough and the people will believe it’. That is the soundest philosophy that has ever been stated in the political field. Goebbels found that it worked. He misled the German people for 8 years by adopting that approach. Now it is being done in this country repeatedly by people who want to destroy the Labor Government in Canberra. Those people do not care what statements they make, short of libel, to achieve that end.

The people of Australia have fallen for the big lie which has been repeated over and over again, night and day, on television, in the Press, in editorials and in letters to the editor by cowards using nom-de-plumes. These scum of the earth who criticise individuals and condemn governments in this way are the biggest cowards in the country. Snipers are the most despised fighters in wars killing from concealed places. To my mind the most despised people in this country today are the people who criticise other individuals and governments from the protection of a nomdeplume. They do not have the guts to tell us who they are. They are the people who are destroying the confidence of Australians in Australia. They are the saboteurs of this country today. They represent a standstill party, which during 23 years in government- I have been in this place for that period- introduced only a handful of new initiatives. I know that only a handful of new initiatives were ever introduced into this Parliament by Menzies and all the rest who followed him. In 2lh years this Government has put more new initiatives on the statute book than were introduced in 23 years by other governments and Prime Ministers who stood still, who held on to what they had clung to- the status quo.

Mr King:

– Who is exaggerating now?

Mr DUTHIE:

-I said that a handful of new initiatives were introduced; I did not say that there were no new initiatives. I have been in this place for a lot longer than the honourable member for Wimmera so I know what I am talking about.

Members of the Opposition in this place and in the Senate are professional knockers. For 2lA years they have demonstrated that they are apostles of negativism, destruction and unadulterated conservatism. John Shaw, the Time magazine man who is now looking over Australia, says that he knows of no other country in the world where people are so ready to blame the government for their problems. Even the softdrink manufacturers attacked us the other day because not so many people were buying softdrinks. The following comment was made in the newspaper after the John Shaw story: ‘God help Gough if our cricketers lose in England’. We are blamed for everything. We are blamed for sciatica, housemaids knee and pains in the neck. They come into this House and in speech after speech they say that we are responsible for everythingthunderstorms, droughts, frosts. Good gracious, it is absolutely dreadful what we have to sit and listen to and read in our newspapers.

People who go overseas are always glad to return to Australia. No matter what their political colour, when they get back here they say: “Thank God I am back in Australia. It is the best country in the world’. Honourable members opposite should not deny that either. Thousands of people every year come back from holidays in countries where the cost of living is outrageous. The costs are so high overseas that unless one had been warned one could be half way through a holiday and run out of money. Costs over there are great and inflation is running at very high levels. People do not know that they are alive until they go overseas and come back to this country.

All these so-called Australians we have in Australia today- these so-called patriots- are pulling our country down into the gutter every day of their lives by their statements, their letters to the editor and all the knockers we see on television. These are the saboteurs. Let me say straight out that their tactics are even more diabolical than those of the few communists we have in this country. They are doing more harm to Australia’s prestige and its standing and status in the world than the few communists in Australia. That is how serious the situation is. This constant tendency to knock Australia has now become a disease amongst the Opposition parties in this country.

Mr Cope:

– Have you anything nice to say about them?

Mr DUTHIE:

– Yes. They are a lot of good fellows. The new honourable member for Bass (Mr Newman) is an excellent fellow and we are mates already. There are more knockers to the acre in this country than there are anywhere else in the world. Editorials, letters to the editor and Opposition propaganda endlessly hammer the theme that Australia has had it, that it is a disaster area, that things have never been worse, that the economy is in a tailspin and that confidence is nil. This is the false picture such extravagant words outline. This theme goes on and on like a long playing record. It is a theme that is deliberate, jaundiced and negative. It does not describe the true position in Australia today.

I repeat- honourable members opposite may try to disprove it- that 85 per cent of Australians today are better off than they have been in their lives or in the history of this country. The theme I referred to is a political theme. It is a vote catching theme. It is a brainwashing campaign. Those who expound it hope that by constant repetition people will believe it. This is how the Opposition parties, the Press and the other media are under.mining the confidence of Australians today. Private enterprise is the key to the whole exercise.

Mr Sullivan:

– They are better off in Russia too.

Mr DUTHIE:

-I have never said that. All the opposition in Russia is in the cemetery or Siberia, and the honourable member is still living a very happy life here and eating 3 meals a day. This is what was said about the Budget in the Age editorial on 20 August:

Mr Hayden’s Budget is mostly restrained and balanced. The strategy adopted by Mr Hayden was not of course the only option open to him. He could have offset a large deficit by a tough monetary policy but this would mean higher interest rates -

I believe that they are high enough- financial disruption, further depressing confidence and serious company failures.

That is about the only editorial in Australia that is worth reading. Graeme McDougal, the financial editor of the Age said:

It is the best Budget Labor has produced.

There were prophecies by Opposition experts that the Budget would have a deficit of $5, 000m. How wrong they have been proved. The doom and gloom protagonists of the Opposition have been answered by a thoroughly responsible, sensible, constructive Budget.

Even the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Malcolm Fraser) congratulated the Treasurer (Mr Hayden) on the work he put in on this document. Nobody, whatever he thought of the Labor Government, could denigrate that. It is one of the best Budgets that I have listened to in this Parliament. I have listened to 29 of them, and this is not yet my last. At this stage I want to answer a false statement made by the honourable member for Bass and his mate, Senator Rae, who is also from Tasmania. The day after the Budget an article appeared under the headline ‘ Nothing in it for Tasmania ‘. It read:

There was nothing for Tasmania in the Federal Budget other than increased hardship, 2 Liberal MPs said last night.

I want to deny that now in a few well-chosen words. This year Tasmania will- receive $6,800,000 under the Regional Employment Development scheme as against $3,020,000 paid out last year. The Budget provides $1 53m for the RED scheme throughout Australia to help with unemployment. We have had the subject of unemployment bashed into us, thrashed out and talked about over and over again but do honourable members realise that we have always had 70 000 people unemployed in this country even in the best years when we did not have inflation? Approximately 50 000 married women are included in the unemployment figures. They should not be included. If a woman’s husband is working she has no right to be regarded as unemployed. In Australia at least 30 000 people are unemployable. This brings the number of people actually out of work back to 1 70 000. No country in the world has such a low level of unemployed as that. One finds in America, Canada, England and the other European countries that there is between 6 per cent and 9 per cent unemployment and we have an actual figure of 2Vi per cent to 3 per cent.

Mr Sullivan:

– Do you think it would be aU right to increase it?

Mr DUTHIE:

– No. The Government does not want to increase it. It hopes that this Budget will not increase it. The Government wants private enterprise to play its rightful place in the economy- not to sulk but to get to work and do something instead of standing on the sidelines grizzling, which is aU it seems to be doing. Private enterprise has been helped by a reduction in company tax of 5 per cent in 2 years.

Mr O’Keefe:

– You are doubling it. It is Vh per cent.

Mr DUTHIE:

– It is 5 per cent in 2 years. To my knowledge in no other period of our history has company tax been reduced by any Australian government. This Government has decreased it by 5 per cent in 2 years but Still receives no thanks for it. Company tax has been going up bit by bit, year by year up to 1974. Grants to local government in Tasmania for 1975-76 will be $2,292,000-last year theamount was $ 1 ,669,000- as part of this Government ‘s $134m in direct non-repayable grants to our municipalities for 2 years. This year $840,000 has been allocated to the north-west coast regional water supply scheme as a start on a $10m project, of which the Australian Government will fund 60 per cent. Sewerage grants to Tasmania this year will total $1,800,000. 1 only wish that the Government would modify the criteria for the grant to include areas with populations less than 20 000 people.

Mr Wentworth:

– That is not reasonable; I agree with you.

Mr DUTHIE:

-I think it is unreasonable that big country towns should not share in this national allocation of funds for sewerage. City and suburban transport in Tasmania will receive about $19m in the next 3 years. Housing payments to Tasmania this year will total $22,608,000. This is a reduction on last year’s amount but it is still huge assistance to Tasmania. Provision has been made for $560,000 for pensioner housing. Capital works programs for government and non-government schools will total $4,442,000 this year as against $6m last year. That is part of the total reduction in government spending. I suppose that expenditure in some areas of education had to be reduced because it is such a large section of the Government’s budgetary proposals. Tasmania will receive big increases in grants for recurrent purposessalaries and maintenance for government and non-government schools. The rise will be from $5,912,000 up to $9,917,000. Grants for capital works on colleges of advanced education and teachers colleges in Tasmania will rise from $2,969,000 to $5,750,000.

Subsidies on the Australian National Line freights Will rise to over $4m for northbound general cargo other than bulk cargo this financial year from $2m last year, with $lm for the ‘Empress of Australia’ and $1,600,000 for the wheat subsidy, making a total of $7m. Tasmania’s loss on the railways, which amounted to $ 17m, has been taken up by the Commonwealth. We are going to absorb the Tasmanian railways and upgrade them for a total cost of $70m over the next 10 years. Nursing homes have received a big increase also of $2 1 a week up to $30 a week in all States. Of course, Tasmania will share in all social security benefits throughout the island. Tasmania will get $4.5m for total health grants as compared with $2.9m last year making a total of over $ 16m more than last year and the Liberal MPs say there was nothing for Tasmania in the Budget.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

- (Mr Keith Johnson)- Order! The honourable member’s time has expired.

Mr McLEAY:
Boothby

-I was interested to listen to the honourable member for Wilmot (Mr Duthie) and his rather passionate address, especially when he said- I think he repeated himself once and perhaps twice, and I think I quote him fairly- that 85 per cent of Australians had never been better off in their lives. He went on to talk about Australians who can afford 2 cars and families with 2 cars and colour television. I would put the view that a great many people in Tasmania, probably the majority, do not agree with him. Fifty-nine per cent of the electors of Bass confirmed this view just a few weeks ago. He mentioned welfare housing but did not mention the amount of the reduction in expenditure on welfare housing in Tasmania. There will be a reduction of $4m. I quote what the spokesman on housing in the Opposition in the Tasmanian Legislative Assembly had to say. He said:

With housing demand in Tasmania the highest in 25 years, it is shameful that the effect of this cut will mean a 30 per cent reduction in homes to be made available.

I do not really think that there is very much that the people who live in Tasmania could be grateful for to this Government, the Treasurer (Mr Hayden) or the Budget. I must regretfully disagree with my friend, the honourable member for Wilmot. I am not at all sure that we can expect to see him here for another Budget. He mentioned that 70 000 people are always out of work. He went on to say that in his view married women whose husbands are working have no right to be classed as unemployed. I think that the Women’s Electoral Lobby might have a view on that. It could well place him below me in its popularity ratings. The position is that the Government has, by its policies, forced families into a 2-income situation. It has forced wives to go out to work just to maintain their living standards.

Dr Klugman:

– It is because you charge too much for carpets.

Mr McLEAY:

-They are forced to do it to retain the eduction standard for their children and to meet growing interest rates and other items.

Dr Klugman:

– What about the carpets?

Mr McLEAY:

-What I want to refer to is not the inane interjections to which one becomes accustomed from some honourable gentlemen in this place. I draw the attention of the House to the tremendous damage which the Government has done to the building and construction industry since it was elected just over 3 years ago. Unfortunately the Budget will only make things worse for the building industry not only for those who rely on the production of accommodation, those who are the end users, but also for those who work in the industry.

The Treasurer has implied that the Government is cutting back on its expenditure and is doing some of the things it is necessary to do to reduce inflation. I believe the truth is that there is a continuing enormous increase in Government expenditure averaging a little over 22’A per cent across the board. Ironically there are only 2 areas where the Government has cut back. One is the area of industry assistance and development, where the decrease in the coming year will be about $300m. The other is the area of housing, where the decrease will be over $69m. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a table dealing with the reductions and increases which is actually a Budget paper and the incorporation of which has been approved by the Minister for Environment (Mr Berinson) at the table.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

- (Mr Keith Johnson)- Is there any opposition to leave being granted? There being no opposition, leave is granted. (The document read as follows)-

Mr McLEAY:

– I thank the House. It seems entirely inappropriate that in one of the areas where the Government could be encouraging the private sector- that is this area of industry assistance and development- it is actually cutting back. One does not need to be a graduate in economics to know that the private sector is the sector which creates job opportunities, and yet the agricultural and pastoral industries have been cut back in excess of $200m and the mining and manufacturing industries by $117m. It seems a classic case of double standards. When we examine the detail which appears in the Budget we find that export incentive grants will be cut back by nearly $60m. While these cuts will certainly have an effect on employment in the future, the equally savage cuts in the area of housing can only add to the unemployment and social problems in the community. This is from a government which falsely claims, in my view, to represent the worker. The well being of the building industry and its manufacturing support industries is vital to a very large number of Australian families. Almost 20 per cent of the employed work force, fairly close to one million Australians, are employed in these industries which are very sensitive to Government policies.

Gross fixed capital expenditure on dwellings alone was 23 per cent of the total gross fixed capital expenditure in Australia in 1973-74. It seems not unreasonable to claim that about 50 000 of Australians presently unemployed are unemployed as a result of Government policies damaging the building and building support industries. If the Government continues in its

present manner we could find half a million Australians unemployed early in the new year, I believe this will happen, and it follows that 100 000 of them will come from the building industry and its support industries. The Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr Riordan) claimed last Tuesday that he could see evidence of a recovery of private home building everywhere. This is, I believe, absolute nonsense. The number of private dwellings being commenced is still approximately 4500 a month fewer than Australia’s normal requirements. If this rate continues, and there is every indication that it will, there will be an accumulated shortfall of 80 000 homes by the end of next December. This is a direct result of the Labor Government’s disastrous economic policies since it came to power. Public housing or so-called welfare housing allocations in the Budget have been reduced by $69m.

Dr Edwards:

– Actually reduced?

Mr McLEAY:

– There is an actual reduction of $69m, and that figure would be even worse if we considered the inflation factor, which of course we must. There are reductions in this area. If we assume an inflation factor of 20 per cent- I think that is reasonable- public housing completions will be severely reduced in each of the States and the Territories. The State housing commissions, for example- these are the authorities which provide accommodation for disadvantaged and underprivileged people both for rental and for sale purposes- will build 2000 dwellings fewer during the coming year. The Home Builders Account- that is the money advanced at a low rate of interest to finance low income home ownership, which Labor claims to support- will be severely cut back to the extent that nearly 5000 fewer dwellings will be financed in the coming year.

The defence services homes allocations are also being cut. They are being reduced by $7,500,000. When we apply the inflation factor and compare the number of homes that were built last year, we will find that there will be a loss of more than 500 loans to ex-servicemen in the current year, which means a loss of 500 homes. At the moment I believe the waiting time for a first mortgage loan under the Defence Service Homes Act is almost 12 months. I suspect that the Government will continue to mismanage the economy and that the waiting time could be extended even further. This means that exservicemen will be forced into bridging finance at very high rates of interest.

In the Territories under Commonwealth jurisdiction, the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory, there is another cutback of public funding for housing. We predict a loss in production of nearly 700 houses in the Territories controlled by the Federal Government. The total loss in the public sector will be nearly 8000 homes. Some time before the Budget the Minister for Housing and Construction announced that there would be no cutback to the States for their welfare housing purposes. He was subsequently proven to be mistaken or misled or less than honest. There have been substantial cutbacks in excess of $20m to at least three of the States. While the Minister-has been busy attacking the New South Wales Government, unfairly I believe, and making the point that there were no, cutbacks in New South Wales, he has not mentioned the cutback of $4m in Western Australia and Tasmania and the massive cutback in Queensland of $12. 8m. He also has not drawn attention to the fact that the inflation factor actually enlarges the cutbacks and that even those States where there is no reduction in allocation are therefore being cut back.

All sections of the building and construction industry are now seriously under-utilised and it seems to us that this under utilisation will increase in the future and that it could reach a figure of even 50 per cent not only in the housing industry but also in the non-residential building industry. The cutback in welfare housing therefore will affect very seriously those on low incomes and those presently without accommodation. In addition, the new rebate tax system, in the way that it has been worked out by the Government- I do not knock the systemwill discriminate very heavily against young people on low to moderate incomes who are very often saving for a home. The cost of a modest home has been increasing by more than $100 a week and this alone prevents the great majority of young people from saving sufficient to bridge the deposit gap. The new taxation system places an even bigger burden on young couples who are both working and trying to save for their first home or for any other purpose.

I take the example of a taxpayer on $ 135, and according to the Treasury people with this income represents about 70 per cent of the taxpaying population. These young couples will actually pay more tax than they do under the present system and they will’ pay more even though they have dependent children. The taxation proposals outlined by the Treasurer are nothing more or less than a gimmick. How can any government justify taxation policies which allow tax cuts to certain groups in the community, which will cost $205 in the current year, and yet impose a tax on beer which alone will bring in $246m in a full year? As the Leader of the Opposition illustrated, I thought very well last night, almost everybody in the taxpaying community will be worse off.

Mr Daly:

– It will not affect anybody like you who does not drink.

Mr McLEAY:

– It is a very appropriate interjection, I agree. The true extent of the damage done to the building industry does not seem to be understood by the media and does not receive very much attention from the media, probably because it is not hard news. If we examine the different sections of the building industry, we see the present situation is bad enough, but the future is likely to be catastrophic. Taking the non-residential building industry as an example and comparing the value of work completed with the inflation factor stripped out, on 1966 prices the result clearly demonstrates the problems of this important section of the industry. If we compare the value of commencements in March 1974 on this basis with the value of commencements in March 1974 this year, the figure is halved. It was $200m in March 1974 and is slightly less than $100m for March 1975. If we equate commencements with demand, which I think is reasonable, it means that demand for non-residential building is more than halved.

From what I hear from qualified people who study this industry, it appears that there is very little new work in the pipeline, so demand will probably diminish further and no government can take any satisfaction from creating a situation which has practically, destroyed the whole building industry. Completions over the same period follow very much the same pattern. Completions in March 1974 were worth about $200m, which is roughly the same as the value of commencements. I suppose we could say that is a fairly healthy supply and demand situation, but the completions to March this year are worth only $ 170m and I believe there is very little new work around. We predict that this figure must taper off disastrously in the very near future.

The reasons are probably obvious. In the first place, those who are responsible for unreasonable wage demands are putting themselves in the position of lulling their industry and putting the members of their unions out of work. They are in fact pricing building labour out of the market. It seems to me that the types of people who lead these unions are not really interested in work at all, they just want trouble. With the industry as sick as it will be in the near future, the only way we can get out of it, I believe, is for the trade union leaders in the building industry to use some common sense. Other reasons for the problems are fairly general. There is absolutely no confidence in the business community to invest in new buildings or to expand present buildings. We have the very high interest rates which are keeping in line with inflation. Even the overdraft interest rate if one’s overdraft is in excess of $50,000 is 13Vi per cent. This does nothing to assist the confidence of the business community nor does it help solve their liquidity problems.

The very high taxation scales are well known. In this Budget the Treasurer announced that he will reduce company taxation. That is a sound proposal but I wonder whether he realises that there are few businesses, certainly small businesses, making any profit anyway, so this will not have very much effect on business confidence. The long service leave provisions are deadly to business whether it be a building company or some other form of private enterprise. In South Australia employees have absolute entitlement to long service benefits after 7 years service and for those employers who have always encouraged and looked after their staff, this has become a very serious imposition. It is further exacerbated by the taxation laws which do not allow business to make provision for this charge in profit and loss accounts.

Another reason for the serious downturn in the building industry is the constant attack by the Government upon the insurance industry. The insurance industry has traditionally provided significant investment in the private sector and especially in the housing and building supply sectors of industry. It follows that government interference whether by way of unfair competition or manipulation through the taxation laws will reduce the supply of funds available to these corporations for their traditional portfolio investments. I would like to incorporate in Hansard a table which shows the portfolio investment of the Australian Mutual Provident Society. It is on the public record. I have shown it to the Minister and he has agreed to its incorporation.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

- (Mr Keith Johnson)- Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted. (The table read as follows)-

Mr McLEAY:

– I thank the House. This list shows that the insurance industry supports more building suppliers than any other industry. It also supports developers, building contractors and the whole range of the private sector. Anything that damages the insurance industry damages this sector of private industry and damages the opportunity for people to buy houses. The residential building industry is similarly depressed and nowhere is this more obvious than in private investment in rental accomodation. I might say that insurance corporations have also been traditional supporters of terminating building societies which have provided low cost accommodation for low income earners. This is disappearing rapidly.

The question of rental accomodation is a very serious one. It is estimated that persons intending to invest in rental accommodation will be lucky to obtain returns much better than 6 per cent. They could get 1 4 per cent on first mortgage. Private investment in rental accommodation is unattractive for a number of other reasons. Lending institutions are reluctant to lend a very high percentage of the value of buildings and as a consequence investors and developers or speculators, call them whatever you wish, are forced into large second mortgages at very high rates of interest, which at the moment are as high as 17V4 per cent Rent control is a distinct possibility, especially in the Labor States, and so is a capital gains tax. At least the Government got rid of its surcharge tax on so-called unearned income which was one of its more stupid pieces of legislation. Zoning by-laws and the consequent uneconomic land use in many urban areas also tend to work against development in rental accommodation. There is a movement in Australia for investors to get out of their rental accommodation investments and large numbers of rental units are being strata tided and sold off. There is no way of obtaining an accurate estimate of the rental position in Australia at the moment but it seems likely that the increase in rents over the last 12 months has been averaging approximately 33V) per cent. As inflation continues and the rental apartments become in short supply, rents will also increase. Those who will suffer first are those on low incomes, the disadvantaged, and the underprivileged in the community.

The purpose of welfare advances to the States is to assist in this area, and the reduction in these advances in the Budget has meant that the housing commissions will be unable to continue at the same rate to build housing or rental accommodation for low income earners. When Labor came into office there were 93 000 Australians on housing commission waiting lists. The Minister is still clinging to that figure, but in March there were 107 000 people on housing commission waiting lists. This afternoon I obtained some figures from the South Australian Housing Trust which indicate that in South Australia the number of people on the Housing Trust accommodation waiting list is increasing by approximately 350 a month. It seems likely to us that at this very moment there could well be more than 120 000 on waiting lists, with many others being excluded because of the needs test which applies. In fact, the real problem are those in society who are underprivileged, but this is disguised because of the needs test obligations. This Government stands condemned for its double standards, its wastefulness, its cockeyed priorities and, above all, for the callous, inhuman way in which it treats those people whom it arrogantly believes will support it blindly to the end.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

- (Mr Keith Johnson)- Order! The honourable member’s time has expired.

Mr BENNETT:
Swan

– I was surprised to hear the honourable member for Boothby (Mr McLeay), make such a point of housing when his Leader has advocated a further $20m reduction in housing finance, suggesting disaster for the building industry and proposed home owners if Australia should have the misfortune to have a Liberal Country Party government. He has clearly shown the stupidity of his Leader’s proposal. I can understand his embarrassment and the difficulty under which he must have spoken in the circumstances.

This is a Budget which one must remember has answered the demands of the media, the chambers of commerce and other industry leaders to cut government spending. Even an organisation sponsored by the Catholic bishops of Australia went to the trouble of publishing a pamphlet and a circular letter calling for government restraint. Now that that restraint has been applied, some people are saying: ‘Well, I meant restraint but I did not mean that it should apply to me’. The restraints are the most equitable possible in the circumstances, and one would expect even the Opposition to agree with that assessment, if it were reasonable. The Opposition too was most vocal in calling for restraint, but it failed to indicate where it would apply that restraint It has failed all the time to indicate or to give any guidance as to where the restraint must fall. It has adopted the old adage of being wise after the event. That is not hard to understand because the economic factor of unemployment and inflation going hand in hand is a new one. The old Liberal system of creating a pool of unemployed to combat inflation will no longer work. This world problem affects most the free enterprise system economies of the world but does not affect the centrally planned economies. The truth is that the Opposition does not know the answers, as I shall indicate later.

The Liberal Party’s continued attacks on the States in this Budget debate, the continued calls to cut the Australian Government’s expenditure to the States and their instrumentalities is sickening. That these continued attacks could lead to cuts in State services in the future worries me somewhat. Their very viciousness, their bloodymindedness, is appalling. Let us look at how they would affect Western Australia’s present annual payments. People must realise that the Australian Government participates not only in matters that are mentioned here in general debate but also in all facets of State Government administration. Because of the shortage of time I will not be able to itemise the complete list, but I point out that the Australian Government assists in meeting debt charges and in the fields of State emergency services, universities, colleges of advanced education, technical and further education, schools, pre-schools, child migrant educational research, Medibank, public hospitals, running community health services, television control, school dental health, health education, home dialysis, blood transfusion services, health planning agencies, housekeeping services, home care services, senior citizen’s assistance, assistance to deserted wives, employment grants, regional employment development schemes, social planning units, Aboriginal advancement, housing, area improvement, sewerage, local government, regional organisations, leisure and recreation tourism and, in Perth, the underground railway study and matters of that nature, going right through to the natural disaster area. The Australian Government has some say in and makes some allocation to the areas in which the States participate.

It appals me that the Liberal Party is all the time attacking the States by calling for unrestricted cutbacks in allocations to the States. This constant attack upon States rights may continue, but I think it is about time that the people were made aware that these bloody-minded attacks are being made merely for political purposes. More irresponsible is the blatant attempt to destroy business confidence, to destroy investment drive, to destroy the jobs of those people employed by the States and by small business, and to destroy those who are self employed. Before the Opposition even had time to study the Budget- even before it was presented to this House- its spokesmen were intent on destroying public confidence and the hopes and dreams for the future. It is interesting to note that those making these attacks in an effort to destroy confidence are the employees of millionaires and multi-national companies who see the collapse of small business as presenting them with an increased opportunity to expand further and in fact as a lessening in competition. I wonder at the reasons for which they make these vicious attacks.

I charge that the Liberal Party stands for the deliberate destruction of the small business sector of the community. During its term in office we saw the disappearance of the small business, the corner store, which gave credit to the locals. The local baker succumbed to the combines; the transport sector came under the control of the overseas-connected combines; the food production sector went to the overseas combines; sections of the rural and pastoral industries went to the overseas combines, as did the mining sector. One could go on. The record is there for all to see. It was a dream investment area for every expanding overseas national company or individual with excess funds, and in spite of the effect on the inflationary trends that overseas ownership may have had no protection was given to the Australian consumer.

The important point is that now that the Liberal-Country Party is out of office the same effort is being attempted by the media, by mass hysteria, to convince the small business battler that he need not go on, that it is completely hopeless. The small businessman had to battle under Liberal administration too, but he is being told that there is no point in going on because the future is bleak. That is the story which he is told constantly. That has been the deliberate aim of the Opposition since it was defeated. It concerns me greatly that those who should be inspiring business people to compete with hope for the future are, in fact, being entirely negative. I was so concerned about the situation that I took the opportunity to look at the history of the last Budgets of the dying Liberal Administration. I have here just a few comments made by a Press which was usually entirely favourable to a Liberal Government. In the main I looked to the Western Australian Press which most Western Australian people believe is orientated to the Liberals. I do not have sufficient time to go right back into the dim dark ages, but I shall refer to the West Australian of 20 August 1970. An article headed ‘Federal budget should help to curb inflation ‘ reads:

The Government is budgeting for an overall surplus of domestic receipts over expenditure of $550m, or about $50m more thanlast year.

page 633

LIQUIDITY

This will mean in effect that the Government’s expenditure in the first nine months of the year will add significantly to domestic liquidity because it will be spending much more than it will be collecting in taxes.

Remember that the Opposition is now calling upon us to cut back our spending. The article continues:

This will be comparable with the March- June quarter of 1970, though admittedly the situation then was reinforced by steep interest rate rises and Reserve Bank policy.

The 2½ per cent rise in all company tax rates could well be absorbed in most cases but the widespread sales tax increase will invariably cause price rises.

The article refers to a 2½ per cent increase back in 1970 whereas we are talking about whipping that 2½ per cent off them now. The article continues:

In the short term at least, this may affect companies selling consumer goods -

But remember, the previous Government was not worried about the consumers. It was worried only about companies. The newspaper article continued: but it will be felt most widely in the motor vehicle industry, which is already sluggish.

That is back in 1970. Other comments about the 1970 Budget are contained in another newspaper article which I have before me. It listed some increased charges that flowed from that Budget.

Extra phone rental $7; extra postal charges (50 letters a year at lc) 50c; cigarettes (an extra 3c a packet on a packet a day) $10.95; wine (extra cost of one half-gallon flagon a week) $13; extra cost of petrol (Automobile Chamber of Commerce figure) $ 15. That totals $46.45.

The article continues:

And it would be surprising if transport costs did not cost the family another 2 5c a week before long. That would mean an extra outlay of $ 1 3 in a full year.

That brings the extra outlay to $75.05. Though Mr Bury cannot be blamed for it all, it does not make any allowance for the extra cost of goods affected by the 2½ per cent salestax increase in the Budget.

Honourable members can see that the previous Government was well and truly into the process of creating an inflationary situation even back in 1970. The Budget was called a 2-way Budget. The West Australian of 20 August 1970 stated in its editorial:

In his first Budget, Federal Treasurer Bury has given with one hand and taken with the other.

We hear that sheer sort of nonsense again today. The newspaper editorial continued under the heading of ‘Inflation Danger’:

Mr Bury ‘s primary aim was to keep inflation under control in the interests of production and consumers. Despite the agricultural depression and the credit squeeze- remember, this was in 1 970- past and prospective wage increases are bound to militate against his efforts, but in difficult circumstances he encourages confidence.

These are remarks about the people who failed in government. The newspaper article continued:

His figuring, of course, involved a price. Higher taxes and duties are expected to yield an additional $194 million, chiefly from companies, petrol, tobacco and consumer goods such as cars and television sets, plus an additional $42 million in post office charges, making a total of $236 million.

It has also involved restraint in spending on pensions and defence. An increase of only 50 cents in age pensions, a mere 3 per cent when consumer prices have been rising at an annual rate of 5 per cent and average weekly earnings at 8 percent.

And so the editorial goes went on in complete condemnation of the then administration. Let me turn to the comments on the following Budget. The West Australian editorial of 19 August 1971 outlined very much the same situation:

But higher taxation, much of which will not help to increase costs, will not win the Government any friends,-

It also stated that Government expenditure would increase by $728m in that year. Is it any wonder that this inflationary pattern which the previous Government set in motion in those days has continued today? Of course, we faced a difficult situation when we came to power. Let me deal with personal income tax. I hear honourable members opposite laughing. They think it is funny. I say that they are irresponsible. The editorial continued: tax and duties on tobacco and petrol are increased to yield an extra $ 150m net.

Further on the editorial stated:

The increase in the levy on personal income tax from 216 per cent to 5 per cent is a clumsy device.

That was the amount of the increase in 1971. These are the sorts of things that put the previous Government out of office, as should have been the case. The previous Government was condemned by its own Budgets. If one looks back into the history -

Mr BENNETT:

– If one goes back even further, one can find more disasters. In fact, one can find 23 years of disasters.

Mr Sullivan:

– The year 1933 was a bad year.

Mr BENNETT:

– I probably would not appreciate that because I was not old enough. I do not have the opportunity that the honourable member has to remember that year. The comments as reported in the West Australian of 19 August 1971 were similar to the comments on the Budget right round Australia. It was condemned completely by the Melbourne Herald, the Sydney Morning Herald, the Hobart Mercury, the Adelaide Advertiser, the Melbourne Age, the Brisbane Courier-Mail, the Sydney Daily Telegraph and the Australian. All of those newspapers were critical of the inflationary situation which was established at that time. I quote from a comment in the West Australian newspaper of 19 August 1971 on Mr Snedden ‘s first Budget:

All he has done is to slug the small man hard-

Statements of this nature appeared in many newspapers.

Sitting suspended from 6 to 8 p.m.

Mr BENNETT:

– Prior to the suspension of the sitting for dinner I was highlighting the disastrous Budgets of the previous Liberal Administration from 1970 onwards as reported in a favourable Press. I was trying to highlight the attitude of the then Government the supporters of which are now in Opposition and are offering themselves to Australia as the alternative Government. The irresponsible attitude which the Liberal Party still has in this area was highlighted by the laughter and the interjections from the other side of the chamber. I was quoting some comments form the Australian Press about the 1971 Budget which was introduced by Mr Snedden of the Liberal Party. The Australian stated:

Perhaps underlying and accounting for the Government’s extreme amorousness about inflation is its feeling of uncertainty about the real cost of its wool assistance proposal.

The Brisbane Courier-Mail stated:

The Budget’s worst impost are the Post Office charges. These increases are in some cases enormous. A budget to help curb inflation could not be popular. That is granted. But the Budget as a whole shows a retreat in Government thinking rather than a progression.

There are comments like that from the various newspapers around Australia and they are just as unpalatable to the Liberal Party as were the comments repeated in relation the the 1972 Budget. I do this to remind people that the Opposition is the alternative Government. These are the people who are offering criticism of the excellent Budget which we have before us. I refer to the West Australian which can hardly be said to be a newspaper which would favour the present Government. In fact, it would do just the reverse. The editorial of 16 August 1972 stated:

The Treasurer had 2 broad courses open to him in seeking to reduce unemployment -

I ask honourable members to remember that this is unemployment in 1 972- he could provide massive and quick Government spending to produce jobs or he could let taxpayers keep more of their own money and hope that they would spend it. With Government spending already disproportionately high he sensibly chose to apply his economic stimulus through the individual.

In 1972 we had a situation of high Government spending. The editorial continues:

He is in fact taking a calculated gamble on stable economic conditions overseas-

The editor was referring to the inflationary situation overseas- on levelling or reduction of wage demands in Australia and on a satisfactory public response to his proposals. He is also relying on carry-through of the effect of turning last year’s deflationary Budget into an inflationary one earlier this year.

Even the West Australian at this stage recognised that an inflationary situation had been created by the then Government. When we were elected in 1972 as the Government we had to take up that situation. This was recognised in 1972. The editorial further states:

There is nothing in the Budget that offers a dramatic change in the employment situation and it is disappointing for that reason as well as for reasons of national interest that the Government did not grasp an opportunity for new initiatives in national development.

Honourable members can see that when this Government came to power it was faced with a disastrous situation with which it has now firmly dealt. Let us look at what the Opposition has to say in the news media about the Budget which we are discussing here. I have limited time and therefore can refer to only a few comments. The Australian Financial Review states:

There is a lot more courage and creativity in Mr Hayden ‘s Budget than his deliberately unemotional speech suggested. If it works- and there is an undeniable plausibility about the economic aggregates produced by Mr Hayden and his bureaucratic advisers-then Mr Hayden will be a Treasurer of considerable significance in Australian history.

However, there are a host of political booby-traps in the path of the Budget.

Possibly the writer of the article is referring to the boobies on the other side of the House. The Sydney Morning Herald states:

In political terms the Budget has been carefully framed to put the Opposition on its mettle. According to Mr Hayden the Government faced a potential deficit of about $5, 000m before it began its program of cuts. It has managed to bring that down to $2,798m and accommodated tax cuts.

The Melbourne Age stated:

The Budget brought down by Mr Hayden last night is a model of restraint and balance. No longer is the public sector to be the supreme spender. At last encouragement is being offered to the battered private sector and relief to the burdened taxpayer.

The Budget is unashamedly deflationary in intent, on the unassailable logic that unless the rate of inflation is reduced, Australia ‘s productive capacity will run down.

And so these comments go on as one looks at the newspapers of Australia. But having listened in the House to the debate I feel sure that honourable members opposite must be reading some other document rather than that which, generally, Australia has accepted. What appals me is the constant endeavours made by the Opposition to prevent money finding its way to local government from the central taxing authority. Any measure which gives money directly from an Australian Government department to any local authority is opposed or challenged at law. Honourable members opposite do not believe that local people should have direct access to the tax distribution machine. They are opposed to a grass roots participation.

Let us face it, they can wheel and deal and deceive State governments of their own ilk but they would find it impossible to deceive people who are directly concerned if they had to deal directly with them at grass roots level. The Opposition is petrified that it will have to deal directly with the electorate. It is running scared. But it will have to face the long neglected people of the suburbs and put its case. The Opposition is so desperate that one wonders whether our parliamentary system is safe. When one sees the extremes of misrepresentation which take place one worries about what will happen if the scaremongers are unable to achieve their ends at the polls.

Mr Sullivan:

– The honourable member must be joking.

Mr BENNETT:

-Unfortunately, it is no joke. What other desperate measures will the Opposition take? One hopes that it will take a lead from the Government and be satisfied to act in a responsible manner. This, of course, I doubt. By its action the Opposition is trying to bring down the system under which we operate or to bring it into disrepute.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Debate (on motion by Mr Sullivan) adjourned.

page 635

STATES GRANTS (HOUSING ASSISTANCE) BILL 1975

Bill presented by Mr Riordan and read a first time.

Second Reading

Mr RIORDAN:
Minister for Housing and Construction · Phillip · ALP

– I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of the States Grants (Housing Assistance) Bill is to authorise the Treasurer to pay to the States this year the sum of $364. 6m for welfare housing in accordance with the provisions of the 1973-74 Housing Agreement. It will be distributed among the States as follows:

Welfare housing is an area to which the Government attaches high priority. Bearing in mind the $ 10.4m advanced in June 1975 on the basis that it would be taken into account in this year’s allocation, the advances in 1 975-76 will be maintained at the greatly increased 1974-75 level, and well above the $2 18.6m allocated in 1973-74. They will also be some 2% times greater than the allocations for welfare housing from State loan funds in the last 2 years of the previous Government which were $16 1.5m in 1971-72 and $ 163.2m in 1972-73. This is the real measure of the importance attached to welfare housing by the present Government in comparison with our predecessors.

The decision to limit the welfare housing advances for 1975-76 to the 1974-75 level has been a difficult one for the Government to take. It will, however, be recalled that the large increase in the advances in 1974-75 was in part due to the sharp downturn that had developed in private housing construction. It was appropriate for public housing activity to be stepped up above the original allocations in order to increase the output of welfare housing and also to use resources that otherwise may well have remained idle.

Although the allocations for 1975-76 are limited by the budgetary constraints aimed at achieving greater economic stability and the control of inflation, they by no means reflect an intention to divert from a course that will ensure further improvements in welfare housing standards. However, there is significant evidence of recovery in the private home building sector. Private commencements had started to recover in the March quarter and the improvement has been maintained in the June quarter when 28 200 dwellings were commenced, about 10 per cent more than in the preceding December quarter. Approvals of private dwellings in the June quarter exceeded 30 000 compared with about 24 000 in the December quarter. The number of housing loans approved by savings banks and permanent building societies was maintained at a very high level throughout the first half of 1975 and this, should ensure further growth in commencements in the coming months.

In these circumstances, it would have been economically irresponsible to continue to increase the Government housing sector at the pace established in the special circumstances of the last’ financial year. It is contrary to the interests of the housing industry and the aspirations of prospective home buyers to seek to return to the over-stretched demand situation which existed in 1973-74. A return to that situation is contrary to the best interests of the economy as a whole and all persons concerned with home ownership.

Nevertheless, although it may not be possible to maintain commencement of government dwellings at the same level as in 1974-75, the still substantial advances to be provided in 1975-76 will allow the completion by the State housing authorities of a much higher number of welfare dwellings than has been the case for many years and this will be occurring along with the recovery in private housing now in train.

The Bill also authorises the Treasurer (Mr Hayden) to pay to the States in the first 6 months of 1976-77 the sum of $182.3m, which is half the allocation for 1975-76. This amount will be distributed on the same basis as the advances for the current year. In other words, the Treasurerwill be authorised to continue payments to the States for welfare housing in the period from 1 July 1976 until an appropriation measure for 1976-77 is passed by the Parliament.

The advances to be authorised by the States Grants (Housing Assistance) Bill are repayable over a period of 53 years. The rate of interest payable on advances during the full 5-year term of the Agreement is fixed at 4 per cent per annum in respect of advances allocated to the State housing authorities and 4 1/2 per cent per annum in respect of advances allocated to the Home Builders’ Accounts of the States. The apportionment of the allocations between the State housing authority and the Home Builders’ Account will be determined after further consultations between myself and the housing Minister of the State concerned.

The repayable interest-bearing advances will, as circumstances dictate, be made either from the Consolidated Revenue Fund or the Loan Fund and will be on the terms and conditions set out in the 1973-1974 Housing Agreement. Provision is made for any payments out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund for this purpose to be reimbursed in due course from the Loan Fund, when the Treasurer considers this appropriate. I commend the Bill to honourable members.

Debate (on motion by Mr Eric Robinson) adjourned.

page 636

WOOL MARKETING (LOAN) BILL 1975

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

Second Reading

Mr CREAN:
Minister for Overseas Trade · Melbourne Ports · ALP

– I move:

Honourable members will recall that on 27 May my colleague, the Minister for Agriculture (Senator Wriedt), announced that the Australian Government had approved the continuation of the minimum reserve price arrangements for wool during the 1975-76 season. The Australian Wool Corporation has been authorised to continue operating a minimum floor price equivalent to 250c per kilo clean for 21 micron wool at auction. The Government has made it clear that this authority will apply throughout the 1 975-76 wool selling season.

During the 1974-75 season a total of $289m was advanced to the Corporation by the Government to finance the purchase of wool under the reserve price scheme, and to provide for advances to growers. This total was made up of $ 1 3m which had been available in the Australian Wool Corporation Working Capital Trust Fund, and $276m which was advanced from the special appropriation of $350m under the Wool Marketing (Loan) Acts.

During that season, the Corporation bought extremely heavily, especially earlier in the season. During the first 3 months of the selling season the Corporation’s purchases averaged 43 per cent of offerings at auction. As the season progressed the market strengthened considerably, and in the last 3 months of the season the Corporation’s purchases averaged only 10 per cent of offerings. Towards the end of the season there was a net reduction of some thousands of bales of wool in the Corporation’s stockpile. At 30 June the Corporation’s net purchases had averaged 33 per cent of the season’s offerings at auction and its stockpile of wool had reached some 1.6m bales.

The purpose of the present bill is to amend the Wool Marketing (Loan) Acts to increase the amount of the appropriation under that act to $356 million. After account is taken of the $276m advanced to the Corporation last year, the remaining appropriation available for advances to the Corporation in 1975-76 will be $80m. Honourable members will recall that this is the amount which is included in the Budget for advances to the Corporation. The Government also will guarantee new borrowings by the Corporation of $70m from trading banks. Those borrowings will be additional to borrowings under the existing facility of $34m, made available by a consortium of trading banks under Government guarantee.

In addition to this provision of $150m, the Corporation will be able to finance wool purchases and advances to growers, from the cash proceeds of the 5 per cent levy on growers’ returns from sales of wool, estimated to amount to $46.25m in 1975-76. This is in accordance with the arrangements agreed with the Australian Wool Industry Conference and provided for in the Wool Industry Act as honourable members will be aware, advances to the Corporation under the Wool Marketing (Loan) Acts are made to the Corporation by the Treasurer, on terms and conditions determined by him, after the customary consultation with the Minister for Agriculture.

I take the opportunity to refer to reports which appeared in the media, following the presentation in this House of the statements attached to the Budget Speech, to the effect that Government assistance to rural industries would be reduced by some $200m this year. That amount is, of course, roughly the extent of the reduction in advances from the Government to the Wool Corporation, from $289m last year to the provision of $80m this year. Honourable members will appreciate that this is a complete misconception. There is no reduction whatever in the effective support for the Wool Corporation. In both years the Government has pledged its support for the floor price at 250c. We judge the provision of $150m-$80m from the Budget, $70m by way of Government guarantee borrowing from the trading banks- to be adequate for this purpose. However, as the Treasurer made abundantly clear in the Budget Speech, we will as a matter of course keep the position under close review throughout the year. I therefore commend the Bill to honourable members.

Debate (on motion by Mr Eric Robinson) adjourned.

page 637

APPROPRIATION BILL (No. 1) 1975-76

Second Reading (Budget Debate)

Debate resumed.

Mr SULLIVAN:
Riverina

-Before I speak in detail about some aspects of the 1975-76 Budget, I believe it would be advantageous to spend a few minutes speaking about 2 words which have tremendous significance today. They are: Needs and wants. Both have personal and community application. Personal needs are basic and they are those things which we must have for survival. In broad terms, personal needs would be adequate food, adequate shelter and adequate clothing. The key word is ‘adequate ‘, which, in no way, infers lavishness or luxury. Community needs would be adequate health services, adequate means of transport and communication such as roads, railways, and adequate means of verbal and written communication. I include education and sewerage and, in an uncertain changing world, adequate defence. Whilst this list is by no means complete I think I have highlighted the main needs of the individual and of the community.

What about wants? First of all, what are they? I believe they are those things we would like to have- the non-essentials. They may even seem to be desirable but they are not really necessary. Most of us, if we are honest, will admit to having many wants. But- and this is the point- we probably can get by very well without ever having our wants satisfied. On the other hand, it is important that our needs be satisfied because if they are not, we suffer in some way. Family decisions are made daily, weekly, monthly and, in fact, continuously in relation to those 2 words. The breadwinner ‘s pay packet goes to satisfying the family’s needs; or that is what should be done with it and, in most families in Australia, it is done.

At the national level the Government is charged with the very grave responsibility of declaring how and when the needs of individuals and of the community can be assisted with the moneys it collects in the form of taxes. Whether they are direct or indirect taxes is not really of much concern. Consequently, the Government must know the difference between needs and wants. Once it is aware of the difference, it must be able to allocate priorities as to how and when they will be satisfied or dealt with. This is where the Budget fails. It fails because the present Government, made up of men and women who allegedly represent the working man, have been unable to recognise the needs of people as they exist in 1975. In fact this Government has done the unforgivable thing of spending the taxpayers’ money on areas which can only be described as ‘minor wants’. What is more, they are the wants of only a few- the vocal minorities who seem to have the ability to make men who crave to be called ‘responsible’ throw away logic and common sense.

I now turn to 3 sections of the Budget. I refer firstly to health. We notice that there is to be an increase this year in expenditure on health of $ 1,494.1m. Practically all of this goes to Medibank funding. Health is recognised by all as an individual and community need. What has this Government done? Surely some questions are not only reasonable but must be asked. For all of this money, will we get better doctors, better treatment and an improved health scheme? The answer to these questions is an emphatic no. What we will get is a giant costly bureaucracy which will eventually decrease the standard of medical care which we currently enjoy. Let me emphasise that even the Government recognises that the majority of people were adequately covered before Medibank. No one denies that there was a need for better care for a minority group of disadvantaged people. But why spend such enormous sums of money only to bring about an inferior un-needed scheme. Perhaps it is not unfair to quote the words of Lenin who, in 1917, said:

Socialised health is the keystone in the arch of a socialist state.

So much for this Government’s handling of the community’s health needs. Let us look at housing which is an individual need and is perhaps the most important need of all for the family in the present day society. What do we find in the Budget on housing? We find a decrease in expenditure on housing this year of $69. 1 m. When this amount is considered with today’s inflationary trend it is a shocking reduction in expenditure on housing. One could assume that the needs in this particular area have been satisfied and that all people, or most people, have adequate housing. What nonsense. Let me give honourable members an example, one which I hope will ring in the ear of every member of the Government for the rest of their lives. Only 3 weeks ago a woman came into my office with a request. Her request was simple: She wanted a house. This particular woman had 5 children, including 2 teenagers, who at that stage were living in a caravan for four in a person’s backyard. I had to look at that woman and say: ‘I cannot help you’. Only that morning in the Press I had read a statement indicating that this Government, under the Aus.tralian Assistance Plan, had given in that same area $15,000 to paint a hall in which 3 dances each year were to be held. If this displays a sense of priorities for the needs of this country, then I do not know what they really are.

Let us come back to the Budget. Let us examine that section headed ‘Culture and Recreation’. Is there a need for expenditure on culture and recreation in 1975 when this country is facing the worst economic crisis in its history? I say: ‘No. A thousand times, no ‘. I am also saying, as strongly as I can, that expenditure of moneys on cultural activities today is not just unnecessary and not just unwise, it is a display of waste, of gross stupidity and of arrogance of an unbelievable kind.

Mr Katter:

– What about the $100,000 being given to Germaine Greer?

Mr SULLIVAN:

-Who will stand up on the other side of the House and justify the handout of $100,000 to Germaine Greer to make a film on sexual reproduction? I do not see many Government supporters standing. Who on that side of the House will stand and justify the grants given to produce Eskimo Nell? Who on that side of the House will stand and justify the literary grants to people who have not shown any special ability indeed have shown any ability to write? The proposed increase this year in this part of the Budget is $25.8m. Government supporters have asked where cuts can be made in expenditure. Of course they will not stand and justify this expenditure or condemn it because it was their own Leader who introduced this type of expenditure. I repeat his words in an address on the quality of life given in a radio broadcast on Sunday, 3 August. He said:

This constant whingeing about grants .to the arts is one very good example of our opponents’ hatred of anything that really improves the lives and opportunities of ordinary people, especially minority groups within the community. The fact is that the Government has a number of programs designed to make life happier and more enjoyable for people in small and some would say rather unusual ways.

Mr Katter:

– He did not mean art, he meant tart.

Mr SULLIVAN:

-How true. The Prime Minister continued:

We see these as an essential part of the Government’s work.

Note, he said ‘ We see these ‘, not ‘ I see these ‘.

Government isn’t just a matter of providing roads and pensions and education. We want to do what we can to enliven and invigorate people’s lives to make sure that the rewards and satisfaction of the arts and decent opportunities for sport and recreation and holidays are shared by as many people as possible and not just by a fortunate elite.

I wonder whether those words could be displayed beside his portrait in every employment office in this country so that the 300 000 people currently seeking work could read what the Prime Minister had to say about them.

Dr Klugman:

– Would you put them in the Army?

Mr SULLIVAN:

– The honourable member will not make any complaint about this. He will not stand and justify this terrible waste of the taxpayers’ money because bis Leader has simply told him to sit up and shut up. Government supporters all now pursue the politics of survival. Their only chance to stay in office- in a job- is to do exactly as they are told, and they know it.

Dr Klugman:

– Would you put them in the Army?

Mr SULLIVAN:

-I take the point of the honourable member for Prospect and reply that I have seen better men than he is cleaning out toilets. In a weak attempt to reveal a strong and determined approach to coming to grips with excessive government expenditure the Prime Minister decided that his supporters would travel economy class. I say to members opposite that if he had based his decision upon performance he would have made them all walk, in which case fortunately we would have been lucky enough to see most of then miss the way back to Canberra. Has the Prime Minister reduced his excessive personal expenditure- $700,000 for his overseas trips last year? I understand there is the suggestion of another trip at the end of this year. Have the VIP aircraft been downgraded to economy class? Government supporters know the answers. They know that their Leader’s excesses cost them dearly in the Northern Territory House of Assembly elections, that the Labor Party was thrashed in Queensland, got belted for six in Bass and went within an ace of dispatching Dunstan in South Australia. Yet Government supporters continue to sit up and shut up. They have forfeited the right to represent people because they lack the courage- the political guts -to stand in this chamber and tell the truth. How many of them have made honest speeches about unemployment or inflation? Not one. They continue to make an ever-increasing number of puerile excuses about why they are not to blame for anything that has gone wrong since December 1972. Well, the Government has been found out. The hardworking men and women of this country recognise the Government for what it is- incompetent and totally incapable of governing this country any longer. The only ones who continue to support the Government are the pseudo-intellectual halfwits who peddle communism, socialism and anarchy, and some of the bludgers who can cheat it for the handouts it gives. There are also some unfortunate few working people who still have not stopped to think. The opinion polls will spell out this fact for Government supporters if they need any further elaboration.

What has the Government done in this Budget for people who live outside the vast urban centres of Australia- the people who helped make this country great and who still produce more than 50 per cent of the export earnings of Australia? The Government has increased their telephone and postal charges. It has imposed an oil tax which will probably mean an increase of 10c a gallon for petrol. It has increased the price of the working man’s luxuries by imposing an additional tax on beer and cigarettes. Combined with all these harsh indirect taxes the Government, in formulating the Budget, deliberately rejected all the recommendations of the Industries Assistance Commission. It did nothing about income equalisation for the rural industry. I ask honourable members to listen to the words of the Minister who is responsible for and supposed to care for people who work in the once great rural industries. Senator Wriedt said that the most important item not included in the Budget was income equalisation. He said:

I think we could probably do more for the rural section with such a scheme than with any other single measure. But it was unfortunate that the report by the IAC on income equalisation came from the Government at such a difficult time. Because of this the question has been deferred until next year. That is the one thing on which I would like to have seen some action taken in the Budget. But I did not recommend it to the Government because I realised the difficulty that the Treasurer was placed in.

What an indictment of this man. I say to hell with Senator Wriedt and to hell with the Treasurer. People involved in the rural industry deserve a Minister who will stand up and fight for them. This Minister has proven consistently and constantly that he will not do so. The Government has done nothing to reinstate the superphosphate bounty. It has shown no support for disease eradication programs. It deserves the derision of every man, woman and child who lives outside the cities, and it has got it.

In case Government supporters have forgotten, let me remind them of some of the needs of the people who live in the Riverina. There is an urgent need for welfare housing for people who live in Griffith, Leeton, Narrandera, Deniliquin, Hay and West Wyalong as well as in most other towns. The people of Yanco need sewerage. It would cost only $300,000 to satisfy this need, or one-eightieth of the amount the Prime Minister is going to give to the arts in the next 12 months. The people of Deniliquin need filtered water. This would cost only one-tenth of the amount to be given to the arts this year. The people of Booligal need electric power. This would require only one-twentieth of the amount to be given to the arts this year. Only recently the school in Booligal was given some very fine electronic equipment to the value of some thousands of dollars. It is a great pity that they do not have power at the school to enable them to use it. The shires of Carrathool, Hay, Balranald, Wakool, Murray and Jerilderie- names Government supporters have probably never heard of, because they are not interested- need money to build allweather roads so that children, Australia ‘s greatest asset, can get to school in wet weather. This need could be satisfied with 50 per cent of the money going to the arts.

Mr Speaker, I think the message is clear. This Budget fails miserably in tackling inflation and unemployment. It fails in allocating the available moneys to areas of need and in the correct priorities.

Mr Daly:

– The honourable member -

Mr SULLIVAN:

– The tragedy of this Government the Minister who interjected is part of it and he has the biggest mouth in it- goes even further. In Vh years, through economic mismanagement, it has raised the expectations of practically every sector of the Australian community and then, when it has realised the bitter facts of this economic mismanagement, it has attempted to cover up its shocking and culpable neglect with a Budget, the authors of which say is responsible. I endorse the amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition. It would seem to me that the only decent thing for this Government to do is to resign.

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

-With the same sort of surprise as the honourable member for Riverina (Mr Sullivan) initiated in this House, I support the Budget We sat and listened for the best part of 20 minutes to the speech by the honourable member. It is rather indicative of his attitude that having lost the battie he is now going to vacate the field. It is a pity that the fine speech we just heard was not spoilt by the honourable member’s introducing facts into it. The honourable gentleman who has just left was a career soldier. He reached the rank, I understand, of Lieutenant-Colonel. I know, honourable members know and those who are listening to this debate know, what is the role of a soldier. So it is not surprising that the honourable member should object that money should be spend out of the national Budget on such things as culture and recreation. What do soldiers know about culture? What do soldiers know about quality of life? It is the role of a soldier to kill people rather than to make sure that they have a good life. If someone can show me that the role of any soldier in history was to preserve life I would be pleased to hear about it.

The honourable member represents the area of Riverina, a rural electorate which until 1974 was represented by probably one of the finest members who ever stood in this chamber. It is unfortunate that he is not here today because if he were the honourable member who has now left the chamber would not be, and that would be to the advantage of this chamber. The honourable member for Riverina talked about rural industries. He talked about areas of need and priority as does every member on the opposite side when they speak. I suppose budgets are about priorities, are they not? Of course they are. But the difference is that the priorities of the Labor Party and the Government lie in the area of quality of life, in the area of education, in the area of welfare services and in the area of community health. What are the priorities of those who oppose that? If they oppose that obviously their priorities must stand where the financial resources of this country are directed towards big business. I use the word ‘big’ with some degree of strength because the parties opposite could not care less about the small business people in this country. The small businesses in this country which are run by Australians are of no value to the people who sit opposite to us. What they are interested in is supporting the larger companies that are commonly known as multinational corporations. And who owns the multinational corporations? They are owned by people other than Australians. The Leader of the National Country Party (Mr Anthony)- I think that is the Party’s name for the time being -

Mr Daly:

– That is today’s name.

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

-That is today’s name, as the honourable member reminds me. It may have another one tomorrow. What is the attitude of the Leader of the National Country Party? He wants to support the multinational oil producing companies. He wants to drill for oil all over this country. He wants to increase the wellhead price. He will stand up, if he has not already spoken in this debate, and criticise us for putting up the excise on petrol. But left to his own devices he would have put up the price of crude oil which in turn would have flowed right throughout the community and increased the costs much more than the Labor Party can be accused of doing.

All sorts of industries- for example, the insurance industry- are owned by people outside Australia, people in multinational corporations. During the last war, for instance, multinational corporations which built machines of war in America built machines of war in Germany for use against the British and American nations. If those people opposite can find some degree of morality in that it is for them to sort it out with their consciences. As I said earlier, we are talking about priorities when we talk about this Budget. We are talking about where the priorities ought to lie. In my view the Labor Party- the Governmenthas quite properly established its priorities in this area. It has allocated funds and resources available to it to areas that are going to be of benefit to the community. Last Tuesday night those of us who were privileged to be in this House, those of the community who were lucky enough to get into the gallery and those of the general public who were unfortunate enough to have their radios tuned in had to listen to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Malcolm Fraser) bring in what he said was his alternative to the Budget.

Mr Bourchier:

– It was much more progressive.

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

– Well, it probably was more progressive but reading one of tins morning’s newspapers- and I am not one of those to knock the journalists; I think they get their priorities straight- I found that somewhere between the comics and the crossword puzzle was its assessment of what the Leader of the Opposition had to say about Labor’s Budget.

Mr Katter:

– Do you not read the front page?

Mr Hewson:

– He cannot read at all.

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

-If I could not read at all I would be a member of the Country Party. The newspapers got their priorities right and they had featured on their front pages things of far more importance than the rubbish that was poured out in this House last night by the Leader of the Opposition. If those who support the Leader of the Opposition in his attitude care to fornicate around the boots of the multinational companies, care to grovel in the dust of big business, care to do all those things, that is up to their consciences. I find myself free of pressures of this sort. I find myself unpersuaded by the arguments put by them. But still with brutal force of numbers in another place the pressure is applied. I came to this place only in 1969. Those honourable members who were not here then and who have taken the time to read the debates will remember the controversy that still raged in 1969 about the war in Vietnam. Those of us who opposed Australia ‘s involvement to the war in Vietnam were branded traitors in this House. We were called aU sorts of nasty names. But it seems to me that history since has shown that people opposed to Australia’s involvement in Vietnam took a moral, correct and- in the eyes of the community- a justifiable attitude. But because we opposed Australian involvement in Vietnam we were accused of being traitors.

What is the situation in Australia today? Everyone, from the top to the bottom, says that there is an investment strike going on. They say that those in this country who have money to invest are afraid to invest it. We have to ask ourselves why they are afraid to invest it. What comes out of this House on the Opposition side at the rate of about 200 words a minute? The answer is all sorts of premomitions of gloom, all sorts of propositions. I come back to the premise on which I started about companies and businesses. The local business cannot withdraw its capital for too long. It needs to invest it. But the multinationals, of course, can withhold their capital for as long as they like. That is exactly what is going on. They are hopeful for a change of government in Australia. If there is a change of government in Australia again they will be able to come in on their own terms and conditions as they have done in the past and put up all sorts of pretty propositions. I suppose it is unparliamentary to call those who sit opposite twits, so I will have to think of another word. Perhaps those who are not without any leaning towards the future of our great country -

Mr Sullivan:

-Call us twits. We accept that.

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

-If the honourable member does not mind being called a twit, he is a twit. That sort of attitude continues and honourable members opposite denigrate our country. We all are citizens of this country whether we are ashamed of it like those who sit opposite or whether we are proud of it like those of us who sit on this side. The people who keep denigrating our country and saying that certain things are detrimental are, in my view, far more traitorous than those who stood up in 1964, 1965, 1966 and 1969. The people who tell us that there is no future in Australia are far more traitorous, I repeat, than anybody in this country has ever been.

They kowtow to big business. They worry about the amount of the public purse that finds its way into the free enterprise section of the community. What does ‘the free enterprise section’ mean? Honourable members opposite want to cut back on Government spending. Do they not realise that more than half the money that the Government allocates each year goes into the private enterprise sector? Do they not realise that most of the $2,000m allocated for education this year will go into buildings, the construction of schools and the renovating of old buildings. It will go to the State governments. What do the State governments do? They do not build schools. They do not use day labour to build their schools. They set about having a school planned and designed and then they let a tender. Who takes up the tender? Curiously enough it is the private sector that takes up the tender. So for a start if the Opposition cuts back on the spending on education, as it intends to do, it will not only deny the children in my electorate and in many other well represented electorates an education not based on the depth of their parents’ pockets; it will also stop a source of supply into the building industry through Government action.

That is true of almost every vote in the Budget. Most of that money goes into the private sector. So I cannot understand what they are saying when they talk about cutting back on Government spending and putting that money into the private sector. It is already going there. Having cut back on Government spending they contradict their own proposal that more should be spent on private enterprise. What they are really saying is that industries ought to be propped up by subsidy. The honourable member for Riverina has said that more money ought to be paid to the rural industries to keep them viable. Let us look at the rural industries. Apart from the beef industry, I suppose that there is not a rural industry that is in a bad position. Wool growers have a stabilisation scheme; they are all guaranteed a price. Wheat growers are guaranteed a price, as are dried vine fruit growers and soft fruit growers. As I said, apart from the beef industry, the rural industries are guaranteed an income- something that they did not have until this Government came to office. ‘ It was a Labor government that introduced the wheat stabilisation scheme. It was a Labor government- not the Liberals or the National Country Party- that introduced the Australian Wool Corporation. The Liberal and Country parties left the people whom they purport to represent stewing in their own juice. We will not listen day in and day out to what is happening in the rural industries. The Opposition may be able to organise very effectively in that area but they organise on the basis of untruths. The truth is known. If one speaks honestly to a farmer- I speak to many of them- he will say that farmers have never been as well off as they are under the Labor Government.

Opposition members interjecting.

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

– The derision that statement that arises from the other side of the House is indicative of the mentality of those who sit opposite. Let us turn to the alternatives. Everybody seems to be mesmerised by the deficit. Everybody is talking about the deficit which is roughly $2,400m.

Mr Bourchier:

– Try again.

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

-I do not think that there is much value in taking it to the nearest cent but if the honourable member wants me to do that I will have a private meeting with him later on. Everybody is mesmerised by the deficit. What is new about deficit budgeting? What is strange about it? There would be hardly a household in Australia whose domestic economy is not in deficit. What is the difference between a household managing its affairs and a country managing its affairs? It is only a difference of degree. Last night the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Malcolm Fraser) put forward all sorts of proposals. I think that the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) analysed them very well today. I do not ask honourable members to accept my word for what I am about to reveal; these happen to be Treasury figures. If anybody thinks that the Treasury does not know its business he does not know the Treasury. The following additional expenditure would be incurred by this country if the alternative Budget were adopted: The personal income tax reduction would cost another $500m; the introduction of a 40 per cent investment allowance, $300m; the suspension of the beef export levy, $20m; the reintroduction of the superphosphate bounty, $30m; it would cost $900m to implement the indexation proposal contained in the Mathews report; the elimination of indirect taxes would cost $600m; and the elimination of the coal export levy $120m. They are all things that the Leader of the Opposition said he would do. He went a step further and announced what savings he would make. He proposed zero Public Service growth, whatever that fine expression means.

Mr Innes:

– That is negative growth.

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

-Of course, it is negative growth, as my colleague from Melbourne reminds me, but the Opposition pretties it up by calling it zero Public Service growth. I suppose that there is a vote or two in that. What is involved there is $75m. The following savings will be effected: Disposal of the pipeline proposals, $200m; the withdrawal of funds from the Australian Industry Development Corporation, $75m; reduction in new housing lending, $20m; cut in the Treasurer’s Advance- he is guilty so they Will cut off his pocket money- $75m; abandonment of uranium exploration- I do not know who is going to explore for uranium but the Leader of the Opposition said that he would abandon it- a saving of $4m; suspension of growth centres- every thinking person in this country would agree with the establishment of growth centres- a maximum of $10Om; sale of the Pharmaceutical Corporation- a very profitable enterprise- $8. 7m; National Capital Development Commission wind-back, nil; abolition of the Australian Government Insurance Corporation, $1.8m; abolition of the Overseas Trading Corporation, nil; and elimination of the 2.5 per cent cut in company tax, $120m. If the Budget of the Leader of the Opposition were introduced the total extra cost would be $2,470m and the great savings would amount to $679.5m. The Opposition’s deficit result above the Government’s strategy would amount to $ 1,790.5m but the total deficit in the Opposition’s budget would be $4,590.5. Opposition members talk a lot about the deficit. They are worried about it. They say that it should not occur. Yet the deficit in their alternative budget brought into this House last night by the Leader of the Opposition would be $4,5 90m. If somebody in this House can explain to me- I would be eager to know- how he can justify that, I would be delighted to sit here and listen to him, even though I may be bored to the back teeth by the content of his speech, because there is no rationale in it and there is no sense in it. I think it is probably very indicative of the muddled thinking of the Opposition.

Mr RUDDOCK:
Parramatta

-I regard my participation in this debate tonight as a duty and not a pleasure. I listened to the speech of the honourable member for Burke (Mr Keith Johnson) and the comments he made about various matters, but I think in the context of that speech many of those matters are not really deserving of my singling them out for reply. I make this point clear: It seems to me that the honourable member looks at the Budget only in .terms of priorities. If he thinks that is the basis upon which to look at a Budget, then I am very sorry for the contribution that he and honourable members opposite are making, because I regard it now as a matter of survival, and the survival of many people is vitally concerned with and related to this Budget.

The comment that the honourable member made on education, endeavouring to indicate that in the speech of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Malcolm Fraser) there was some cutback proposed by the Opposition in education expenditure, was in my view quite malicious. I would suggest that the only people who made any cutback in expenditure- which it would not be necessary for us to follow- was the Government itself. It has abandoned the reports which it had before it. It has not proceeded with the introduction of the recommendations in them, but has postponed them for a period of 12 months. One thing I did enjoy listening to was the honourable member’s analogy of the Government’s Budget and the individual’s own Budget, because it is readily understood by most people, including me. I often relate government expenditure proposals and income proposals to my own personal budget, because I know what it is to live beyond one ‘s means. I get pretty close to it occasionally. This Government demonstrates in absolute terms what living beyond one’s means is, and that is what we have seen from it. His reference to big business shows how steeped in prejudice he is when he believes that that is the sort of criterion by which people’s jobs ought to be judged.

In the thrust and parry of this debate we can aften lose our perspective. I hope that honourable members will not, because I believe that there are many people in Australia today who are relying upon us to come up with the answers. But what is the crisis that faces Australia? I spent the recess in my electorate visiting factories, speaking to employees, speaking to the shop stewards, finding out what was going on. The industries in my electorate, some of them large, some of them small- the Small Business Association was established within my electoratebelieve it is now a matter of making profits but simply a matter of survival. That is the way in which they see it.

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

– What about the workers?

Mr RUDDOCK:

– The workers’ jobs are dependant upon the survival of industries, unless your prejudice demands, of course, that the Government controls everything. Small businesses employ of the order of 40 per cent of the work force. In New South Wales Mr Lewis the Premier indicated that this year of the order of 878 companies had been wound up in the 7 months over which figures were taken. In 1972 894 companies were wound up. In 1973 the figure was 1058, and in 1974 it was 1155 companies. It will not be long before those figures are well surpassed. But why are companies, large or small, in jeopardy? It comes back to inflation. Inflation is the major factor. It is recognised here and it is recognised abroad.

I imagine that the colleagues of the honourable members opposite would have read the speech of the English Prime Minister which was circulated to all honourable members by the British High Commission. He dealt with a number of matters. He dealt with the employment outlook and he gave reasons why the employment outlook was bleak in Great Britain. He said:

Industry’s failure over the past 20 years to invest in industry, new plant, machinery, factory buildings, industrial modernisation- under successive Governments. All of us, Government and industry included, share the responsibility.

But the third, the increasingly dominant factor, is the effect of inflation on industry’s ability to provide jobs- jobs for those established in industry, jobs for school leavers. While last year it was world factors as well as our own performance here in Britain that created the main trend- this year it has been almost entirely internal prices and costs, including pay, which have aggravated inflation, hit industry and hit the housewife.

He went on to deal with Britain’s price controls and said: . . . but there is a limit to what can be safely done by price control. Price control which cuts manufacturers’ and traders’ profits to the bone can drive them into bankruptcy and cause further losses of jobs.

That is an honest appraisal. I only wish we had seen that sort of appraisal in the speech we heard in this House which purports to be the Budget of the Government. In the speech we heard, these sorts of problems were ignored. We know that inflation is the dominant factor. Wage costs have their effect. The cost of raw materials has its effect. Reduced sales lead to reduced business performance and ultimately to reduced employment. The Liberal and National Country Parties have offered in their alternative statement a number of policies which are important to the survival of business. They include a form of indexation not only of wages and salaries but also of values of stocks. It is impossible to earn a genuine profit when stock valuations exceed the profit that you make and particular items that you sell have to be purchased again to be resold at a higher price than the original stock value plus the profit that had previously and properly been taken. That is the real problem that industry has. It has been required to pay tax on artificial profits. The Mathews Committee recognised this.

I want to deal with one crisis that I believe is now evident. It is the crises of the western suburbs of Sydney. It is not related to urban and regional development and other associated issues. It is related to employment. It is related to the employment of women in part. It is related to the prospective employment of young schools leavers. We have seen a remarkable increase in the number of unemployed women in the electorate of Parramatta and the surrounding areas, but for school leavers the problem is even more immense. I despair at the thought of what might happen if we have a large number of school leavers who do not get jobs in the New Year, who do not have a work experience, who do not believe that it is desirable for them to work, who believe that they should live off some form of subsidy that the Government offers. This lack of work experience would be most dangerous. It would lead to a cult of young people without work experience with whom we would have to live for almost another generation. I believe that we have a responsibility to provide an environment in which jobs for young people are available.

The Treasurer (Mr Hayden) indicated in his Budget Speech, as I have in mine, that inflation is important. He said:

This Budget is presented at a time of high inflation and, by Australian standards, high unemployment.

He went on, unkindly I think, to try to say that because the United States of America had unemployment rates peaking at 9.2 per cent its performance was far worse than ours. However, when it is recognised that the United States performance for the year 1960 was 6.7 per cent unemployed, for 1965 it was 5 per cent unemployed, for 1967 it was 4.2 per cent unemployed and so on until 1971 when it was 6.4 per cent unemployed and April 1972 when it was 5.8 per cent unemployed, it can be seen that the United

States on average had not even doubled its unemployment in 1974. Comparative figures in Australia indicate that we are nearing 4.5 per cent of our work force unemployed whereas in previous years we averaged something of the order of 1.5 per cent unemployed. In other words, we had three times as much unemployment as did the United States which has nearly doubled its unemployment rate. So the suggested comparison with the United States, I believe, was quite invalid. Recognising that, the Treasurer went on to say:

Meanwhile, unless appropriate economic measures are adopted now, the hopeful signs in the economy could prove illusory, and inflation could take off again from its already high level, to a thoroughly destructive effect. The private sector would find it increasingly difficult to function, with increasing business failures, and unemployment could rise to dramatically higher levels.

I cite that because I believe that is what we come down to. A recognition of these factors is evident in the Treasurer’s speech. The actions and the decisions that have been taken do not give effect to this. The opening paragraph of the speech of the Leader of the Opposition, I believe, is much more responsible by comparison. He said:

The current crisis in Australia is however much more severe than the Government or the Treasurer admits. It is a crisis evidenced by the highest prolonged inflation in Australia’s history and by the highest unemployment since the great depression of the 1930s. It is a crisis which eats away at the security of every Australian, at our confidence and at our way of life.

The speech of the Leader of the Opposition held out the sort of hopes that people in Australia have in terms of the decisions that ought to be taken by government that might avoid this crisis. The Budget merely holds the line in terms of inflation and in terms of unemployment experienced. The positive suggestions in the Opposition program, which include the adoption of recommendations in the Mathews Committee report, a report not commissioned by the Opposition but by the Government, are most desirable with a 40 per cent investment allowance and stock valuation adjustment proposals up to 50 per cent in the first year. These proposals are certainly those to which people in industry and the people whose jobs depend on industry look.

What are the other fundamentals of the Opposition ‘s approach? Our approach reduces genuinely extravagant expenditure. It includes proposals for a zero growth rate in the Public Service, the discontinuance of the Australian Legal Aid Office and that organisation -

Mr Bryant:

– Are you not in favour of that?

Mr RUDDOCK:

-No, I am not in favour of it as it is proposed by the Government for it is a proposal which will bring about first and second class legal aid in the community. Why cannot the Government embark on a program of legal aid which will give genuine equality to those in need? Instead the Government is going to help only public servants, migrants and other people in limited categories because it is so suspicious about co-operating with the States. It will provide first and second class legal aid and if a person does not happen to come into one of those categories he will not qualify. I am not in favour of this sort of nonsense. How could I support that? Then there is the Australia Police and the Prices Justification Tribunal which has brought business to the brink of ruin and unemployment with it. As well there is the Department of the Media which merely tries to excuse the Government’s defaults. That is what that department is all about. These are the fundamental factors. As I walked around factories in Parramatta one thing which the shop stewards were telling me was that they wanted indexation of taxation. How could I honestly not come into this place and support that with the utmost vigour?

Dr Klugman:

– We have basically brought it in.

Mr RUDDOCK:

-You have not. The point I want to make about tax indexation is that we will never have responsible government expenditure while governments are not responsible for raising the money they spend, and in this regard governments in this country for a long time have not been responsible. We were more responsible because we had limited inflation but this Government with inflation at its present rate is quite irresponsible.

Dr Klugman:

– Like the State governments?

Mr RUDDOCK:

-State governments, I agree. And what they want and what they will receive from us is a method whereby they can be seen to be responsible for raising their own tax revenue. These are the sorts of proposals that Australians have been waiting for. Responsible government will result from them. We need a sound basis from which wage and salary restraint, which is an essential part of controlling inflation, can spring and that restraint will spring from the proposals that have been put forward for tax indexation.

I wanted to deal with a number of other matters because it was suggested that priorities were important. I suggest to the Government that it look at some of the articles that have been published dealing with its own social welfare program and the comments of people like Professor Downing on its proposals for compensation schemes and expenditure on a national superannuation scheme and on whether we can justify that sort of expenditure when there are other people in the community with real needs. This is the same question as I raised before with respect to the first and second class legal aid that the Government is prepared to offer, and is the same as the argument I would raise in relation to students on tertiary allowances who find that there has been no increase in the money available to them although substantial amounts of money are made available for the comfortable buildings in which they might have to sit. Why does not somebody ask them whether they would prefer to have a reasonable living allowance instead of a comfortable seat on which to sit? They might be prepared to make the same sort of decision that honourable members have made. The legal aid office will accentuate the development of a first and second class poor. People are genuinely in favour of a system of legal aid which meets real needs, but we are not receiving that sort of aid from the service we have.

It has to be acknowledged that this is a give and take Budget. Just look at the take- postal charges, telephone charges and the effective abolition of Christmas messages; the excise on beer, spirits and cigarettes; the excise on petroleum which will increase the cost of running motor vehicles and the cost of getting goods from place to place after they are manufactured. Ian Sykes of XL Petroleum Pty Ltd I believe suggested the form of tax that we have and suggested it in a very limited context. He suggested that it would be the sort of tax which would desirably raise money to enable us to search for oil and so maintain our competitive position in world markets. He did not suggest that it ought to be an additional method of ripping off money without any effective result in the long term for the community as a whole. The Australian people recognise the sorts of proposals that have been put forward by the Opposition. They recognise that there must be a cut back in expenditure. They recognise that a choice must be made, as an individual has to make a choice about whether he buys a colour television set this year or next year instead of a new car, a new frock for his wife or all the other things he might like.

A public opinion poll was published in the Bulletin which honourable members opposite might care to peruse. It indicates the priorities people have about these items of expenditure. Something like 33 per cent of those polled thought we ought to cut back in the cultural and arts areas while 26 per cent thought that we should cut back on new city proposals. However, the unemployment situation is where the real disaster exists and I want to cite certain figures because they were alarming to me. At the Parramatta office of the Commonwealth Employment Service in July 1974, 50 adult females and 58 junior females, a total of 108 female persons, were registered as unemployed. In July 1975 there were 329 adult females and 487 junior females registered as unemployed, a total of $816.

Mr Howard:

– A 600 per cent increase.

Mr RUDDOCK:

-Something of that order.

Mr Daly:

– The honourable member will be with them after the next election.

Mr RUDDOCK:

-I think the Minister is optimistic. A factory located in Rydalmere at which I inquired had this sort of record: In July 1974 it employed 100 women and in July 1975 it employed 88 women. Another factory at Ermington -

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

Mr FitzPATRICK (Darling) (9.20)-I approached this Budget debate in a spirit different from that of the honourable member for Parramatta (Mr Ruddock). He has informed the House that he considers it a duty and not a pleasure to join in this Budget debate. I inform the House that to me it is a duty, a pleasure and an honour to represent the people of the Darling electorate in this Budget debate in our national Parliament. I was very surprised to hear the comparison made by the honourable member between the unemployment levels in the United States and those in Australia. As a matter of fact, every American or Canadian that I have met has informed me that he would be more than pleased and that he would consider that this country had no unemployment problem if the percentage of unemployed could be brought down to the level that we have in Australia.

It is indeed very interesting to listen to the arguments put forward by those on the other side of the House in relation to the Budget we have before us. The honourable member for Riverina (Mr Sullivan) was very concerned about the grants being made to the arts. I must admit that such grants would not make me overenthusiastic, but I was very surprised to hear the honourable member claim that in his electorate he needs filtered water and electrification. Surely he must know that the provision of both of those things is the responsibility of the LiberalCountry Party Government in the State of New South Wales. For some strange reason he has claimed that their provision is the responsibility of the Federal Government. He ought to hang his head in shame. If 23 years of Liberal-Country Party government could not provide those things in a developed country like Australia, I think that the honourable member has reason for concern.

When he introduced this Budget the Treasurer (Mr Hayden) informed the House that he had to present the Budget in a climate of international economic recession. The Opposition refuses to recognise that the international economic climate has anything to do with our economic problems. We have heard it claimed that inflation in Australia has been caused by excessive spending by the Government. Ever since the Labor Government came to power we have heard the old cries about wage push inflation and industrial turmoil. As a matter of fact before the ink was dry on the first piece of legislation that we passed through this House that was the cry of the Opposition. Up until a month ago the Opposition pointed to the situation in New Zealand as an example that we could follow. The Opposition said: ‘How is it that the international economic recession has not affected New Zealand?’ One thing that has been very outstanding in this Budget debate is the fact that the Opposition has kept as far away as it can from any mention of New Zealand, because it knows that New Zealand is seriously affected by the international economic recession. It would be silly to say that it is not, and it would be just as ridiculous to say that any small country can isolate itself from a world economic recession.

The honourable member referred to a publication of the British Information Service. He failed to refer to all of it. As a matter of fact, I notice that one article in that publication stated that the British Foreign Minister was very strong in his comments about the world recession. He made the statement that the world had been knocked off its axis by a universal recession and that the battle against inflation could not be won in one year.

In spite of this recession, in spite of the obstruction of the Senate, in spite of the delays and distortions in this House, in spite of the opposition that has been generated by the Opposition parties outside this Parliament, the Australian Government has stood firm and has brought down a Budget that will bring justice and assistance to all sections of the Australian community. Of course, we had to slow down our rate of spending in many areas. Regardless of that, we have avoided a harsh contraction of government spending. We have good reason for doing that. We believe that to do that would be cruelly unfair for the hardest hit of all by inflationthose least able to help themselves, the lower paid, the large families, the pensioners, the long-term sick and the disabled. In the opinion of the Labor Party it would be cruelly unfair for those people to have to pay a further penalty to solve our economic problems.

The Labor Party has always recognised its duty to these people. We have always set out to protect them. We are protecting them to the best of our ability in this Budget, and we will continue to do so. I make no apology for that. We are protecting them by means of sweeping reforms in the personal pay-as-you-earn tax system, by substantial pension increases, our free health scheme under Medibank, and improved education programs. For example, a taxpayer with a dependent spouse and 2 dependent children and earning $160 a week will be $7 a week better off under the Budget proposals. A taxpayer with a dependent spouse and 2 dependent children and earning $200 a week will be $10 a week better off. The Government has introduced a system of tax rebates instead of tax concessions. The tax rebate for a spouse will be $400; for the first child it will be $200 and for every other child $150. The standard rate pension will be increased by $2.75 a week and the married rate by $4.50 a week. This means that pensions will have increased by 80 per cent since 1 972. During the same period the consumer price index has increased by only 41 per cent. Surely everyone must admit that that is an achievement in a period of world economic recession.

There can be no doubt that in the electorate some things are regarded as being unpopular. In spite of what we have done to assist those least able to assist themselves, we have still recognised the fact that on the economic front inflation is the most menacing enemy that this country has to face. Some people will say that we should have allowed for a larger deficit rather than increase the tax on beer and cigarettes, but a larger deficit would have been tantamount to abandoning our concern with inflation. It would have been a prescription for further inflation, bringing about a collapse of industry and the loss of job opportunities for many Australians.

Despite this period of universal recession spoken about by the British Prime Minister in the magazine to which the honourable member for Parramatta referred, this Government has increased its total outlay in education by $237m. Expenditure on education has now reached the gigantic amount of $ 1,908m. This provides a clear indication to young Australians that this Government has a concern for their welfare and that it will not put a mortgage on their future opportunities just to solve our present economic problems. During the first full year in which this Government was in office it doubled the expenditure on education. In the next year that expenditure was almost doubled again. It was quadrupled in just under 2 years. This would not have been the case if the Opposition were still in office or if it were returned to office. How could any young Australian expect it to be the case after 23 years of neglect? Organised protest by a few young Liberal Party students Will fool no-one because members of this Government have telegrams coming into their offices from all sections of the community congratulating them on maintaining a very high level of expenditure on education. The Government has increased expenditure on schools, teacher training colleges and the expansion of technical and further education. We have accepted further responsibility in tertiary education. We have introduced a new students assistance scheme. We have increased academic salaries. All these things give the lie to the often repeated rumour spread by members of the Opposition that this Government could not or would not maintain its high level of spending on education.

It must be admitted that governments alone cannot solve all the problems of a nation. If we do not wish to finish up in the same state of economic and social collapse as other countries then we must seek the co-operation of all sections of the community. Where does the Opposition stand on this very vital requirement? I believe that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Malcolm Fraser) never left us very long in doubt about where the Opposition stood. He claimed that half the deficit was caused by the $ 1,444m appropriated for Medibank but failed to mention that $ 1,000m of this was to cover the cost of the old health scheme. Here we have the same old distortion, the same old disregard for the truth, and the same old obstruction. It is a case of pontics before the welfare of the nation. This has been the distinguishing mark of the Opposition parties since they became the Opposition.

We hear much about wage-push inflation and the unreasonable demands of trade unions, but world authorities have a different opinion about what causes inflation. Professor Harry Johnson, Professor of Economics at both the London School of Economics and the University of Chicago, has stated that inflation started in the

United States of America in the late 1960s because of the crippling cost of the Vietnam war which was financed by inflation and not by taxation. Because of the United States ‘ predominant position in the world’s economy, this inflation was transported to the rest of the world. I believe that it can be said that most of the huge expense that this Government is facing at the present time can be traced back to Australia ‘s involvement in the Vietnam war. If this was not so, why did not the Liberal-Country Party Government provide finance for the education of young Australians? Why were schools and universities allowed to become rundown? Why were State transport systems neglected? If it was not for our commitment in the Vietnam war, why do not members of the Opposition parties tell us they could not provide this finance? Thinking Aus.tralians did not have to wait for this Budget because the Opposition’s record was there for aU to see. If it was returned to office it would repeat what it has done before. Even now, Opposition members are crying out for more and more money for defence and at the same time are telling us that we should spend less and less on every other section of the Australian community. According to them $400m spent on health brings about an economic problem. They say that it causes inflation but minions of dollars spent on the Vietnam war does not create any problems.

We appeal to the trade union movement. Of course, we hope it will assist us out of this economic situation. But we do not blame it for everything that has happened. We seek its cooperation. We claim that industrial costs must be kept down- aU forms of income. We point out to unions that if they use too much industrial muscle to get pay increases to enable their members to escape the rigours of inflation, this will be done at the expense of those weaker than their members, those young people whom the Aus.tralian Government sets out to protect. In the long term the workers also will pay dearly themselves because they and their families will have to face the backlash of inflation that their own wage demands cause.

The Liberal and National County parties cry crocodile tears for the unemployed of this country. But what happened when I made an appeal to the previous Government to assist at the Broken Hill South mine when 700 employees were about to be retrenched? The Minister Assisting the Minister for Labour and Immigration at the time went to Broken Hill and walked around like an undertaker. He was very sad. But he came back to Canberra and forgot aU about us. As a result 700 people were retrenched from the South Mine. That mine stayed closed for 6 months until the workers themselves were able to encourage another company to open it up. That same company made $lm profit in the first quarter of its operations. That shows how concerned the Liberal and National Country parties are about the unemployed of this country. Its attitude to the Petroleum and Minerals Authority Bill should leave no doubt in anyone’s mind about their concern for Australian industry.

The members of the National Country Party have a lot to say about education. Because of the serious economic situation in the back country there were many school-age children in my electorate who never had a schoolbag when I first came into this Parliament. It was not until this Government introduced the isolated children’s grant that some of those children were able to receive a better education. The States Grants (Rural Reconstruction) Act was passed just before the Opposition parties were tossed out. This legislation gives some indication of their concern for the people who have to leave the land. Part 4 of this Act, which deals with rehabilitation, contains this passage:

To provide limited assistance to those obliged to leave the industry where in the opinion of the Authority administering the scheme it is necessary to alleviate the conditions of personal hardship.

The Act states that in such circumstances a loan of $1,000 may be granted.

Mr Cope:

– How big is your electorate?

Mr FitzPATRICK:

– I have never known. It is very big. I have never heard of anyone receiving that $1,000 but there were plenty of people who had to walk off the land. If honourable members want further evidence of the concern shown by the Liberal Party I refer them to the rural reconstruction employment training scheme which was presented to the House by the honourable member for Flinders (Mr Lynch) in September 1971. The retraining scheme was offered to farmers who had to leave the land. They were paid $46.20 a week. If their wife had a job the amount she earned was taken off that $46.20. What a great concern these people have for the man on the land! Now honourable members opposite are telling us that we should give people on the land social service benefits. I congratulate the Cabinet, the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) and the Treasurer for the Budget which has been presented to the Parliament.

Mr Kevin Cairns:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

-The honourable member for Darling (Mr FitzPatrick) would know that there are those on this side of the House who appreciate- I am certainly one of them- the great initiative which was shown by some people in Broken Hill when the South Broken Hill mine was closed or proposed to be closed. The honourable member for Darling can take great credit, as can some of his colleagues, for what happened subsequently in Broken Hill as a result of their efforts. From my family background and from my acquaintance with the honourable member I know what a great piece of work was done on that occasion.

I turn my mind to the Budget and to its circumstances. I go back 18 years and refer to one of the Government’s great supporters. He was not always known to be a supporter of the Government then. I turn to the words of Dr Coombs who was speaking at the Congress of the Australian and New Zealand Association for the Advancement of Science in Perth in 1958. In opening the economic section of that Conference he spoke about economic happiness. He posed a very prescient question. He asked whether it would not be better for those seeking higher money incomes to seek them from the redistributive effects of the taxation and expenditure powers of the Government rather than primarily through higher money wages where the benefits can apparently so easily be taken from them. That was spoken more than a decade and a half ago. There are a number of principles in that statement which deserve to be remembered. At the time Dr Coombs was Governor of the central bank, not the Reserve Bank of Australia. He was expressing the view that economic happiness in Australia consisted of independent households, substantially in charge of their own affairs, with the people in those households able to obtain employment. He also spoke about the way in which they could manage those affairs having obtained that employment. He mentioned 3 factors, namely, the redistributive effects of what government is about, the effect of wages and the right of people to spend those wages. Those principles of what economic happiness is about ought to guide any government in the management of the economic affairs of the country and when it determines what the Budget is about.

I merely mention 2 factors in respect of this matter so that one can make a judgment not so much in terms of the Budget but in terms of the context in which the Budget is introduced. It is a piece of nonsense to take a Budget, look at it in isolation, judge its taxation system in isolation, look at its redistributive effects in isolation and to say that that is one’s judgment upon the economic performance of the country. Nobody in his right mind would do that. I make only 2 comments in this context which are important. They relate to employment. At the end of July we had the highest recorded unemployment for many decades. That has to be acknowledged. Sadly, in that unemployment, we see that over a quarter of a million people are out of work. In that figure there is the highest proportion of juniors out of work that we have had for many years. As at the end of July, they are still seeking jobs. That is the first context in which we look at the requirements of economic happiness. The second matter is: Where can productive employment be found and obtained? If we consult the figures on employment for wage and salary earners which were released a day or two ago we see that they immediately give the compass direction in which any government should try to steer the economy. The only private enterprise sector of the Australian economy which over the past year increased even modestly its capacity to provide employment- I think this is a reflection on the Government- was the area of amusements, hotels and personal services.

Dr Klugman:

– What about colour television?

Mr Kevin Cairns:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

-There we are. The honourable member would spend many nights in front of colour television. Every other sector has declined significantly and drastically. Manufacturing, both light and heavy, transportation, commerce and every other private sector has gone backwards. The only ones which have proceeded even a little way ahead are amusements, hotels and personal services. This is the context in which this Budget has to be considered. It is the context which drives people to say immediately that what is required in the economy is a resuscitation of private enterprise. It is only with the resuscitation of private enterprise that we will find full employment so that those in Australian households can be substantially in charge of their own affairs.

However, if we get to a state where we are in a position of permanent dependence on public authorities, those public authorities will ultimately determine the pattern of our social behaviour. That, philosophically, is the most distressing aspect of what is happening in Australia today. I shall give one or two illustrations. I hesitate to burden the House with figures. I usually do not burden the House with figures. The figures I give can be determined from the national accounts found with the Budget. In 1970-71 for every earned household $1, 28.6c was surrendered to Australian governments, all public authorities, but principally this Government. In 1974-75 34.5c out of each $1 earned which came into Australian households was surrendered in the same way. From the estimates in this Budget, for 1975-76, over 35c of every $1

Will be surrendered to government. Government is increasingly intruding into the affairs of Australian households. To the extent that it increasingly intrudes into Australian households it will derogate from the independence of those households. This is not the way to obtain full employment for a work force able to determine where it wants to work. I believe that this is the crucial social factor involved in Australian economics today. In fact, what we have in many circumstances in Australian households is, to turn Galbraith around, public wealth and private squalor. I have merely put to the House one of the examples.

With respect to money spent on education, some magnificent institutions, both public and private, have been built. How much of that money has enabled children to have a better educative background in their own households? How much of it has enabled parents to keep their children at school longer than they would otherwise be without the pressures of unemployment? It is these transfers which philosophically lie at the heart of the difference between the Government’s approach and the approach taken by those on this side of the House to the Australian economy. Having said that I must turn, frankly, to the principal ingredient in the Budget document which was brought down by the Treasurer, the honourable member for Oxley (Mr Hayden). I hesitate to say that I would look at the Budget documents from the requirements of the Oxley electorate. That is far too narrow. But in terms of the taxation system and in terms of the rebate system which the Treasurer has substantially introduced, together with the deduction system, he deserves to be given some marks. The rebate system, I believe is a much less distortive system than a deduction system on its own. This side of the House does not propose to abolish the rebate system.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

-Oh, is that right?

Mr Kevin Cairns:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

-Of course it is right. That has not been proposed. The Minister would be well aware that this side of the House intends to see that people are put into jobs and that jobs are available for people. The fact of the rebate system has to be acknowledged. But in no way does that system reduce the requirement for the proposition put forward by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Malcolm Fraser) for tax indexation in Australia. That remains the crucial economic argument that has to be faced by this country because I believe that without it we will not obtain strong, productive private enterprise once again.

I always thought that the Asprey Committee, in its comments upon the taxation system, was rather mesmerised by the complaints which obviously had been made to it that the marginal tax system we had previously, with the multitude of steps, was a system which ought to be abolished and that the steps themselves ought to be abolished. The Asprey solution was not to abolish the steps but to abolish the inflation which caused people to be concerned when they moved into new taxation brackets which did not result from an improvement in real standards of living. So whichever way one looks at the taxation system, the rebate system is there. It has certain virtues which ought to be retained. I am sure that this will be retained. But they must be retained within an economy which is developing and which is able to provide employment for people running their own affairs in their own households. That is the difference between a socialist economy and an economy which has some sense of social justice.

There is a great redistributive effect in the proposed taxation system. One of the beneficiaries will be families with one income earner. These will benefit, and that has to be acknowledged. There are those who will suffer because the real burden of taxation will undoubtedly increase. Figures given here earlier today and calculations made by the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Wentworth) indicate quite clearly that the real burden of taxation will increase but within a declining situation, within an economy which had substantially fewer people in work at the end of the last financial year than it had at the beginning of the financial year, the position of households will improve. The fault is that that will occur and will continue to occur within a declining economy. That economy will not be resuscitated unless private enterprise is the means of resuscitating it.

I wish to make one or two comments concerning criticisms of the propositions put forward by the Leader of the Opposition. For the first time in a debate in this place a Leader of the Opposition has faced the economic problems squarely. On every other occasion- in the many years when I was in government I often responded immediately to a speech by the then Leader of the Opposition- the whole basis of his argument was to avoid the crucial issue. It was on that basis that the then Leader of the Opposition got himself concerned in urban affairs. He would not face the economic issues in 1968 and 1969, and so he became concerned with urban affairs to the detriment of many people in urban Australia. Never before has a Leader of the Opposition said what should be done and set out a workable, viable program.

It is a piece of arrant nonsense to say that because the alternative Budget constructed by the Leader of the Opposition would have a similar deficit but at a lower total level of expenditure, people therefore would be out of work. That has been the argument of the Government. That is the silliest argument that one has heard. What is happening in Australia today is simply that there is between $2,000m and $3,000m-probably more- of productive capacity not being used because the economy is not being organised correctly. That is a great amount. In making that calculation one must realise that within that amount there is either $l,100m or $l,700m of wages, salaries and supplements not able to be paid within the economy which is working so far below capacity, and there are tens of thousands of people not working because the economy is $2,000m to $3,000m below capacity.

The prime and overriding requirement in an economy of that nature is not to put forward facetious and meaningless arguments about the financing of a Budget deficit or the size of the Government sector within which the Budget deficit occurs, but to see that private enterprise works so that that gap can be made up. If the gap is made up, we will have that definition of economic happiness to which I referred in the first few moments of my speech this evening. That is the crucial factor. I shall give one illustration. There are $ 100m or more of postal charges which have been imposed upon the Australian community.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– But your mate Jim Kennedy did that.

Mr Kevin Cairns:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

– He is your mate. I think he stood for the Australian Labor Party a few years ago and he was beaten then too. The increased charges amounting to S 100m would be unnecessary if the Government did not have to pay for three to three and a half months the extra dole payments for those out of work’ at the end of June this year, who were not out of work at the worst period of unemployment in 1972. That is an over-simplified example but it is a very clear example and a very appropriate example to bear in mind when one sees what is not happening within the economy and when one looks to see where the shortfall is occurring. There is an old proverb which says that the horse that really draws the cart is ill-treated. In Australia the horse that is ill-treated has been not only the institutions of private enterprise or the institutions of public corporations but also the Australian working man who has not been able to find work.

The real transfers within the Australian economy have occurred not so much from private or public corporations to government but from private households to government. They are the 2 ultimate points in an economy that have to be considered. The others are institutions many of which are artificial. But government remains, and one would hope that households remain. Households have been milked in order to feed government, and they have been milked to the detriment of the people trying to determine their own lives. I merely leave this one thought with the Parliament; if the aim is full employment and independent households, full employment has been pursued in some countries but the households have not been independent. This can be found in every socialist or communist country. On the other hand, we have been able to have a situation where there has not been full employment but the households have not been impeded or controlled by government. That was the case 30, 40 or 50 years ago even in western democracies. The aim of any Government in Australia ought to be to combine the two and to recollect the advice which was given in 1958 by a friend of the Government. It is advice which I would have hoped the Government, in a period of 17 years, might have been able to understand and perhaps accomplish.

Dr KLUGMAN:
Prospect

-Before presenting my own argument on the Budget, I should like to deal with a couple of points raised by the honourable member for Lilley (Mr Kevin Cairns) who has just resumed his seat. The honourable member for Lilley was kind enough, generous enough and honest enough to acknowledge the benefits of the Budget as far as the redistributive effects of the new system of taxation are concerned. Basically, he realises that this Budget has beneficial effects for the sort of people whom we ought to be looking after in society. A principle of social justice is involved and we are doing something about it. I would like to come back to that point in a minute.

The other point I would like to deal with specifically which was raised by the honourable member for Lilley- it seemed to be a major point in his speech- was that he criticised the high taxation and the increase from 28c to 34c of the household income going into Government taxation of all forms. I realise that we can argue about priorities and where money ought to be spent but it is silly to treat money taken by taxation, by different forms of government, as if that money were being wasted. It is not money wasted. If it were, we could all go home. I am not referring only to honourable members on this side of the House but also to honourable members on the other side of the House because we do not need any government if we take that sort of line. There is hardly anything we do in this House which does not cost money. Money is expended on all our activities. It is a question of the people of Australia and the people who were elected by the community- I am referring to all members of this Parliament- deciding whether extra money ought to be collected and whether that money ought to be spent on certain things.

What has happened, of course, under the Labor Government since it has come into power is that there has been a great increase in expenditure. People may decide that they prefer to keep that extra 5 or 6 per cent of expenditure which has gone to the Government and spend it themselves. But do not let us forget all the benefits to the people of Australia. There has been a fantastic increase in social security benefits. In other words, people no longer need to spend money themselves to the same extent to cover themselves for their old age.

There was an increase in pensions before the newly announced rates of benefits which will come into force as a result of this Budget. Between December 1972 and June 1975 there was an increase of 80 per cent in the pension rate whilst the consumer price index increased by only 41 per cent. We have had a 1 10 per cent increase in the widow’s class B pensions. We have had greatly increased payments for the unemployed, for children dependent on pensioners and children depending on the unemployed. We have allotted a $10 a week allowance for handicapped children. We now make at least part of the age pension available to those under 70 years of age, remembering that for those people over 70 years of age we have abolished the means test. In the case of the married couple under 70 years of age, they still receive some part of the age pension until their combined weekly income reaches $154.50. In the case of a single pensioner, part pensions are payable until the income reaches $92. 1 think those are important points.

We have spent a large amount of money on education. We have provided free education in tertiary institutions. We may argue about whether that is worthwhile. I have some reservations about it. But do not let us just pretend that nobody gets any benefit from it and that the money goes to Canberra and disappears. If the money just came to Canberra and disappeared we would not have inflation. We spent extra money on health services. It is ridiculous to say that it is, in some way, terribly good for private enterprise and for the independence of the head of the household to spend money by paying it to medical benefits funds but if it goes into taxation to pay for Medibank there is something terrible about it. We can argue about it but it strikes me that it is not as rational as many of the other statements of the honourable member for Lilley.

Let us get down to the general outlines of this Budget. I think the important features of this Budget are not to be found in the figure work. It is the attitude of the Government towards issues and policies expressed in this annual of the Budget and the other actions of the Government which that exercise symbolises which is important. The attitude reflected in this Budget is different from that which has been reflected in those previously presented from both sides of the House. The Treasurer (Mr Hayden) and the rest of Cabinet on the expenditure side- and especially the Treasurer, the Minister for Overseas Trade (Mr Crean) and the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) on the income side- have added greatly to their stature, I think, with this Budget. That is why this Budget has been called conservative on the one hand and radical on the other hand, whilst the Treasurer himself has said that he is taking the middle road. In the most difficult Budget of recent years, the Treasurer has quite openly and obviously striven to resolve the paradox of inflation and unemployment. Let us remember that it is a paradox as we understood economics only a few years ago. The Treasurer has striven to dispel the illusion that public goods, such as welfare and urban improvement, need not be paid for. We may still await the second coming, but the cargo cult is dead as far as this Government is concerned.

Given the example set by the Treasurer, the crucial question following the Budget is what changes of attitude the Budget may inspire. Its consequences depend, more than anything else and more than in any previous Australian Budget, on the confidence and the expectations of businessmen, trade unions- especially their members- and of ordinary consumers, lobbyists and journalists. Beyond this, the Budget is on this occasion the instrument of reform- reform on the expenditure side because the consolidation upon which the Treasurer laid such heavy emphasis itself is a reform. At least it provides a breathing space for reform of expenditure plans and administrative structures.

On the revenue side, the reform of the system of personal income tax has been overdue since the Commonwealth income tax was first introduced by Billie Hughes in 1915, since already then it incorporated many of the anachronisms and anomalies of the pre-existing State taxes. The Treasurer’s weakness is one which must beset any treasurer of any Party, of any persuasion but the cargo cult. He must carry with him neither the social creditors nor the Malcolm Frasers but the country as a whole, if he is to restore business confidence, maintain employment and halt inflation. Honourable members opposite may criticise this aspect or that aspect of the Budget but there can be no doubt that the Treasurer is aware of his responsibilities. Let it also be clear that if the Treasurer is playing for high stakes with fortunes the outcome of this particular game depends not so much upon what he has done but upon what we, in our various capacities, will do and what our response will be. I think this is very important in the community because many of the disadvantages that have occurred in the economy are self-imposed and irrational.

The Leader of the Opposition in his speech yesterday criticised the Government and said that savings were down. He obviously does not know anything about economics at all. At a time of fairly high inflation- inflation is still running at about 15 per cent- there is a record amount of deposits in savings banks in Australia. A record amount is going into savings banks each month. More than $200m is being added to savings banks deposits each month. People are depositing money and earning 3% per cent interest on which they have to pay tax yet inflation erodes that money at the rate of about 1 5 per cent. Their behaviour is completely irrational. We have figures which show that during the last 4 years since about 1 97 1-72 the proportion of disposable household income that has gone into savings has increased from about 9.7 per cent to nearly 17 per cent. That is quite extraordinary. It is irrational at a time of infltion but it is the behaviour of the people at the present time. I cannot explain it. I can see that people are scared and worried. Maybe that is the explanation for their actions. It is not as if they are badly off. Money is there. The people have got money in their own savings bank accounts but they are not spending it.

One of the points that has been raised by almost every honourable member opposite who has spoken in this debate is unemployment. Much has been said both in this place and outside it about unemployment. Of course, it is a tragedy for those who are looking for work. The situation is ameliorated only by the unemployment benefits which, for adult married couples, we have increased by 140 percent since we came to office. For single persons the benefit has been increased but it is a variable amount depending on age. In the case of 16 to 18-year olds the increase has been as high as 380 per cent, but we have now stopped that particular rate of increase. However it is important to examine figures. I have extracted some figures from the seasonally adjusted figures issued by the Bureau of Census and Statistics. Let us examine the employment position. In May of this year- these are the latest figures available to me- 232 000 more people were working than in December 1972 when the number employed was 4 579 500.

Mr Kevin Cairns:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

– Why do you not go back to 1930?

Dr KLUGMAN:

– I ask the honourable member to wait. I am making an important point. In May last the total number employed was 4 811 500-an increase of 232 000 since December 1972. During the last 2 years of office of the previous Government- of which, for part of the time, the honourable member for Lilley was a Minister- there was an increase of only 130 000 in the number employed. Those years are now considered to have been boom times, but there was an increase of only 130 000 jobs in Australia then.

Mr Corbett:

– What was the starting figure?

Mr KLUGMAN:
PROSPECT, NEW SOUTH WALES

– It was fractionally less. In December 1970 the total number of people employed in Australia was 4 449 600.

Mr Corbett:

– What about percentages?

Dr KLUGMAN:

– An increase of 130 000 in 5 000 000 represents a small percentage. Since then the number of people employed has increased by 232 000. By June 1974, during the first 18 months of the Labor Government, a total of 294 000 additional jobs were created in Australia compared with 130 000 during the last 2 years of the previous Government. Some of those people have lost their jobs- a significant number- and the total work force has decreased by about 62 000 since June 1974. The honourable member for Lilley made a point about savings on postage by cutting out unemployment benefits for people who are -

Mr Kevin Cairns:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

– The point I made -

Dr KLUGMAN:

– I know the point that the honourable member made. He referred to the number of people who were unemployed. By how much would we have had to increase postal charges had we not received tax from the additional 232 000 people who have been employed since we came to power? My next point concerns the question of tax indexation. This is important. Whilst I would not expect many Opposition members to understand what tax indexation is all about, I would expect the honourable member for Lilley to understand it. Tax indexation means not that a person does not pay any income tax on the extra money he earns but that his rate of taxation does not increase. We have introduced this system to a large extent. If honourable members study the new tax schedule they will see that there is no increase in the tax rate of a person earning between $5,000 and $10,000 annually. If a person’s salary increases in that particular range he pays no higher tax rate. If a person is earning between $10,000 and $15,000 he will not pay an increased marginal tax rate until his salary exceeds $15,000. These ranges cover probably more than 90 per cent of the population.

Mr Kevin Cairns:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

– Tax indexation goes with wage indexation too.

Dr KLUGMAN:

-Yes, but the important point is that if a person works overtime and his income increases or his weekly average earnings increase as a result of an alteration to his award and his wage is between $150 and $170 a week he does not go into a higher tax bracket. He remains in the same tax bracket until his wage reaches almost $200 a week. The next increase in the tax rate is at $300 a week. I think this is an important point. It is unfair of the Opposition, if it really believes in trying to fix the economy of this country, which I suggest is in the interests of members from both sides of the House, to goad the unions into asking for higher wage increases by telling them that they are not getting tax indexation because, to a large extent, they are getting tax indexation.

The honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Wentworth) speaks piously about preserving us from the evils of communism and so forth. I am reminded that the other night when we were discussing the question of American bases the Opposition spent its time trying not to secure Australia’s signature to the agreement but to persuade Government supporters who had reservations about that agreement to take action to prevent Australia from signing it. I think that is an irresponsible attitude for an Opposition to take.

My next point concerns a matter mentioned by the honourable member for Lilley. He referred to the single income family with children, especially a large number of children. I point out that even the single income family with one or two children will be significantly better off as a result of this Budget. It is terribly important to consider this matter. People outside still do not understand what is happening because they do not know the difference between rebates and tax deductions. In tonight’s Sydney Sun is prominently featured a letter from a person who complains that he used to be able to deduct $1,040 for his wife and 3 dependent children but now he will be able to deduct only $1,000. The point is that the $1,040 was deducted from his income before tax; now the $1,000 will be deducted from his tax, so there is a big benefit for such a person. It represents a benefit of between 25 per cent and 40 per cent. I rang the writer of that letter and explained the position to him. Incidentally, he resides in the electorate of Parramatta, so I took some trouble with him.

I raise another point because I am not one of the cargo cult people. I believe Governments should be responsible in their spending and therefore ought to be prepared to justify the collection of taxation. The question of payments to the States annoys me. This year we will be paying 34.2 per cent more to the States whilst our own income will increase by only 23 per cent, yet the States still moan. Earlier this evening the members from cockies’ corner were talking about how terribly the States are done by, even though their revenues will increase by 34.2 per cent and ours by 23 per cent. Cockies ‘ corner will never be satisfied.

I conclude my views on this Budget by reading into Hansard part of an article written by the honourable member for Wakefield (Mr Kelly) in the Financial Review of Friday, 15 August. I commend him on this article. He wrote:

AT this pre-Budget time of the year, the organisations in my electorate remember the existence of their Modest Member and send me telegrams and letters urging me to make certain that their particular interests are not jeopardised in the forthcoming Budget.

The schoolteachers have been the most active this year because there have been strong rumours that the sacred education cow is going to be made to suffer a little and this has made her low piteously.

The trouble is I am never certain whether she is more interested in the well-being of the children or the teachers.

But other organisations have not been far behind. Road users want more money for roads, scientists more money for science, builders want more money for buildings and so on, without end.

Then he has a go at honourable gentlemen from cockies’ corner, and states:

My farmers are not backward either. But they usually begin with a stern lecture about the need for courageous statesmanship at this critical time and the necessity of cutting down government spending.

Having got this off their manly chests, they then ask for a subsidy on super and a $500m grant to assist the beef industry.

He continues:

When we are in Opposition it is very comfortable to be able at the beginning of a speech to criticise the Government for generally being profligate with their spending, and then, at the end, to criticise them for being lousy about education, or roads, or science and so on.

That is important for all members of this House to remember that this is exactly what happens.

Dr Gun:

– It is exactly what Anthony said tonight.

Dr KLUGMAN:

-Anthony will be on the air at the next election as at the last election. He will have a 2 -part national telecast and radio broadcast. In the first quarter of an hour he will talk to the city people about government restraint. He will point out that there ought to be restraint on spending. In the second quarter of an hour, which is not broadcast in the city or telecast in the city but only goes to cocky stations, he will promise all the extra money that is to be spent on the cockies.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Mr CORBETT:
Maranoa

– I listened with some interest to the honourable member for Prospect (Dr Klugman) and to some of the wise observations that he made. I use the word ‘wise’ with a deal of sarcasm. He said that the important aspects of this Budget are not to be found in the figures. I have always thought that the figures are a very important part of a Budget. If the important parts of the Budget are not in the figures, apparently the figures are not very satisfactory. So I would accept the fact that the figures in this Budget are detrimental to the people as a whole.

The honourable member also mentioned- I must compliment him on his honesty in saying this- that people are scared and worried about putting their money into savings. I believe that they have very good reason to be scared and worried while this Government remains in office. There is one thing, of course, that the honourable member can be assured of, that is, whatever the benefits an Opposition may have with regard to criticising governments, if he is fortunate enough to be returned for the electorate of Prospect at the next election- I very much doubt that that will happen- he will certainly have the opportunity to sit in Opposition and do the things he is critising us for doing tonight.

The Budget of 1975, as introduced by the Treasurer (Mr Hayden), can be very fairly described as a deceptive Budget. It certainly is a deceptive Budget. This point has already been made. The deception started prior to the introduction of the Budget. It started as a matter of Government policy when the Government, through the Australian Postal Commission and the Australian Telecommunications Commission, brought down new charges prior to the introduction of the Budget. Those savage increases in postal and telephone charges by the Postal Commission and the Telecommunications Commission having been announced prior to the introduction of the Budget, the Government no doubt hoped, but vainly hoped, that the Budget might be considered separately from those increases. This was a good tactic for the Government to use. But it will not be lost on the Australian people that the cost to the community as a whole will be the cost of the Budget as it stands plus the savagely increased charges introduced by the Postal Commission and the Telecommunications Commission. The Australian people are not so simple as to believe that a charge made by a Government instrumentality will not affect their pockets or their net incomes, simply because that charge has been divorced from the Budget.

The Treasurer has introduced a very disappointing Budget. In the build-up to the Budget we were led to believe that the Treasurer would present a responsible Budget and that the Government at last had realised that its reckless economic POliCY was ruining the economy of this country and that at last the Labor Government had decided, at whatever cost it might be to them politically, to introduce a responsible Budget. How far short of that ideal has this Budget fallen! It is indeed a very disappointing Budget for those who have looked to a restructuring and a recovery of the economy of this country to the benefit of everybody who lives within its boundaries. In fact, we have constantly seen reversals of pOliCy on the part of this Government. This Government, in the words of its own Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) has turned so many corners that it must be nearly giddy. It has promised so many upturns which have proved to be downturns that people no longer attach any credibility to its promises.

This Budget has been described by some people as a holding Budget. Having retreated from the position of its being a Budget of responsibility. some areas sympathetic to the Government now regard it as a type of holding Budget. In some respects that might be true. It certainly Will more than hold the level of unemployment which will certainly increase as the effect of this Budget is felt throughout the economy. It Will certainly hold the rate of inflation, which also will increase as funds have to be injected into the economy, as was the case last year, to make up for the increasing level of deficit. That the projected deficit will not be held has already been clearly indicated by the fact that there was a deficit of some $700m for the month of July-

Mr Hunt:

– It is a fake.

Mr CORBETT:

-As my friend from Gwydir has said, it is a fake. The Government has tried to introduce a Budget which would convey to the Australian public that it was characterised by some degree of responsibility. But there is no chance of the Government being able to hold the deficit that it has provided for in this Budget. The Budget is deceptive to that extent.

One of the incredible features of the Budget is the apparent disregarding of increasing unemployment. It is of no use for members on the Government side to say that members on this side of the chamber always speak about unemployment. Why should we not speak about unemployment? We are concerned for the people of this country if the Government is not. That is why we are speaking about unemployment. We are concerned about the degree of unemployment that exists. I would say that there has been no government of any political persuasion in the history of Commonwealth government in this country that has ever so callously disregarded the effect of budgetary measures on the employment of the Australian work force. It may sound as though I am drawing a long bow, but I believe events will prove what I have said to be correct.

This Government seems to be unconcerned that unemployment could rise to the unprecedented level of half a million people in this financial year. The only answer we get from the Government is that people on this side of the Parliament talk about unemployment. We are justified in talking about unemployment. We would be failing in our duty if we did not talk about it. We on this side of the House are concerned about the people.

Mr Cope:

– My word.

Mr CORBETT:

-The honourable member for Sydney says: ‘My word’. He is impressed with what I have said because he is one who has suffered in other ways from the irresponsibility of this Government. What will be the effect on the morale of people who are suffering from the problems of unemployment? One of the great tragedies of unemployment is the effect which it has on people who want to work but who are unable to work because of the policies of this Government.

Mr Cope:

– As long as you do not put us out of work.

Mr CORBETT:

-That will happen because of the justice that will be meted out to you as a result of your own misdeeds in government. I believe that the people who have so mismanaged the Australian economy over recent years will receive the justice they deserve.

This is of secondary importance as far as the Opposition is concerned, but if the level of unemployment does increase by some 150,000 over the present figure- it certainly looks as though it will, and the President of the Australian Labor Party and of the Australian Council of Trade Unions has suggested that it could- what will the increase mean to the Budget? First of all it will mean a reduction in the income tax revenue of the amount the Government would have received from these people who were previously gainfully employed. In addition, it will mean that the cost to the Australian people of providing unemployment benefits for these people who are thrown out of work as a result of the policies of this Government -

Debate interrupted.

page 657

ADJOURNMENT

Ministerial Administration- Senate Vacancy: Representation of QueenslandFreight Charges, Northern Territory.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! It being half past ten p.m. in accordance with the order of the House of 1 1 July 1974 1 propose the question:

That the House do now adjourn.

Mr GARLAND:
Curtin

-Last Thursday morning during the Grievance Day debate I drew attention to the slowness with which honourable members received replies to representations made on behalf of their constituents and in particular from certain Ministers. Last night the Minister for Housing (Mr Riordan), in his capacity as Minister representing the Minister for Labour and Immigration in this House, attempted to respond to certain instances that I had mentioned. Really what he had to say last night was so incomplete and such a misrepresentation that I take this opportunity again of drawing attention to the matter. It is clear that the Minister does not take it seriously and is attempting to brush it aside and assert that the Department of Labour and Immigration has done all that is possible in the matter. That is quite false, as I will demonstrate in a moment.

I want to say this because it seems to be a debating technique of this Minister to start off with a misrepresentation of what one said and to proceed from that point. I said nothing in criticism of officers of the Department because I do not have any evidence relating to that. If I had I would not hesitate to criticise. But I said nothing about that. I add that I appreciate that the Minister has not been in this position for very long, nor has the Minister for Labour and Immigration (Senator James McClelland). As a matter of fact it has been my experience that the latter Minister’s rate of reply is a considerable improvement over that of his predecessor.

Mr Hunt:

– Hear, hear!

Mr GARLAND:

– I am glad to hear honourable members agree with that.

Mr Hunt:

– He is 6 months better.

Mr GARLAND:

-My colleague has said that and I am happy to say that that is my impression. But those are not the matters to which I was addressing myself. I gave certain instances and I talked about having the greatest number of outstanding representations that I have ever had in my files. When I said that a lot of honourable members on my side of the House and members on the Government side of the House agreed. They have more outstanding representations than ever before. I did not go through the whole file. I brought out the modest number of 6 cases. My main complaint- apparently I will have to use words of one syllable- is that I do not receive quick replies. I was not arguing the merits of the cases. I was not arguing about the National Employment and Training scheme, about whether somebody was appealing or about whether there was reason for an appeal to be rejected. I was complaining about the slowness of replies.

I point out that one private secretary to a Minister said publicly that his Minister had 1000 unanswered letters in his office. Another Minister is on the record which the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) reluctantly tabled in this House in relation to the loans issue as saying that the office of the former Treasurer of this country was awash in unfiled paper and the reason that he found the infamous Harris letters was that he was flicking through a lot of unfiled material trying to find something else. Let us go to the cases that the Minister attempted to justify. It is not altogether easy to follow what he was saying because he did not mention names. He said that the first application for assistance under the NEAT scheme was rejected- or course, I said that- and that a reply was sent to me on 1 August. I would like to know to whom it was sent because I have had my files re-examined and there is no letter there dated 1 August that I can see. I was speaking first of a Mr Cote. I said that I had written to the Minister on 21 May. I had a letter of acknowledgement and a comment that senior officers would review the case. That was 3 months ago, and that was not the first letter in the file.

The Minister said in respect of a Mr Hall, I think- another applicant who was refused assistance under the NEAT scheme- that he was cur.rently pursuing a course of training under the tertiary education allowance scheme. Then he asked rhetorically whether I wanted that person to be paid twice. What I want is a reply following the useless acknowledgement I received on 15 April- 4 months ago. And that was not the first. The representation was made on 25 March. The Minister went on to say that he had not received any letter in respect of one case. I say that it is obscure because it is hard to understand to which case he was referring. I think it was the case of a Mrs Wearne. I have an acknowledgement letter from Mr Robert Lawrence, the private secretary of the then Minister for Labor and Immigration, dated 7 May in answer to my representation of 28 April. I sent a reminder telegram on 13 June. Today is 27 August and I have received no acknowledgement of any kind. The same applies to the case of Mrs Bremner. Application was made by this person in October 1974 and refused in February 1975. It took that woman 5 months to get a response. I made representations on 15 August in another case. This is a relatively recent one. An acknowledgement was received on 19 August. That may be the case in which the letter of 1 August was mentioned. I do not know. But I think that I have said enough to indicate that there was a great deal of misrepresentation in the speech last night.

I turn now to the infamous case of the application for immigration by some Italian people. The Minister really excelled himself here in his misrepresentation. He made the point that the man was an army officer, that they did not want army officers here, and so he was refused. The Minister had incorporated in Hansard a letter from the former Minister indicating that the application had been refused on that ground but that they were looking into the ground. The man also had qualifications in civil engineering. The Minister went on to say that it was found that there was no demand for such qualifications. There were job applications and job opportunities on the file sent to the Minister. How can he say that there was no demand in Australia when that had already been seen to?

The Minister mentioned that the man had not presented himself for a medical examination. That in itself is a weighty point, so why produce all this other irrelevant material and say that that was the basic reason? If that is the holdup why have we not had any further communication since 12 May of this year advising us of that fact? The position is ludicrous. It undermines the whole case and makes me believe that there has been an attempt at excuse-making here and that there is no will to get on with it.

There has been aU this talk about receiving 65 000 representations in relation to immigration pOliCy, but who changed the immigration policy? The previous Government did not receive representations of that order. The fact is that the Government has started aU these programs and has not put itself in a position to handle the administration of them. That is the fault of the Government. It has a duty to administer matters fairly and quickly. Private members make representations on behalf of almost anybody who wishes us to pass them on. One does not necessarily endorse them, but people are entitled to have a fair judgment made of their requests and representations and they are entitled to have it made quickly.

Mr Cohen:

– Tell us about the Launceston railway yard.

Mr GARLAND:

– The honourable member thinks he is a very funny man but it has not got him anywhere so far. I will conclude with this remarkable statement by the Minister when he decided to defend the officers and schemes of the Government. He said:

That scheme will stand as a monument to his name.

He was referring to Mr Clyde Cameron. We all know what is inscribed on the tombstones, memorials and the monuments and I doubt whether that really compliments the work of the former Minister. But he will be known to many people in the community as a Minister who left unanswered, or very slowly answered, an enormous amount of mail. When the Government has a program that attracts people to make applications, the people are entitled to a reasonably quick response as well as a just one.

Mr CROSS:
Brisbane

-Today is 27 August 1975, the day that honourable members in this House and elsewhere and the people of Australia- in particular the people of Queensland- could well take note of because today democracy was pack raped in the Queensland Parliament. Some five or six weeks ago in this House, as in another place, we paid tribute to our late colleague, Senator Bert Milliner, whose untimely death had taken him from this scene. Following his death it became a responsibility of the Queensland Parliament to replace Senator Milliner in accordance with a well-established practice that his replacement should come from the Australian Labor Party. The Premier of Queensland wrote to the Leader of the Opposition in the State Parliament and to the Secretary of the Australian Labor Party in Queensland asking for a panel of 3 Labor Party nominees from which the Queensland Legislative Assembly could make a choice. That choice was programmed to take place today. In the Queensland House today the Labor nominee, Dr Mai Colston, formerly a Senate candidate on 2 occasions, was rejected by 62 votes to fifteen. Allow me to take honourable members some time back into the past to indicate the way in which, as I have said, democracy has been pack raped today in Queensland.

The Australian Labor Party selects its candidates for the Senate on a system of Senate electoral college. For the House of Representatives and for State and municipal seats, normally it selects them by a system of plebiscite. So the Queensland Central Executive, given the fact that Dr Mai Colston had submitted his name to the people on 2 former occasions as a Senate candidate, felt it wise to select this man who had, as I have said, twice previously submitted himself to the will of the people. At the last election about 5000 votes prevented his being elected to the Senate. Consequently the Labor Party felt that it had an obligation to select a man who was, if I might use the term, next cab off the rank on 2 previous occasions. The Labor Party felt that it should have the right to do just as the Liberal Party on 2 previous occasions in Queensland had done and determine who should take the place of the deceased senator. One could argue perhaps that the State Parliament had the right to ask for a panel. If that point of view is put, why is it that that demand is made of the Australian Labor Party but not of the Liberal Party?

I well recall September 1962 when Senator Max Poulter, one of the most able people ever elected to this Parliament, passed away. Sadly he was never able to take his seat in the Senate and Australia was robbed of a person of great talent and ability. On that occasion we had the same Country Liberal Party Government in Queensland. When the Labor Party nominated Mr Arnell the then President of the Waterside Workers Federation, his nomination was rejected by the Queensland Legislative Assembly. The Labor Party then nominated Mr George

Whiteside, later Senator George Whiteside, who was elected to the Senate in his place. There was great resentment in the Australian Labor Party because the Party itself was not able to select its own candidate, the man to take the place of the Labor senator who had passed away. If honorable members subscribe to the view that there should be a panel, why was it in the years between the death of Dr Poulter and the decision today, on the 2 occasions when Liberal senators from Queensland either passed away or resigned only a single nominee was required from the Liberal Party?

Let me take the House forward a little to the time when Bob Sherrington, a man greatly admired on all sides of the House and a Liberal senator from north Queensland, passed away. The Liberal Party was asked for a single nominee and it nominated Bill Heatley, who came from the Gold Coast, and was formerly of north Queensland. He served in the Senate with distinction until he was defeated. He subsequently served in the Queensland House. I am not buying into the rights or wrongs of any of these people. I am merely saying that when a Liberal senator died the Queensland Government- the same Country-Liberal Party Coalition that governs in Queensland today- asked for a single nominee and accepted that nominee. It did not ask for a panel. Senator Heatley was appointed to the other place where he served with distinction.

Coming along a little bit further in time, following the 1969 election the previous LiberalCountry Party Government in Canberra decided in its wisdom to appoint Senator Dame Annabelle Rankin as High Commissioner to New Zealand. I think that appointment was well received. All of us know the distinguished service that Senator Dame Annabelle Rankin gave to this Parliament and to the people of Australia. The Labor Party has in its hands copies of the letters that went to the Liberal Party from the Premier of Queensland at that time. The premier of Queensland asked the Liberal Partry for a single nominee to take the place of Senator Dame Annabelle Rankin. Senator Neville Bonner- Mr Neville Bonner as he was then- was nominated by the Liberal Party in Queensland and his nomination was accepted.

Mr Sullivan:

– Wise choice.

Mr CROSS:

– I agree. May I say that I was pleased to see Neville Bonner selected. I considered that his Party owed him an obligation as the man who had submitted himself to the people and who would have been elected next if his team had polled more votes. He is a man who made great sacrifice in order to come into this Parliament. I considered that the Liberal Party owed him an obligation in the same way as the Labor Party owed Dr Colston an obligation. But why the difference in standards? Why on 2 occasions was the Liberal Party asked for a single nominee? Why on 2 occasions was the Labor Party asked for a panel? Comment has been made about Senator Bonner. Look at the parallel position. He was the last man on the ticket. He had submitted himself to the people. It is not as if there was dragged out of the hat some person who was obscure, who had never been in public life or whose record was not well known to the people. There were none of these things. There is a great deal in common between the situation of both Senator Bonner and of Dr Colston, but there is nothing in common about the way in which they were treated.

Today in the Legislative Assembly in Queensland the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Tom Burns, submitted Dr Mai Colston as the Labor Party nominee. That nomination was rejected by 62 votes to fifteen. There were 11 Australian Labor Party members who supported Dr Colston’s nomination. They were supported by Mr Ed Casey, the Independent member for Mackay; by Bill Kaus, the member for Mansfield; Colin Lamont the member for South Brisbane, and Bill Hewitt, the member for Chatsworth. Three Liberals stood for what I would regard as Liberal Party principles and voted with the Labor Party on this question.

During the debate in the House attacks were made on Dr Colston’s character. It is an interesting state of affairs. He has been attacked under privilege. He has been a member of the Queensland teaching service under a CountryLiberal Party Government. I doubt that he served under a Labor Government. He has been an officer of the Police Department, that is, a civil servant in the Police Department. He has served in the Queensland Public Service. He joined the Citizens Military Forces and has commissioned rank in the CMF. If my memory is correct, he was appointed to the intelligence section of the CMF, and he was appointed to that position under the former Liberal-Country Party Government.

I hope that all honourable members take note of this serious situation, because it is true to say that today in Queensland democracy was pack raped and the people of Queensland, in fact the people of Australia. not only the Labor Party supporters but the ordinary decent person who likes to see politics played within the rules of the game with fair play and respect for the deomocratic principles on which this country’s survival has depended in the past and may depend in the future, should be concerned. The 62 people who voted to reject Dr Colston’s nomination today voted against every principle upon which democracy in this country is based.

Mr CALDER:
Northern Territory

– I rise to complain very bitterly about the recent increase in freight charges and the not so recent increase in freight charges within the last 12 months on the Commonwealth Railways between Port Augusta and Alice Springs. I might remind the House that with beef cattle production the way it is the Minister for Transport (Mr Charles Jones) and his Department saw fit to impose a 50 per cent rise on the freight of livestock on the Central Australian Railway. Despite what the Government says it has done, it has really done nothing to assist these people who are battling for their existence today and instead imposes this fantastic rise of 50 per cent on livestock freight. Be that as it may, what has now happened is that recently there has been a 20 per cent rise in general freights from Port Augusta to Alice Springs and a 25 per cent rise in passenger fares on the same Une. On top of this come the effects of the Budget with the increased costs of petroleum products. The Government has done this sort of thing before. It wiped out the equalisation scheme which gave the people of the Northern Territory at least parity with their southern cousins. I think the people of the Northen Territory are thinking of them in somewhat more bitter terms now.

As a result of the Budget the fuel cost rise will be 6c to 10c a gallon which means that since this Government has been in office there has been a rise of at least 25c a gallon of petrol in normal country centres in the Territory, that is, in places like Alice Springs. Further out is has risen as much as 75c a gallon. How people can be expected to live under this sort of duress I do not know. I raise this matter on behalf of Territorians after all the Northern Territory does comprise one-sixth of Australia and it is a part of Australia to which we as Australians are looking for tremendous financial backing from its resources. If this Government continues there Will be no people left in the Territory. We do not want a handout. We have been there for many years and most of us have worked our way up to where we are. I am speaking about businessmen, cattlemen miners and politicians, as I happen to be. We have worked and find now that we are being castigated by this Government, probably because there is only one member from the

Northern Territory in the House of Representatives and he does not represent the Government, and there are 1 7 members in the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly who represent the Country-Liberal Party and none who represent the Australian Labor Party. However, I still would expect this Government to have the nous to realise that the north of Australia is the place that holds the key to the financial development of this country.

I ask the House and the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr Riordan) who is at the table and who is, I think, a very fair and reasonable man, to consider this matter. I do not think he has done too well as a Minister although he seemed to be all right on the back bench. Why should we in the Territory- not only those of us who live in central Australia because the railway line goes to Alice Springs and the freight goes north by road from there- be asked to pay these increased costs on a decrepit railway line on which construction should have been commenced 3 years ago. Funds were allocated in this House in the Budget of that year to start construction. I do not know what has really happened. There may be a sleeper or two but 3 years -

Mr Katter:

– That would be the Minister for Northern Australia.

Mr CALDER:
NORTHERN TERRITORY · CP; NCP from May 1975

– I am referring to railway sleepers. Why should we pay for this? Construction should have been at least half completed by now. The money for this work was allocated in the 1972 Budget. The railway line had been surveyed and the whole thing was ready to go. Three years later the Labor Government has done nothing at all. It cares nothing for us. It does not give a damn about the people who live in this area. The previous Government commenced building a sealed road from Alice Springs to Port Augusta and the Labor Premier of South Australia, of course, was more interested in building a sealed road from Port Augusta to the

Western Australian border- the Eyre Highwayand this is where the money is going today. Why was $3m-odd unused in the last 12 months when it was allocated for the construction of the Stuart Highway? Not lc of that amount has been used. Possibly there was a contract let just recently but this $3m-odd which was allocated for the construction of the Stuart Highway from Erldunda to the South Australian border has just sat there.

Why should we in the Northern Territory be held to ransom because this Government is more interested in helping its Labor colleague to build his roads so that the honourable member for Swan (Mr Bennett) can drive his Volvo on a sealed road all the way from Western Australia? There are thousands of people who wish to go to the Northern Territory. There are thousands of people who wish to go from there to South Australia and the construction of that road should have been continued. That money which was allocated last year has been sitting unused under the civil works program. The previous Government commenced construction of that road and built it so far, but the Labor Government has done nothing to match that progress. Why should we in the Northern Territory suffer because of this Government’s socialist idealistic policies as espoused in the Coombs report which are absolutely designed to castigate people who live in places other than the southern cities?

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– The word is ‘castrate ‘.

Mr CALDER:

– I suggest that Hansard make that adjustment although I must admit that I said ‘castigate’. We in the Northern Territory have been suffering since this Government came into office and brought about the removal of every concession that had been given to people who live in these places. I will not mention Cyclone Tracy because it seems to be the general argument -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! It being 1 1 p.m., the House stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow morning.

House adjourned at 11 p.m.

page 662

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS UPON NOTICE

The following answers to questions upon notice were circulated:

Petrochemical Industry in Australia (Question No. 258)

Mr Snedden:
BRUCE, VICTORIA

asked the Minister for Manufacturing Industry, upon notice:

  1. How many companies are involved in the petrochemical industry in Australia, or are undertaking exploration with a view to taking part in the petrochemical industry.
  2. What are the names of these companies and where are they located.
  3. What is the size of the companies concerned in terms of employment, funds invested in the industry, etc.
Mr Lionel Bowen:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) The Australian Bureau of Statistics advises that Australian Statistics are not collected in such a way as to accord precisely with the term “petrochemical” industry as referred to in the question. The manufacture of most petrochemical products is covered by two separate industry classes, which are described below. Other industry classes also cover the manufacture of some petrochemical products (e.g. nitrogenous fertilisers) but in these cases petrochemical products constitute only a small part of the output of the industry classes and accordingly these classes have been excluded from the data given below. At 30 June 1 972 the number of companies operating establishments in the two classes primarily concerned with the manufacture of petrochemical products were as follows: 42 companies owned establishments manufacturing synthetic resins and synthetic rubbers; 34 companies owned establishments manufacturing organic industrial chemicals n.e.c.

The Bureau states that the same company may operate establishments in both classes.

No precise information is readily available on the number of companies undertaking exploration with a view to taking part in the petrochemical industry.

  1. The Australian Bureau of Statistics, for reasons of confidentiality, is not able to provide details of names and locations of individual companies. However, the names of companies in the petrochemical industry, which are mentioned in the 1974 Statistical Summary of the Australian Chemical Industry Council are as follows:

Albright & Wilson (Aust.) Ltd-Melbourne, Vic

Altona Petrochemical Co. Ltd- Altona, Vic.

Australian Carbon Black Pty Ltd- Altona, Vic.

Australian Fluorine Chemicals Pty Ltd- Melbourne, Vic.

Australian Synthetic Rubber Co. Ltd- Altona, Vic.

BASF Australia Ltd -Altona, Vic.

Borden Chemical Co. (Aust.) Pty Ltd-Granville, N.S.W. & Brooklyn, Vic.

Chemical Industries (Kwinana) Pty Ltd-Kwinana, W.A.

Commercial Solvents Pty Ltd-Matraville, N.S.W.

C.S.R. Chemicals Ltd-Rhodes, N.S.W.

Continental Carbon Australia Ltd- Kurnell, N.S.W.

Dow Chemicals (Aust. ) Ltd- Altona, Vic.

B. F. Goodrich Chemical Ltd- Altona, Vic.

A. C. Hatrick Chemicals Pty Ltd-Botany, N.S.W.

Hoechst Australia Ltd- Altona, Vic.

ICI Australia Ltd-Botany, N.S.W. & Deer Park, Vic

Jordan Chemical Works (A’asia) Pty Ltd- Chester Hill, N.S.W.

Marbon Chemical (Aust.) Pty Ltd- Dandenong, Vic.

Monsanto Australia Ltd-Rozelle, N.S.W. & West Footscray, Vic.

Nuodex (Aust.) Pty Ltd-Botany, N.S.W.

Pacific Chemicals Industries Pty Ltd- Camellia, N.S.W.

Phillips Australia Chemicals Pty Ltd-Kurnell, N.S. W.

Revinex Australia Ltd- West Footscray, Vic.

Rohm & Hass Australia Pty Ltd- Melbourne, Vic.

Shell Chemical Australia Pty Ltd- Geelong, Vic.

Tonwell Pty Ltd-Chatswood, N.S.W.

Union Carbide Australia Ltd- Rhodes, N.S.W. & Altona, Vic.

Valchem (Aust.) Pty Ltd- Wangaratta, Vic.

  1. Information concerning employment and funds employed by individual companies within the industry is confidential. However, the Australian Bureau of Statistics has provided the following table of manufacturing establishments classified according to employment size.

Plastics and Raw Materials Imported into Australia (Question No. 259)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Manufacturing Industry, upon notice:

  1. What was the total amount of plastics imported into Australia in each of the last 5 years, and what is the estimated level of imports in each of the next5 years, by type of plastic.
  2. What was the total level of raw materials imported into Australia in each of the last5 years, and what is the expected level of imports of raw materials in each of the next 5 years, by type of material.
  3. Can he indicate those plastics in which Australian industry is self-sufficient or is likely to become self-sufficient within the next 5 years.
Mr Lionel Bowen:
ALP

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

  1. Since the early 1960’s Australian industry has been able to obtain most of its requirements of the most commonly used plastics raw materials from local sources. The commonly used plastics raw materials, which constitute about 75 per cent of Australian consumption of all plastics raw materials, include the following types:

Polyethylene, polyvinyl chloride, styrene polymers, polyvinyl acetate, phenolic resins, amino resins and alkyd resins.

The remaining 25 per cent includes a wide diversity of products derived from more than twenty different chemical types of plastics raw materials. These latter materials have been imported because the Australian demand for each of the products was usually too small to warrant local manufacture. In the last five years new plants have been built in Australia to manufacture polypropylene, high density polyethylene and the polyglycols which form a major constituent of urethane foams. In addition a major plant to produce styrene as raw material for polystyrene and ABS resins is expected to be commissioned in later 1976 or early 1977. This plant is expected to ensure sufficient local capacity to supply Australia’s projected needs for this plastics raw material.

Department of Minerals and Energy and National Pipeline Authority Staffing (Question No. 828)

Mr Fairbairn:
FARRER, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister for Minerals and Energy, upon notice:

  1. How many Second Division officers hold positions at Level 3 (First Assistant Secretary) and above in his Department and the National Pipeline Authority.
  2. How many of these officers held positions at the same levels in the previous Department of National Development.
  3. Excluding officers in part (2), (a) how many of these officers have technical qualifications in geology, mining, engineering, metallurgy or mineral economics, and what are their names and qualifications, (b) how many, prior to their appointment to his department, had had experience in the formulation or administration of policies relating to mineral development or marketing, and what are their names and the details of the relevant experience and (c) how many had, at any time prior to their appointment, occupied positions in the Public Service or in statutory authorities in which the present Secretary of his Department held a senior position.
  4. How many officers of the former Department of National Development have been promoted to Level 3 and above in his Department
Mr Connor:
Minister for Minerals and Energy · CUNNINGHAM, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

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

  3. (a) T. R. Baker, Dip. Eng., MIE (Aust.) A.N.G.

Bray, B.E., FIE (Aust.)

  1. With the exception of Mr Baker who was engaged from outside the Australian Public Service, the officers had had experience at a senior level in the formulation or administration of policies in one or more sectors of Australian Government administration.

(0 8.

  1. None.

Retrenchments at Tomago (Question No. 1107)

Mr Lucock:
LYNE, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister for Manufacturing Industry, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Is a decentralised industry, being the largest employer of labour of any industry in the Electoral Division of Lyne, referred to in the Industries Assistance Commission Report of Tyre Cord and Tyre Cord Fabrics, dated 25 June 1974, and does the report state that the adoption of the report would probably result in the retrenchment of 270 persons from that industry.
  2. Does the production of the 270 persons provide work for a further 400 persons, approximately, who convert the product to tyre cord fabric.
  3. Has the same employer already had to reduce the number of people employed by approximately 120 as a result of imports adversly affecting the sales of another of its products.
  4. Would the implementation of an earlier report by the Commission on woven man-made fibre fabrics, dated 17 January 1974, have further adverse effects on employment on the same site.
  5. Can he say whether, in the opinion of those responsible for the industry, the implementation of either of the two reports referred to would jeopardise the employment of over 1000 persons and could create a situation necessitating the closure of that industry.
  6. If the position is as stated, what action is proposed by the Government to prevent this reduction of employment opportunities.
Mr Lionel Bowen:
ALP

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

  1. and (2) In the summary of the report on Tyre Cord and Tyre Cord Fabrics, which has been publicly released, the Industries Assistance Commission comments: “Courtaulds (Australia) Limited, Tomago, New South Wales, produces viscose high tenacity yarns, most of which are converted to tyre cord and then to tyre cord fabrics. The Commission no longer regards the local extrusion of viscose yarns as economic (This view was foreshadowed in a Tariff Board report in 1 969). The company employs about 270 persons in the production of these yarns. If the Commission’s proposals are adopted, a considerable number of these employees would probably be retrenched”; and “It (Courtaulds) appears, however, to have prospects of continuing to convert various tyre yarns to fabric. The company employs a further 400 persons in the conversion operation”.

The latter comment refers to the conversion of various types of yarns, including some not produced by the company. In this regard the comments on page 20 and 2 1 of the report are relevant

  1. The company has advised the Department of Manufacturing Industry that it has reduced the number of its employees and that this reduction took place primarily because of a sales decrease in another of its products which the company attributes to increased imports of garments and fabrics made up from competitive materials.
  2. In its report on Woven Man-Made Fibre Fabrics the Industries Assistance Commission commented that the weaver most likely to be affected by its recommendations is Nelson which, at the time of the report, employed about 200 persons at Launceston. Nelson provides an important outlet for a significant part of Courtauld ‘s production at Tomago.
  3. and (6) The Prime Minister announced on 9 December 1974 the Government’s decision on both of these reports. In respect of tyre cord and tyre cord fabrics, the Prime Minister said that in view of the current economic conditions and the possible employment consequences of introduction of the reduced duties recommended by the Commission at this time, they would best be phased in. Current duties of 37.5 per cent on viscose tyre cord fabric will therefore continue until 31 December 1976 and then reduce to 25 per cent until 3 1 December 1977 when they will reduce to the rate of 1 5 per cent recommended by the Commission.

In respect of woven man-made fibre fabrics, the Prime Minister said the Government accepted the long-term level of assistance of 40 per cent for fabrics other than polyolefin fabrics (i.e. of nylon or polyester but not polyolefin), as recommended by the Commission, but because of problems presently being experienced by the industry it had been decided to introduce tariff quotas on a short-term basis.

A significant consideration by the Government in examining both of the reports, was the likely impact of the Commission’s recommendations on employment in the areas where the producers of the fabrics concerned were located. Such consideration also took into account the fact that the Government had introduced in October last a special scheme of assistance to firms in non-metropolitan areas which have been affected by structural change such as cuts in tariff levels and import quotas. On 2 1 November 1 974 it was announced that grants totalling $1.1 5m were made to six companies under the scheme. One of the companies approved for a grant was Courtaulds at Tomago which was granted the sum of$200,000.

Since then the Government has imposed tariff quotas on a range of apparel imports and has negotiated voluntary restraints on imports of other apparel. This action should assist the company to sell its products to local apparel manufacturers.

Civil Defence (Question No. 1134)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Attorney-General, upon notice:

  1. With reference to the answer to question No. 548 (Hansard, 19 September 1974, page 1621) in which the Prime Minister indicated that the form and frequency of exercises in Government Departments in civil defence preparedness are as determined by individual Departments, on what dates in the last 1 8 months have exercises of this nature been conducted in his Department
  2. ) Which officers and employees took pan.
  3. How many officers and employees took pan.

  4. What was the purpose of each of the exercises.

    1. Does he accept that this is an area where the Australian Government can give a lead to other employers.
Mr Enderby:
ALP

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

  1. 17 June 1974, 18 July 1974, 12 September 1974.
  2. Officers and employees located in branches in Adelaide, Brisbane and Hobart.
  4. To ensure that officers and employees are aware of emergency procedures and to enable persons with special emergency appointments to have practical training in their duties.
  5. Yes.

RED Scheme (Question No. 1980)

Mr Garland:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Labor and Immigration, upon notice:

  1. Approximately what sum has been (a) paid and (b) authorised for payment under the RED Scheme.
  2. To which bodies or persons have sums been approved.
  3. What percentage of the total sum approved has been applied to each State.
  4. What sum for approved projects has been provided by each of the bodies or persons in each case. .(5) Have the criteria for approval of projects changed since the inception of the Scheme and; if so, what have been those changes, and when were the changes made.
  5. Do proposals by local authorities for weeding, lawnmowing, laying footpaths and tree pruning qualify; if they qualify under certain conditions, what are those conditions.
Mr Riordan:
ALP

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

  1. The total sum paid out under the RED Scheme as at end-June 1975 was $60,397,132. The total sum authorised for payment under the RED Scheme as at end- June 1975 was estimated to be $ 1 92,684,960.

  2. RED Scheme projects have been approved for the following types of institutions:

    1. State Government Departments and instrumentalities;
    2. local government authorities; and
    3. community organisations including Apex, Lions, Rotary, Brotherhood of St Laurence, St Vincent de Paul and other similar charitable institutions.
  3. 3 ) The proportion of total sums approved in each State as at end-June 1 975 is as follows:
  1. The total cost of projects as at end-June 1975 was estimated at $230,017,080 with the assistance being provided by the various types of institutions sponsoring projects being estimated at $37,332, 120.
  2. Yes. Originally projects involving the construction of kerbing, guttering and footpaths and eradication of noxious weeds were not eligible for approval. In December 1974 such projects became eligible for approval. On 12 February 1975 projects in areas near or adjacent to declared areas became eligible for approval.

On 26 February 1975 the Scheme was extended to cover all areas in Australia subject to the limitations that in undeclared areas projects involving kerbing, guttering and footpath construction would not be eligible, that projects must be of outstanding social benefit for the community and/or have strong Regional implications. In addition, in undeclared u sas an upper financial limit of $350,000 was placed on the amount that could be approved at any point of time in metropolitan local government areas and of $100,000 in non-metropolitan local government areas.

  1. Proposals for weeding (other than the eradication of noxious weeds) and lawnmowing do not generally qualify. Proposals for laying footpaths and tree pruning have qualified if there were sufficient local suitable unemployed workers available for employment and other more worthwhile projects were not forthcoming.

Cockburn Sound (Question No. 2566)

Mr Bungey:
CANNING, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister for Environment, upon notice:

  1. Further to the answer to question No. 687 (Hansard, 26 September 1974, page 1943) have further surveys of pollution levels in Cockburn Sound been conducted; if so, what are the results.
  2. Is the Australian Government aiding the Environmental Protection Authority of Western Australia in a recently announced $30,000 survey of pollution levels.
  3. Has his attention been drawn to algae build up in the Palm Beach areas of the Sound; if so, what action has been taken or is planned.
  4. To what extent is this algae build-up attributable to the construction of the Garden Island causeway.
Mr Berinson:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) Yes. These surveys were jointly commissioned by the Western Australian Environmental Protection Authority and the Australian Government Department of Housing and Construction. The results have confirmed the findings given in answer to question No. 687.
  2. Yes. Reports of all previous monitoring work in connection with Hydrology, Beach Morphology and Ecology of Cockburn Sound have been made available to the Environmental Protection Authority. Officers of the Department of Housing and Construction have been consulted, as required, by the firm commissioned by the Environmental Protection Authority to carry out the appraisal survey.
  3. No specific submission on Palm Beach has been brought to my attention.
  4. The results of the surveys indicate that the prime cause of a general build-up of algae in the Sound is the significant increase in the past few years of quantities of nutrients being discharged into the Sound by established industry, as indicated in answer to question No. 687.

Biological Surveys (Question No. 2572)

Mr Hunt:

asked the Minister for Environment, upon notice:

What biological surveys are being undertaken in Australia by the States, CSIRO and other agencies intoflora, fauna, reptiles and the associated ecosystem.

Mr Berinson:
ALP

– In reply to the honourable member’s question the following information is provided:

The Department of Environment administers a program of Wildlife Policy Investigation which in 1974-75 made $381,000 available for a wide range of biologically and ecologically oriented studies. A detailed list of projects financed under this scheme is attached.

The CSIRO Division of Entomology employs a number of taxonomists responsible for the collection and maintenance of the Australian National Insect Collection. CSIRO Division of Wildlife Research is also responsible for a continuing program of wildlife surveys in all parts of Australia.

Two other Australian Government sources of funds for biological and ecological studies are the Australian Biological Resources Study Interim Council and the Australian Research Grants Committee. As both of these bodies and the CSIRO are the responsibility of my colleague, the Minister for Science, I suggest that the honourable member should contact the Minister if he requires further information

The various State Fauna Authorities together with State Museums are also involved in survey programs. I am not aware of the details of such surveys and suggest the honourable member seek this information direct from the various State Authorities.

Ecological Survey

Survey of benthic biota in Moreton Bay

Ecological survey of Australia- preliminary investigation

Appraisal and evaluation of Australian landscapes, areas and ecosystems

Bridled Nail-tailed Wallaby- habitat study

Kilcoy Shire- closed forest fauna survey

Bulloo Shire- arid zone fauna survey

Study of eye disease karotoconjunctivitis in koalas

S.A. involvement in ecological survey

Mapping and plant distribution of arid N.S.W.

National Wetlands Survey

National wetlands survey- feasibility study

Survey of wetland areas in Victoria

Study of the relationship between wetland areas and cranes in north Queensland

Survey of New England lagoons

Assessment of wetlands identification methods in N.S.W.

Examination of effects of pesticides on wetland ecosystems in the Namoi cotton growing valley.

Assessment of aerial remote sensing techniques and to establish the basis of a methodology for using remote sensor information for biological inventory problems.

Biological survey of Drysdale River reserve

Studies on Kangaroo Biology, Habitat Search for Endangered Species and for Population Assessment

Ecological studies of the Red Kangaroo in north-western

New South Wales

Refinement of aerial population assessment methods of the Red Kangaroo in N.S.W. and S.A.

Habitat search for the Toolache Wallaby (Macropus greyi)

Habitat search in W.A. for the potoroos, Potorus platyops. and P. tridactylus gilberti

Search for Bridled Nail-tailed Wallaby in N.S.W.

Studies on breeding and Habitat Requirements for Migratory Birds

Study of the Lord Howe Island Woodhen

Survey of sea bird movements off N.S.W. coast Assessment of suitable migratory bird habitat in Australia

Studies on Endangered Animals, the effects of Flooding on Wildlife, Forestry Practices and Biological Surveying

Biological survey of Drysdale River reserve

Survey on the effects of flooding on wildlife

Effect of forestry practices on the Brush Possum (Trichosurus vulpecula) and Mountain Possum (T. caninus)

Survey of the Dugong (Dugong dugon) in northern Australian waters

Minister for Agriculture (Question No. 2590)

Mr Kerin:

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

  1. What reports, excluding annual reports, have been produced by the Department of Agriculture, by authorities for which the Minister is responsible, and by ad hoc commissions, committees, task forces, etc, within the Minister’s portfolio since 5 December 1972.
  2. Which of these reports have not been published, and when does the Minister expect them to be published.
Dr Patterson:
Minister for Northern Australia · DAWSON, QUEENSLAND · ALP

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

I draw the honourable member’s attention to the answer provided by the Prime Minister to Question 2586 in the House of Representatives on 5 June 1 975.

Minister for Housing and Construction (Question No. 2604)

Mr Kerin:

asked the Minister for Housing and Construction upon notice:

  1. What reports, excluding annual reports, have been produced by his Department, by authorities for which he is responsible, and by ad hoc commissions, committees, task forces, etc., within his portfolio, since 5 December 1972.
  2. Which of these reports have not been published, and when does he expect them to be published.
Mr Riordan:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) and (2)I refer the honourable member to the Prime Minister’s answer to Question No. 2586 (Hansard, 5 June 1975, page 3545).

Minister for the Capital Territory (Question No. 2610)

Mr Kerin:

asked the Minister for the Capital Territory, upon notice:

  1. What reports, excluding annual reports, have been produced by his Department, by authorities for which he is responsible, and by ad hoc commissions, committees, task forces, etc., within his portfolio, since 5 December 1972.
  2. Which of these reports have not been published, and when does he expect them to be published.
Mr Bryant:
ALP

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

  1. and (2) I refer the honourable member to the Prime Minister’s reply to Question on Notice No. 2586 which appeared in Hansard (page 3545) on 5 June 1975.

Rheumatics (Question No. 2621)

Mr Lloyd:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

  1. Are there sufficient rheumatologists, orthopaedic surgeons and specialist nurses and therapists in Australia to cope effectively with the incidence of rheumatic complaints; if not, what is being done to overcome the shortage
  2. Are there sufficient physical facilities at hospitals, clinics, etc., to meet adequately the needs of rheumatic sufferers; if not, what is being done to overcome this deficiency.
Dr Everingham:
ALP

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

  1. 1) It is not possible to answer the question in respect of medical practitioners at the present time because, in addition to a small core of physicians and of orthopaedic surgeons specialising in rheumatology to varying degrees, there is an unknown number of other medical practitioners also involved in the treatment of rheumatic disease. However, detailed studies of health manpower recently mounted by my Department are intended to assess the needs for medical specialties.

In respect of allied health personnel needed to treat rheumatic disease, a recent report of the Hospitals and Health Services Commission has recommended an increase in supply of both occupational therapists and physiotherapists. It has also recommended a study to identify the service characteristics of nursing practice and to estimate requirements for nursing personnel. The report, ‘Australian Health Manpower’, was tabled on 4 March 1 97S.

  1. Although there were facilities for the treatment of rheumatic sufferers in Australia, it is recognised that some of these facilities are inadequate. In its quest to improve the quality of all kinds of health care, the Government, through its Community Health Program, is supporting a variety of services and facilities, for example, day hospitals, health centres, and domiciliary care teams.

In addition, the Government, through its Hospitals Development Program, is directly involved in the development and improvement of public hospitals and other health care institutions. The Hospitals Development Program is a program of capital assistance to the States. It represents a joint initiative between the Australian and State Governments and is aimed at co-ordinated planning of all health care facilities on a regional, State and national basis. The improved services and facilities resulting from the Hospitals Development Program will assist in meeting the needs of many patients, including sufferers from rheumatic diseases.

Community Health Centres (Question No. 2626)

Mr Lloyd:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Where in Departmental Estimates is there provision for expenditure for advertising the Government’s Community Health Centre program.
  2. If there is no special provision in the Estimates, from what pan of Departmental expenditure is the money being provided, and what sum has been allocated.
Dr Everingham:
ALP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: ( 1 )-(2) There is no item in the funds available to me that is exclusively for advertising community health centres. However, provision is included under Division 270.2.02 (Department of Health) and Division 271.1 (Hospitals and Health Services Commission) for publicising the Community Health Program. Details of these provisions are:

Under the 1974-75 ‘Machinery of Government’ advertising campaign, the Minister for the Media included as a segment of the overall campaign one press advertisement and one TV commercial on the subject of community health centres, exemplified by the community health centre at Deer Park, Melbourne. The expenditure on this segment of the campaign was approximately $2 19,000.

Army Reserve (Question No. 2635)

Mr Killen:

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Was it a recommendation of the Committee of Inquiry into the Citizen Military Forces that an Army Reserve Advisory Council be established to advise the Chief of the General Staff on matters affecting the Reserve; if so, was the recommendation accepted.
  2. If the Council has been formed, when was its first meeting held.
Mr Morrison:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) Yes; the recommendation was accepted.
  2. The Council has yet to be formed. A number of persons who are considered to be eminently suitable to serve on the Council have been approached and invited to be members.

Army Reserve (Question No. 2636)

Mr Killen:

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice:

Did the Prime Minister inform the Citizen Military Forces Association in Canberra in December 1974 that the Government expected to make a decision on the Millar Committee ‘s recommendations for preferential housing loans for members of the Army Reserve who have served 6 years or more; if so, has the undertaking been implemented.

Mr Morrison:
ALP

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

The recommendation by the Committee on the extension of the Defence Services Home Scheme to members of the Army Reserve is under consideration and an announcement will be made when a decision is reached.

Criminal Code for the Australian Capital Territory (Question No. 2651)

Mr Kevin Cairns:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

asked the Attorney-General, upon notice:

  1. Has his attention been drawn to a report in the Canberra Times of 26 May 1975 that a new draft criminal code for the A.C.T. is proposed.
  2. 2 ) Was this code drawn up by Mr Fisse of Adelaide.
  3. 3 ) If so, who appointed Mr Fisse to settle the terms of the proposed code.
  4. What are Mr Fisse ‘s qualifications and experience.
  5. 5 ) Is the code proposed to be an Ordinance or an Act.
  6. How and why does this proposed code differ from the previous draft code.
  7. Was the Law Council of Australia consulted in drawing up the new proposed code; if so, when.
  8. Will he make available to interested bodies the new proposed code.
Mr Enderby:
ALP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: (1), (2), (3), (4) and (5) I refer the honourable member to the ‘Report of the Working Party on Territorial Criminal Law’ which I tabled in Parliament on 5 June 1975 and to the statement I then made. Copies of both documents have been supplied to all members.

  1. I assume that the reference is to the Draft Criminal Code for the Australian Territories completed by the Law Council of Australia in 1969. The two drafts differ fundamentally in approach, concepts and detail. The differences are too substantial to be enumerated here.
  2. No.
  3. This has been done and I have asked for comments on the draft to be submitted to me as soon as possible.

Whales (Question No. 2653)

Mr Keogh:
BOWMAN, QUEENSLAND

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

Will the Minister advise whether (a) the Australian Commissioner to the International Whaling Commission in 1974 voted to support a quota of 300 of Fin whales in the North Pacific Ocean at the plenary session, (b) this motion was carried, as reported in the press, (c) a motion for a zero quota on this stock was lost at the plenary session, (d) the Australian Commissioner voted against the zero; if so why, (e) the Soviet delegate had made it known he would support a zero quota, as reported by a conservationist adviser on the American delegation (f) the Fin whale was recommended as an endangered species in 1973 and (g) the Australian Commissioner voted in 1973 to bring about a cessation of Fin whale killing.

Dr Patterson:
ALP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. Yes.
  3. Yes.
  4. Yes; to support a resolution adopted by the Commission in 1973 to reduce the quota for fin whales from 450 to zero over a three year period.
  5. The Soviet Commissioner did not speak to this matter in the plenary session. (0 Yes; see (d)
  6. Yes; see (d)

Department of Aboriginal Affairs: Grants (Question No. 2120)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice:

When will he answer my question No. 94 which first appeared on the Notice Paper on 10 July 1 974.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

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

The answer to the right honourable member’s question was given on 9 April 1975, Hansard pages 1453-1456.

Capital Fund for Aboriginal Enterprises (Question No. 2135)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice:

When will he answer my question No. 1758 which first appeared on the Notice Paper on 1 3 November 1 974.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

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

The answer to the right honourable member’s question was given on 8 April 1975, Hansard page 1 324.

Funds for Aboriginal Affairs (Question No. 2133)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice:

When will he answer my question No. 1756 which first appeared on the Notice Paper on 1 3 November 1 974.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

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

The answer to the right honourable member’s question was given on 9 April 1975, Hansard page 1451.

Aboriginals: Accommodation in Townsville (Question No. 2126)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice:

When will he answer my question No. 437 which first appeared on the Notice Paper on 1 6 July 1974.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

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

The answer to the right honourable member’s question was given on 14 May 1975, Hansard page 2297.

Aboriginal Artifacts (Question No. 2131)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice:

When will he answer my question No. 1752 which first appeared on the Notice Paper on 13 November 1974.

Mr Les Johnson: The answer to the right honourable member’s question is as follows:

The answer to the right honourable member’s question was given on 13 May 1975, Hansard page2192.

Environmental Studies: Jervis Bay Nuclear Power Plant (Question No. 2260)

Mr Ruddock:

asked the Minister for Minerals and Energy, upon notice:

  1. With reference to the Prime Minister’s answer to my question No. 1779 (Hansard, 5 December 1974, page 4763), has his attention been drawn to the book of Mr J. J. Spigelman entitled Secrecy- Political Censorship in Australia and, in particular, An Inside Dopester’s Index of 100 Examples of Secrecy, on pages 1 77 to 1 80.
  2. Has his attention been drawn to indexed item 1 1- Environmental studies of the Jervis Bay nuclear power plant.
  3. In respect of that item, has it been made publicly available since 1972; if so, when, and in what manner, and by whom was the disclosure made.
  4. If the item has not been made publicly available, what is the reason for the continuing secrecy.
Mr Connor:
ALP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. Yes.

  3. and (4) The following information has been made available in relation to environmental studies of the Jervis Bay nuclear power plant:

    1. R. Davy, M.S. Giles and E. Charash Ecological Factors in the Siting, Design and Operation of a Nuclear Power Station, Proceedings of the Ecological Society of Australia, Volume 5, 1970, pages 153-168;

M.S. Giles, Preliminary Ecological Studies at Jervis Bay, Australian Marine Science Bulletin, No. 36, October 1971, pages 12-16;

  1. Charash ‘Turbulent Diffusion in the Ocean and Bay in the Jervis Bay Area’, Australian Marine Science Bulletin, No. 37, January 1972, pages 10-19;

D.R. Davy, ‘Nuclear Power and Environmental Pollution’, Atomic Energy in Australia, Volume 14, Nos. 3 and 4, July-October 1971, pages 41-52; and

G.H. Clark and E.O.K. Bendun, ‘Meteorological Research Studies at Jervis Bay, Australia’, Australian Atomic Energy Commission Report E309, July 1974.

Wool (Question No. 2282)

Mr Ruddock:

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

  1. With reference to the Prime Minister’s answer to my question No. 1779 (Hansard, 5 December 1974, page 4763), has the Minister ‘s attention been drawn to the book of Mr J. J. Spigelman entitled Secrecy- Political Censorship in Australia and, in particular, An Inside Dopester’s Index of 1 00 Examples of Secrecy, on pages 1 77 to 1 80.
  2. Has the Minister’s attention also been drawn to indexed item 50- The Randall report on wool.
  3. In respect of that item, has it been made publicly available since 1972; if so, when, and in what manner, and by whom was the disclosure made.
  4. If the item has not been made publicly available, what is the reason for the continuing secrecy.
Dr Patterson:
ALP

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

  1. and (2) Yes.
  2. Yes. The Randall report on wool was published by the Australian Government Publishing Service in August 1972 under the title ‘Report on the Australian Wool Industry 1971-72’. Its release was announced on 15 August 1972 by the then Minister for Primary Industry.
  3. Not applicable.

Wool Industry: Government Support (Question No. 2283)

Mr Ruddock:

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

  1. With reference to the Prime Minister’s answer to my question No. 1779 (Hansard, 5 December 1974, page 4763), has the Minister’s attention been drawn to the book of Mr J. J. Spigelman entitled Secrecy- Political Censorship in Australia, and in particular, An Inside Dopester’s Index of 100 Examples of Secrecy, on pages 177 to 180.
  2. Has the Minister’s attention also been drawn to indexed item 5 1- Costing of the Australian Wool Industries Conference 1972 proposals.
  3. In respect of that item, has it been made publicly available since 1972; if so, when and in what manner, and by whom was the disclosure made.
  4. If the item has not been made publicly available, what is the reason for the continuing secrecy.
Dr Patterson:
ALP

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

  1. and (2) Yes.
  2. In April 1972, the Australian Wool Industry Conference, a non-Government organisation, presented to the Government of the day a paper entitled ‘Estimates of Government Financial Support for the Wool Industry’. This paper set down estimates of Government financial support considered necessary to implement the proposals which were submitted to the Government by the Conference in March 1972.

Apparently the AWIC cost estimates were not released publicly. However, they were given detailed consideration along with the AWIC submission by the Randall Committee. That Committee’s Report was made publicly available- see answer to Question No. 2282.

  1. Refer to answer to (3) above.

Yennora Wool Centre (Question No. 2284)

Mr Ruddock:

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

  1. With reference to the Prime Minister’s answer to my question No. 1779 (Hansard, 5 December 1974, page 4763), has the Minister’s attention been drawn to the book of Mr J. J. Spigelman entitled Secrecy- Political Censorship in

Australia and, in particular, An Inside Dopester’s Index of 1 00 Examples of Secrecy, on pages 1 77 to 1 80.

  1. Has the Minister’s attention also been drawn to indexed item 52- Cost/benefit assessment of the Yennora wool centre.
  2. In respect of that item, has it been made publicly available since 1972; if so, when, and in what manner, and by whom was the disclosure made.
  3. If the item has not been made publicly available, what is the reason for the continuing secrecy.
Dr Patterson:
ALP

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

  1. and (2) Yes.
  2. I understand from my Department that a number of feasibility studies for the Yennora Wool Centre were undertaken. It would appear that the centrally important studies leading to decisions to undertake the project were commissioned by two wool selling brokers, who had initiated the proposal, and by the Australian Wool Board.

These studies were carried out in 1970 and apparently were not made public by the government of the day; which, in any event, had not commissioned them.

  1. See answer to (3) above.

Poultry Industry (Question No. 2524)

Mr Bourchier:

asked the Minister for the Capital Territory, upon notice:

  1. With reference to the 85 000 bird quota supplied to poultry farmers in the A.C.T., is it a fact that this quota has been supplied to farms already enjoying a N.S.W. State quota.
  2. Is it also a fact that as a result one farm is now selling eggs interstate and consequently disrupting the whole marketing system in Victoria.
  3. Did one particular producer receive this added quota to compensate for support given to the ALP in the 1972 and 1974 elections.
  4. Will he ensure that no further quotas are granted to the A.C.T. without complete discussion and co-operation with CEMA
Mr Bryant:
ALP

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

  1. 1) Legislation to introduce control over egg production in the A.C.T. has not yet been introduced. A draft Ordinance has been submitted to and discussed by the A.C.T. Legislative Assembly. Amendments recommended by the Legislative Assembly are now being examined. Under the legislation each producer who carried on business in the Territory during the period prescribed in the Ordinance will be licenced relative to his flock numbers during that period.

The agreed size of the A.C.T. quota is 150 000.

  1. No.
  2. See (1) above.
  3. Changes in the overall quota for the A.C.T. will be made only after negotiations with the Australian Agricultural Council. However, following the States’ clearly established precedent, the method of allocating quotas or quota changes for A.C.T. producers is a matter entirely within my responsibility as Minister for the Capital Territory.

Department of Environment (Question No. 2508)

Mr Hunt:

asked the Minister for Environment, upon notice:

  1. Will he provide the names of consultant firms used by his Department for any purposes whatsoever, and detail any consultants ‘ work that has been done or is being done.
  2. What has been the cost of these services to 31 March 1975.
Mr Berinson:
ALP

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

  1. The information you requested is shown in the attached table. Studies undertaken by Australian and State Government agencies and universities on behalf of the Department have not been included.
  2. 8104,723.65.

Dental Treatment (Question No. 2536)

Mr Lloyd:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

  1. Have new arrangements been introduced for dental treatment at the Canberra and Woden Valley Hospitals.
  2. ) If so, in what way do the new arrangements differ from past arrangements.
Dr Everingham:
ALP

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

  1. No.
  2. Arrangements continue to provide the service for particular classes of patients, including pensioners, students, indigent persons etc

Wool Selling (Question No. 2549)

Mr Bungey:

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

  1. Did the operations of private woolbuyers’ purchasing on farms inhibit the Australian Wool Corporation in its reserve price and supply control functions in the period since 1 July 1974; if so, in what ways.
  2. Were any requests or recommendations received from the Australian Wool Corporation, the Australian Wool Industry Conference, the Wool Industry Policy Committee or any woolgrower organisation for limitation of private buying activities in this period; if so, what was the nature of these requests or recommendations, and what action was taken on them.
Dr Patterson:
ALP

-The Minister for Agriculture has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

  1. 1 ) The operations of private woolbuyers purchasing on farms do not inhibit the Corporation in fulfilling its specific

reserve price and supply control functions, but private trading in wool does make it more difficult for the Corporation to achieve its objectives in the wool market.

The Corporation believes that this arises in two ways. Firstly, the Corporation states there is strong evidence that wool purchased privately is, on average, sold to overseas mills at prices below the auction price of equivalent wools. This ‘two-price’ situation created some uncertainty in the minds of users who were seeking confidence that Australian wool could not be discounted below the declared minimum reserve, hence undermining the effectiveness of the price support scheme.

Secondly, the Corporation believes that its supply management efforts are rendered more difficult by unrestricted private selling.

The Corporation presently has authority only to influence the supply of wool offered at auction. Under these circumstances some growers, believing that the sale of their wool would be delayed by supply management if the wool were consigned for auction, choose to sell privately. Both supply and demand at auction are thereby reduced, but the quantity of wool not subject to the Corporation’s reserve prices is increased.

  1. In November 1974 the Australian Wool Industry Conference suggested that amendments be included in the Wool Industry Act to give the Australian Wool Corporation control over the activities of private treaty woolbuyers. On evidence available as to the real effect of these activities on wool market support arrangements (see answer to part ( 1 ) of this question) the Government was not satisfied that such action was warranted.

Suggestions were also received from several State and regional woolgrower bodies that the private buying of wool should be controlled by licensing. For reasons already mentioned, these suggestions also were not adopted.

A service is being developed by the Australian Wool Corporation to advise growers on factors involved in establishing the value of wool and thus assist growers to make informed selling decisions.

Wool Selling (Question Nos. 2550 and 2551)

Mr Bungey:

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

No. 2550 Has the Department of Agriculture investigated or commissioned investigations into the price received by Australian woolgrowers selling wool to private buyers in comparison to the price received by woolgrowers who sell wool at auction; if so, what were the findings of these investigations.

No. 2551. Has the Australian Wool Corporation investigated or commissioned investigations into the price received by Australian woolgrowers selling wool to private buyers in comparison to the price received by woolgrowers who sell wool at auction; if so, what were the findings of these investigations.

Dr Patterson:
ALP

– The Minister for Agriculture has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s questions.

It is a prescribed function of the Australian Wool Corporation, under the Wool Industry Act 1972-1974, to keep under constant review the practice of the buying and selling of wool outside the auction system.

For this purpose the Corporation has been authorised to obtain appropriate information from firms engaged in the private trading of wool.

There is no public disclosure of prices at which wool is traded privately, but a study of a wide range of aspects of private trading in wool is presently being carried out by the Corporation. Results obtained to date are preliminary.

In selling privately the Corporation believes that woolgrowers are principally influenced by the following factors:

The need to obtain immediate cash

The desire to avoid selling charges at auction

The belief that the net price offered is better than at auction.

Taking into account the differences in selling costs of the alternative systems, growers sometimes sell wool at a disadvantaged privately and sometimes at an advantage, the outcome varying between wool types and between market conditions.

Some private treaty merchants have bought privately in excess of their needs and resold at auction knowing a particular return is guaranteed by the Corporation’s minimum reserve. It is believed that, for this reason, the quantity reoffered at auction in 1974-75 has been greater than in previous seasons.

The majority of wool disposed of to exporters by private treaty merchants is sold at a discount to ruling auction prices. No concrete evidence has been obtained of the prices at which privately bought wool is sold direct to overseas mills, but it is understood the same relationship applies.

It has not been considered necessary for the Australian Department of Agriculture to duplicate the investigatory activities of the Corporation in this area.

Community Welfare (Question No. 2844)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister, representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Who is conducting the research into community welfare needs in the Mount Morgan area.
  2. ) What is the nature of the research program.
  3. When will it be concluded.
  4. Will the reports be published.
  5. If so, what form will the publication of any results take.
  6. How is the $6,000 that has been allocated for this project being distributed.
Mr Stewart:
Minister for Tourism and Recreation · LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

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

  1. to (6) A suitably qualified worker was appointed to conduct research into community welfare needs in the Mount Morgan area but was unable to take up the appointment. Consequently, the research has not yet commenced and the grant of $6,000 has not been spent. Negotiations to engage another research worker are currently taking place between the Fitzroy Regional Council for Social Development and a suitably qualified person.

Centre for Human Services (Question No. 2845)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister, representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice:

  1. Will the Minister provide details of the project to be carried out by the Centre for Human Services with funding of more than $4,000 from the Australian Government to provide communications service to assist multi-ethnic people to express their needs.
  2. Does this project have the approval of the Minister for Labor and Immigration; if so, when was this approval sought and given; if not, why not.
Mr Stewart:
ALP

– The Minister for Social Security has povided the following answer to the right honourable member’s question.

  1. 1 ) The South West Sydney Regional Social Development Council Ltd submitted two projects from the Centre for Human Services for funding under the Australian Assistance Plan:

    1. Equipment and salary for a communications animator to meet the challenge of delivering services in a multi-ethnic situation. The officer was appointed to assist persons and groups at Marrickville in learning how best to express and communicate their needs. The communications equipment includes printing and recording apparatus.

A grant of $4,785 was approved on 23 April 1975.

  1. Purchase, modification and running costs of a media van to be made available for use throughout the region to communicate to the community in the area on social and community welfare services. The animator previously approved and appointed would include use of the van in the performance of his duties.

A grant of $4,436 was approved on 25 June 1975.

  1. No. The post-arrival welfare of migrants is no longer the resonsibility of the Minister for Labor and Immigration.

Defence Forces: Retirement Conditions (Question No. 2853)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Defence upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Are officers and other ranks of the Defence Force now entitled to retire after 20 years service and to receive a lump sum payment equivalent to 4 years pension.
  2. Does the Government have any plans to remove this entitlement.
Mr Morrison:
ALP

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

  1. The general position is that officers and other ranks who leave the Defence Force after twenty or more years service with a pension entitlement (other than an invalidity pension) are eligible to receive a lump sum equal to four times their annual pension on exit; but, of course, payment of the lump sum results in a reduction in the amount of pension otherwise payable.
  2. The Government has no plans to vary the current arrangements for separation from the Defence Force. Nor are there any definitive proposals before the Government to remove or modify the lump sum pension provisions. These provisions are being examined jointly by my Department and Services and I will be considering in due course the results of that examination.

Department of Environment: Advertising (Question No. 2859)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Environment upon notice:

  1. 1 ) What is the advertising budget of his Department for 1975-76.
  2. What types of advertising are entailed in expenditure of this amount.
  3. What were the corresponding figures for each of the last 5 years.
Mr Berinson:
ALP

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

  1. $27,000. In addition, $21,000 has been sought for public notices of environmental inquiries, $48,000 for the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service and $5,000 for the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority.

  2. (a) Advertisements for the recruitment of staff.

    1. Advertisements for grants to conservation and environmental bodies.
    2. Public notices of intention to hold environmental inquiries under the Environment Protection (Impact ofProposals) Assessment Act 1974-75.
    3. Public notices of areas to be declared under the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act 1975.
  3. Expenditure over the last five years for the Department of Environment was as follows-

1 974-75-$20,995

1973-74-$ 15,458

The Department was created in December 1972 and any costs which may have been incurred on advertising during the period December 1972 to June 1973 are not separately identifiable. No information is available in relation to expenditure in earlier years.

The only costs incurred for public notices of environmental inquiries was $8,613 in 1974/75 and $406 in 1973/74. In so far as the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service is concerned the only cost for advertising incurred was $1,290 in 1974/75. As legislation to establish the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority was only assented to in June 1975 no advertising costs were incurred prior to that date.

Department of Science and Consumer Affairs: Advertising (Question No. 2865)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Science and Consumer Affairs, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) What is the advertising budget of his Department for 1975-76.
  2. What types of advertising are entailed in expenditure of this amount.
  3. What were the corresponding figures for each of the last 5 years.
Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

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

I am advised that:

1 ) The advertising budget for the Department of Science and Consumer Affairs for 1975-76 is expected to be of the order of $97,000.

The types of advertising include notification of departmental vacancies, and advertisements inviting applications for: fellowships- e.g. Queen ‘s Fellowships in Marine Science; grants-e.g. Australian Research Grants.

Grants and fellowships are advertised both locally and overseas.

The corresponding figures for previous years, following the creation of the Department of Science in December 1972, are as follows:

1973- 74-$74,900

1974- 75-$87,000

Department of Education: Advertising (Question No. 2866)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Education, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) What is the advertising budget of his Department for 1975-76.
  2. What types of advertising are entailed in expenditure of this amount.
  3. What were the corresponding figures for each of the last 5 years.
Mr Beazley:
ALP

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

  1. The advertising budget for the Department of Education for 1 975-76 is$204,000.

  2. The major types of advertising covered by this amount are:

    1. Advertising for schemes of student assistance (publicity on the availability of assistance, eligibility, benefits, where to apply) and overseas schemes of awards and fellowships.
    2. Advertising in connection with the activities of the Canberra Technical College and the Interim A.C.T. Schools Authority.
    3. Advertising for departmental staff vacancies.
  3. Expenditure figures for the 5 years prior to 1975-76 are as follows:

1970- 71-$46,000

1971- 72-$38,100

1972- 73-$70,800

1973- 74-$96,200

1974- 75-$179,700

Financial Assistance by Department of Services and Property (Question No. 2682)

Mr Lamb:
LA TROBE, VICTORIA

asked the Minister for Services and Property, upon notice:

  1. What financial assistance by way of (a) grants, repayable or non-repayable, (b) loans at varying rates of interest, (c) subsidies, and (d) matching grants are available through the Department to non-government bodies or individuals.
  2. How is this assistance advertised or made available to interested persons or bodies.
  3. Will the information be collated, together with similar information from other Departments, and issued in a booklet form along the lines of the booklet issued by the Department of Urban and Regional Development as a guide to financial assistance from the Australian Government to local government.
Mr Daly:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) No financial assistance by way of (a) grants, repayable or non-repayable, (b) loans at varying rates of interest, (c) subsidies, or (d) matching grants to non-government bodies or individuals is available through the Department of Services and Property.
  2. and (3) See (1) above.

Financial Assistance by Department of Northern Australia (Question No. 2685)

Mr Lamb:

asked the Minister for Northern Australia, upon notice:

  1. What financial assistance by way of (a) grants, repayable or non-repayable, (b) loans at varying rates of interest, (c) subsidies and (d) matching grants were available through the former Department of Northern Development to non-government bodies or individuals.
  2. How is this assistance advertised or made available to interested persons or bodies.
  3. Will the information be collated, together with similar information from other Departments and issued in booklet form along the lines of the booklet issued by the Department of Urban and Regional Development as a guide to financial assistance from the Australian Government to local government.
Dr Patterson:
ALP

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

  1. Nil.
  2. Does not apply.
  3. Does not apply.

Financial Assistance by Postmaster-General’s Department (Question No. 2692)

Mr Lamb:

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

  1. What financial assistance by way of (a) grants, repayable or non-repayable, (b) loans at varying rates of interest, (c) subsidies and (d) matching grants were available through the former Postmaster-General’s Department to non-government bodies or individuals.
  2. How was this assistance advertised or made available to interested persons or bodies.
  3. Will the information be collated, together with similar information from other Departments and issued in booklet form along the lines of the booklet issued by the Department of Urban and Regional Development as a guide to financial assistance from the Australian Government to local government.
Mr Lionel Bowen:
ALP

– The Postmaster-General has provided the following answer to the honourable member ‘s question:

  1. The Postmaster-General’s Department has provided regular financial assistance by way of subsidy to the Australian Postal Institute and the Telecommunication Society of Australia. In addition it has made a monetary grant to the Chartered Institute of Transport. The amounts made available since 1 97 1 -72 are as follows:
  1. It is not necessary for the assistance to be advertised as the Australian Postal Institute and the Telecommunication Society are organisations whose members are staff of the Department and the activities o the organisations are for the benefit of the members.
  2. See answer given by Minister for Urban and Regional Development to part 3 of Question No. 269 1 .

Financial Assistance by Department of Science and Consumer Affairs (Question No. 2702)

Mr Lamb:

asked the Minister for Science and Consumer Affairs, upon notice:

  1. What financial assistance by way of (a) grants, repayable or non-repayable, (b) loans at varying rates of interest, (c) subsidies and (d) matching grants are available through the Department to non-government bodies or individuals.
  2. How is this assistance advertised or made available to interested persons or bodies.
  3. Will the information be collated, together with similar information from other Departments, and issued in booklet form along the lines of the booklet issued by the Department of Urban and Regional Development as a guide to financial assistance from the Australian Government to local government.
Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

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

I am advised that:

Financial assistance is available by way of grants through the following schemes administered by my Department and the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO).

Department of Science and Consumer Affairs

Australian Research Grants.

Australian Biological Resources Study.

Research into Crown of thorns starfish.

Queen Elizabeth II Fellowships.

Queen’s Fellowships.

vi) US/Australia Agreement for Scientific and Technical Co-operation.

CSIRO

Grants to research associations.

Grants to other national bodies where support by the Australian Government is channelled through CSIRO.

Extra-mural grants to universities and similar bodies.

Grants from the Science and Industry Endowment Fund (SIEF)

Information on the schemes is advertised or made available to interested persons or bodies as follows:

Department of Science and Consumer Affairs

Australian Research Grants and Grants for Research into Crown of thorns starfish: Notices to Universities and relevant research organisations.

Australian Biological Resources Study Grants, Queen Elizabeth II and Queen’s Fellowships: Press advertisements.

US/Australia Agreement for Scientific and Technical Co-operation: Background information is forwarded on request.

CSIRO

Availability of grants under these schemes is not advertised in detail but by reference to CSIRO Annual Reports and from general knowledge within the scientific community, interested parties would be aware of the existence of these schemes.

I refer the honourable member to the Minister for Urban and Regional Development’s reply to part 3 of question on notice No. 269 1 .

The information provided above is supplementary to that provided by my predecessor, Mr Morrison, in his replies to Questions on Notice Nos 95 and 1570 (House of Representatives Hansard, 5 December 1974, pp. 4857-62 and 8 April 1975, pp. 13 to 22-3 respectively).

Medibank Cards (Question No. 2744)

Mr Bourchier:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Is it a fact that Medibank cards for families are being delivered in separate envelopes, e.g. a family of 7 receives 7 different envelopes.
  2. If so, does the Government agree that this is a tremendous waste of public funds.
Mr Stewart:
ALP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. No, the Government does not agree that this is a waste of public funds. Medibank cards were produced from two different records. Individual cards were printed from information on Electoral Rolls, whereas family cards were produced from child endowment files.

The cost of attempting to match by clerical methods the individual card sent to the mother in her own right with that sent to her as a family card would have far exceeded the cost of sending the cards out by high speed machine operation in different envelopes.

Unemployment Benefit Payments (Question No. 2749)

Mr Lloyd:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Is it a fact, as reported in the Melbourne Age of 4 June 1975, that a team of 200 Department of Social Security field officers have caught about 50 dole cheats throughout Australia in the last year.
  2. Are these 200 field officers engaged full time in this work.
  3. What methods are used by these officers to check possible false claims.
  4. Is the Department proud or unhappy with this result.

Mr Stewart: The Minister for Social Security has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question.

  1. The article in the Age was largely misleading. There are about 200 field officers’ positions in the Department of Social Security establishment, but not all of these were engaged during the past year in work connected with review of unemployment benefit payments. As regards the number of cases in which prosecutions have been launched by the Department, I refer the honourable member to the answer provided to House of Representatives question number 2581, in the Hansard of 5 June 1975.
  2. No.
  3. I cannot reveal the methods used in checking false claims. The honourable member may appreciate that to do so would not assist in the Department’s endeavours to prevent abuse of benefits.
  4. As already pointed out, the alleged result is based on false premises. These officers also carry out a considerable amount of field work in assisting people with benefit claims and providing advice on benefit entitlements, etc.

Dispensing Fees (Question No. 2753)

Mr Lloyd:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

  1. When will the result of the survey of chemists’ National Health Service dispensing costs for the financial year 1972-73 be announced so that the Government can honour its commitment to make good any deficiency in payments to chemists for the period since 1 July 1973.
  2. In addition to this major adjustment of chemists’ dispensing fees, when will the next interim fee adjustment be announced.
Dr Everingham:
ALP

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

  1. 1) Following the 1972-73 Enquiry into Pharmacy Earnings, Costs and Profits conducted by the Joint Committee on Pharmaceutical Benefits Pricing Arrangements, the Government announced on 24 July 1975 that the professional fees payable to chemists for supplying pharmaceutical benefits would be increased by 11 cents for 1973-74, with a further increase of 1 1 cents (making a total increase of 22 cents) effective as from 1 July 1974.
  2. Meetings will continue to be held between representatives of the Pharmacy Guild and my Department with a view to making recommendations to me on further reviews of chemists’ remuneration for the supply of pharmaceutical benefits.

Grants by the Department of the Special Minister of State (Question No. 2774)

Mr Ruddock:

asked the Minister representing the Special Minister of State, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) With reference to question No. 2689 of the member for La Trobe, what has been the cost to the Government of the programs detailed in part ( 1 ) of the question during each of the years 1971-72, 1972-73, 1973-74, and during 1974-75 to date.
  2. What organisations have received such grants during the years mentioned.
Mr Bowen:
Minister for Manufacturing Industry · KINGSFORD-SMITH, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– The Special Minister of State has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

All grants made through my Department for International Conferences, National and other organisations are individually identified in the relevant Appropriation Bills.

Other grants made, which have not yet been listed in Appropriation Bills are as follows:

The Christmas Island Play Group received $500 during 1974-75.

The scheme of assistance to parties appearing at Prices Justification Tribunal hearings, introduced in April 1974, has cost $11,562 to date. The Australian Council of Trade Unions, the Council of Commonwealth Public Service Organisations, the Car Consumers Association, and Canberra Consumers Incorporated have so far received grants under this scheme.

Canberra Consumers Incorporated received $42 to offset expenses incurred in giving evidence to the Industries Assistance Commission.

Financial Assistance by the Postmaster-General’s Department (Question No. 2777)

Mr Ruddock:

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

  1. 1 ) With reference to question No. 2692 of the member for La Trobe, what has been the cost to the Government of the programs detailed in Part ( 1 ) of the question during each of the years 1971-72, 1972-73, 1973-74 and during 1974-75 to date.
  2. What organisations have received such grants during the years mentioned.
Mr Lionel Bowen:
ALP

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

Minister for Social Security (Question No. 2792)

Mr Ruddock:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice:

  1. With reference to question No. 2589 of the member for Macarthur, what has been the total cost to the Government of examination of issues and preparation of reports by the Department of Social Security, by authorities for which the Minister is responsible, and by ad hoc commissions, committees, task forces, etc., within the Minister’s portfolio, since 5 December 1972.
  2. What is the cost apportioned to each report referred to in part ( 1 ) of question No. 2589.
Mr Stewart:
ALP

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

  1. and (2) I direct the honourable members attention to the reply provided by the Prime Minister to question number 2789 in the House of Representatives Hansard of 5 June 1975 page 3546.

Minister for Agriculture (Question No. 2793)

Mr Ruddock:

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

  1. 1 ) With reference to question No. 2590 of the member for Macarthur, what has been the total cost to the Government of examination of issues and preparation of reports by the Department of Agriculture, by authorities for which the Minister is responsible, and by ad hoc commissions, committees, task forces etc., within the Minister’s portfolio, since 5 December 1972.
  2. What is the cost apportioned to each report referred to in part ( 1 ) of question No. 2590.
Dr Patterson:
ALP

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

I draw the honourable member’s attention to the answer provided by the Prime Minister to Question No. 2789 in the House of Representatives on 5 June 1 975.

Minister for Services and Property (Question No. 2796)

Mr Ruddock:

asked the Minister for Services and Property, upon notice:

  1. With reference to question No. 2593 of the member for Macarthur, what has been the total cost to the Government of examination of issues and preparation of reports by his Department, by authorities for which he is responsible and by ad hoc commissions, committees, task forces, etc., within his portfolio since 5 December 1975.
  2. What is the cost apportioned to each report referred to in pan ( 1) of question No. 2593.
Mr Daly:
ALP

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

I refer the honourable member to the Prime Minister’s reply to question No. 2789 which appeared in Hansard, 5 June 1975, pages 3546-3547.

Minister for Northern Australia (Question No. 2799)

Mr Ruddock:

asked the Minister for Northern Australia upon notice:

  1. With reference to question No. 2596 of the member for Macarthur, what has been the total cost to the Government of examination of issues and preparation of reports by his Department, by authorities for which he is responsible, and by ad hoc commissions, committees, task forces, etc., within his portfolio since 5 December 1 972.
  2. What is the cost apportioned to each report referred to in part ( 1 ) of question No. 2596.
Dr Patterson:
ALP

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

  1. and (2) I refer the honourable member to the Prime Minister’s answer to Question No. 2789 (Hansard of 5 June 1975, pages 3546-3547).

Minister for Housing and Construction (Question No. 2807)

Mr Ruddock:

asked the Minister for Housing and Construction, upon notice:

  1. With reference to question No. 2604 of the member for Macarthur, what has been the total cost to the Government of examination of issues and preparation of reports by his Department, by authorities for which he is responsible, and by ad hoc commissions, committees, task forces, etc., within his portfolio, since 5 December 1972.
  2. What is the cost apportioned to each report referred to in part ( 1 ) of question No. 2604.
Mr Riordan:
ALP

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

  1. and (2) I refer the honourable member to the Prime Minister’s answer to Question No. 2789 (Hansard, 5 June 1975, page 3546-7).

Minister for the Australian Capital Territory (Question No. 2813)

Mr Ruddock:

asked the Minister for the Capital Territory, upon notice:

  1. With reference to question No. 2610 of the member for Macarthur, what has been the total cost to the Government of examination of issues and preparation of reports by his Department, by authorities for which he is responsible, and by ad hoc commissions, committees, task forces, etc., within his portfolio, since 5 December 1972.
  2. What is the cost apportioned to each report referred to in part ( 1 ) of question No. 26 10.
Mr Bryant:
ALP

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

  1. and (2) I refer the honourable member to the Prime Minister’s reply to Question on Notice No. 2789 which appeared in Hansard (pages 3546-3547) on 5 June 1975.

Department of Police and Customs (Question No. 2828)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. Did he state in October 1973 that the former Department of Customs and Excise would not be amalgamated with any one Department and that its two principal features, revenue and the law-enforcement aspects, would go to different instrumentalities.
  2. If so, is that still his intention; if not, what is his intention.
Mr Whitlam:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) and (2) Yes, at a press conference on 9 October 1973. Later the Government asked the Comptroller-General of Customs, Mr A. T. Carmody, to advise the Attorney-General regarding the drafting of legislation to create an Australian Law Enforcement Authority. His report was tabled on 20 February 1975. In my press statement of 27 March 1975 I announced the Government’s intentions in relation to these matters.

Environment (Question No. 2829)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Environment, upon notice:

What is the distinction between the work the Bureau of Environmental Studies, which is located within his Department, will pursue and the work being pursued by the CSIRO on environmental matters, which comes within the responsibility of the Minister for Science and Consumer Affairs.

Mr Berinson:
ALP

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

The role of CSIRO as defined by the Industry Research Act is to initiate and carry out scientific researches and investigations in connection with, or for the promotion of primary or secondary industries in the Commonwealth or in any Territory of the Commonwealth or in connection with any other matter referred to the Organisation by the Minister.

Much of the research undertaken in carrying out this role is concerned with understanding the environment and learning to manage it. However, the Organisation tends to concentrate mainly on longer-term research aimed at elucidating principles necessary for the solution of recognised general problems and the development of appropriate methodologies.

The role of the Bureau of Environmental Studies is to carry out research and investigations to provide factual information needed by the Department of Environment to enable it to carry out its legislative and regulatory functions and to encourage research in those aspects of the environment where a need exists but which have not been adequately studied by other research bodies.

Jericho Shire (Question No. 2842)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice:

  1. Who is conducting the research into community welfare needs in isolated parts of the Jericho Shire.
  2. What is the nature of the research program.
  3. 3 ) When will it be concluded.
  4. Will the reports be published.
  5. If so, what form will the publication of any results take.
  6. How is the $6,000 that has been allocated for this project being distributed.
Mr Stewart:
ALP

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

  1. Mrs M. Nott who is suitably qualified, conducted the research into community welfare needs in isolated parts of the Jericho Shire.
  2. The research program was to ascertain the social welfare resources and needs of Shire residents.
  3. 3 ) The research was concluded on 30 May 1 975 .
  4. The report was printed in June by the Fitzroy Regional Council for Social Development.
  5. The printed report, containing 22 recommendations for social development action by the Regional Council and its community worker, will be released to Shire residents.
  6. The grant of $6,000 was allocated to salary, research, printing and travelling costs of the research officer.

Grants to Community Groups (Question No. 2843)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) When the Government provides money to community groups to purchase equipment such as in the case of the new hot-water system for the New South Wales Protestant Federation Children’s Home, or office furniture for the New South Wales Good Neighbour Council Migrant Information Service, does this property, once purchased by these societies with Government funds, remain the property of the Government
  2. What obligations are placed on such organisations in respect of these items.
  3. Are they to be returned to the Government if the use for which they were purchased no longer exists.
Mr Stewart:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) to (3) The projects referred to (new hot water system for the New South Wales Protestant Federation ‘s Childrens

Home at Dulwich Hill and office furniture, floor coverings and office supplies for a St George district branch of the Good Neighbour Council) were included in submissions proposed by the South West Sydney Regional Social Development Council for funding under the Australian Assistance Plan. All Regional Councils are required to sign an agreement which includes the clauses: ‘to apply the (Australian Government) funds for the purposes for which and in accordance with the terms upon which they are respectively provided; ‘ and ‘in the event that any funds are not required for application or cannot be applied as aforesaid, to refund to your Department (of Social Security) such funds as are not required or capable of application’.

In addition, Regional Councils are required to forward to the Department annual audited statements of receipts and payments, and the auditor is required to certify that Australian Government funds received have been used for the purposes for which they were given.

The procedure for payment of grants is as follows:

  1. Local organisations submit projects to the Regional Council for funding.
  2. After evaluation, the Regional Council submits projects for Ministerial approval.
  3. The grant for projects is payble to the Regional Council whose financial accountability has been summarised above.

  4. The Regional Council disburses the grants to local organisations which are required:

    1. to enter into an agreement, similar to that mentioned above, with the Regional Council.
    2. to provide annual audited statements to the Regional Council as summarised above.
    3. to agree that, in the event of the organisation’s dissolution, the projects funded under the Australian Assistance Plan are realised and the proceeds returned to the Regional Council for recycling among other projects, as approved by the Minister, in the region.

Financial Assistance by the Department of Science and Consumer Affairs (Question No. 2787)

Mr Ruddock:

asked the Minister for Science and Consumer Affairs, upon notice:

  1. With reference to question No. 2702 of the member for La Trobe, what has been the cost to the Government of the programs detailed in part ( 1 ) of the question during each of the years 1971-72, 1972-73, 1973-74, and during 1974-75 to date.
  2. What organisations have received such grants during the years mentioned.
Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

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

I am advised that:

The cost to the Australian Government of the programs since 1 97 1 -72 is as follows:

  1. Information on the organisations receiving grants is as follows or is available in the reports indicated which are published by the Australian Government Publishing Service.

    1. Department of Science and Consumer Affairs
    1. Australian Research Grants Reports- ‘ARGC grants approved ‘ for each calendar year.
    1. ii) Australian Biological Resources Study

Report- ‘Australian Biological Resources Study Interim Council report 1973-74’.

  1. Grants for Research into Crown of thorns Starfish, Queen Elizabeth II and Queen’s Fellowships Reports- ‘Departmental Annual Reports’.

    1. CSIRO
  2. Grants have been made to Research Associations such as the Sugar Research Institute and the Bread Research Institute.
  3. Annual Grants have been made to other national bodies such as the Standards Association of Australia and the National Association of Testing Authorities.
  4. Extra-mural research grants have been made to universities and similar institutions.

  5. Grants from the Science and Industry Endowment Fund have been made to retired professional scientists, gifted amateurs and for encouraging greater interest in scientific research among young people, eg. school science competitions.

    1. The information provided above is supplementary to that provided by my predecessor, Mr Morrison, in his replies to Questions on Notice Nos 95 and 1570 (House of Representatives Hansard, 5 December 1974, pp 4857-62 and 8 April 1975, pp 1322-23 respectively).

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 27 August 1975, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1975/19750827_reps_29_hor96/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant