House of Representatives
7 October 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 2. 1 5 p.m., and read prayers.

page 1729

DEATH OF THE HONOURABLE CYRIL CHAMBERS, C.B.E

Mr SPEAKER:

-I have to inform the House of the death on 2 October of the Honourable Cyril Chambers, C.B.E. who was a member of this House for the division of Adelaide from 1943 to 1958. Between 1946 and 1949 Mr Chambers was Minister for the Army. On behalf of the House I have forwarded a message of sympathy to the widow of the deceased. As a mark of respect to the memory of the late honourable gentleman I invite honourable members to rise in their places. (Honourable members having stood in their places)

Mr SPEAKER:

-I thank honourable members.

page 1729

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 respectively 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 Hunt, Mr Kelly and Mr Kerin.

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. 1 ) Further shrink the flow of funds available for finance for Private enterprise in Australia.
  2. Eventually lead to nationalisation of much of private enterprise in Australia.
  3. Cause serious unemployment in the private insurance industry throughout Australia.

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 Connolly.

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 the undersigned Citizens of Australia 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, 1974.
  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) have 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 only 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 $2 Million initial capital and loan funds which it is proposed will be allocated ) of establishing an Australian Government Insurance Office.

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

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

Petition received.

Home Ownership

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 implementation of the Report on Housing by the Priorities Review Staff will not ensure that the Australian community can secure living accommodation of its own choosing appropriate to its needs; that many of the proposals positively discriminate against home ownership; that the proposals if implemented would not encourage thrift and initiative but would further advance the philosophy of dependence upon the Government for basic services; that the proposals are more concerned with redistribution of income than providing accommodation for the Australian community.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House will request the Government to take no further measures which will make home ownership unattractive to those who have a home and unachievable for those who have not.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr McLeay and Mr Ian Robinson.

Petitions received.

School Cadet Corps

To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We the undersigned citizens of Australia do humbly petition the Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia that they do take such steps as necessary to:

Continue the School Cadet Movement and to actively promote same.

Which we do humbly petition this Honourable Parliament to make sure.

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

Petition received.

Income Tax

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

The $300 limit on income tax deductibility in respect of personal residential land and water rates is unrealistic and is a discriminatory income tax penalty.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government will take steps to see that the aforesaid limitation is removed entirely or substantially increased.

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

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 Cross.

Petition received.

Increased Postal 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 increases in postal charges, especially with regard to religious, non-profit making magazines in Category A.

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 provide special rates for such magazines.

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

Petition received.

Television: Pornographic Material

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 show:

That we are greatly concerned about the deterioration in quality of television programming in Australia and that the use of unseemly language, taking the name of the Lord in vain, and the undue emphasis given to sex, violence and crime is offensive to us.

That our primary concern is for the dignity of mankind which we feel is being lowered by such unrestrained exposure to family groups of material that is in bad taste.

That we commend the recent censoring of a television personality in Melbourne.

That we encourage the use of informative and entertaining material which will maintain our language at a standard of decency and we oppose any easing of present restrictions.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that Parliament will take measures to raise Television Programme Standards of the Australian Broadcasting Control Board.

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

Petition received.

Post Offices

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

  1. That the proposal to downgrade the Post Office at Warkton, New South Wales represents a slight on the Warkton community, and
  2. That the downgrading of the Post Office at Warkton, New South Wales would possibly lead to reduction in services offered and would probably lead to a deterioration of the service standard.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House request the Postal Commission not to downgrade the Warkton Post Office, New South Wales.

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

Petition received.

Pensions and Telephone Concessions for Pensioners

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

That the decisions of the Australian Government:

  1. To depart from its 1972 election promise that basic pensions would be related to average weekly earnings and never be allowed to fall below 25 per cent thereof, and
  2. b ) To increase postage costs and the costs of installation and annual rental of telephones, will seriously add to the economic burdens now borne by those citizens who are wholly or mainly dependent on their pensions.

Your petitioners are impelled by these facts to call upon the Australian Government as a matter of urgency to review the abovementioned decisions (a) and (b), and to determine:

  1. That pensions be related to average earnings as promised by the Prime Minister in his 1972 policy speech, and
  2. That no charge be made for installation or rental on the telephones of those pensioners entitled to a PMS card.

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

Petition received.

Woodchip Industry

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

  1. That Australia is not well-endowed with natural forest areas only amounting to 4.5 per cent of the total land area.
  2. That very little of this forested area is reserved in national parks, most of the remainder being directly (as State forests etc.) or indirectly (as Crown lands, over which forestry exercises timber extraction rights) under forestry control.
  3. That most of this remainder is liable to be totally destroyed by woodchip projects, due to soil erosion, nutrient loss, fire damage to young saplings in artificial forest regeneration projects.
  4. That many forms of arboreal wildlife are thus threatened with extinction.
  5. That grossly inadequate consideration has been given to the process of recycling packaged paper.
  6. That it is not in the long-term interest of the Australian people that these forests are converted into material for short-term use of excessive packaging.
  7. That it is a severe abuse of democratic rights to subsidise forestry practice with public money without adequate consultation of public interest.

We, your petitioners, therefore humbly pray that you will:

  1. Immediately cancel all current woodchip export licences.
  2. Immediately provide more funds into research for the recycling of used packaged material.
  3. Ensure that any future applications for woodchip leases be preceded by an environmental enquiry, to be conducted by a panel of environmentalists and public-spirited conservation bodies independent of the Australian Forestry Council or any State Forestry Commission.

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

Petition received.

Metric System

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

That the plan to obliterate the traditional weights and measures of this country is causing and will cause widespread inconvenience, confusion, expense and distress.

That there is no certainty that any significant benefits or indeed any benefits at all will follow the use of the new weights and measures.

That the traditional weights and measures are eminently satisfactory.

Your petitioners therefore pray:

That the Metric Conversion Act be repealed, and that the Government take urgent steps to cause the traditional and familiar units to be restored to those areas where the greatest inconvenience and distress are occurring, that is to say, in meteorology, in road distances, in sport,in the building and allied trades, in the printing trade, and in retail trade.

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

Petition received.

The Prime Minister

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

  1. That your petitioners are suffering from unemployment or other distressing circumstances.
  2. That your petitioners have reason to believe that their current sufferings are not due to any fault of their own, but arise from the disastrous policies pursued by the present Commonwealth Government.
  3. That your petitioners believe that there can be no relief from the sufferings which afflict them in common with so many other Australian citizens until the present Government is replaced by another whose policies will be different and directed to the advantage of the Australian people.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your Honourable House will withdraw its confidence from the present Prime Minister, in order that there may be a speedy election and that the people of Australia may be given their proper opportunity to pass judgment on the Government reponsible for the present level of unemployment and other national losses.

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

Petition received.

Mr WENTWORTH:
Mackellar

-In accordance with the provisions of Standing Order 131,I move:

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The honourable gentleman is out of order in moving that motion unless he indicates to the House that he intends to take some action.

Mr WENTWORTH:

– I shall do so, Sir. I move:

In conformity with that standing order I now inform the House that it is my intention to move:

That in view of the fact that the Government has violated the pledges of full employment, stable prices and low interest rates on which it was elected; and in view of the fact that the policy of the Government has inflicted severe unemployment and other losses on the people of Australia; and in view of the fact that there can be no relief from these unhappy conditions while the present Government remains in office, this House is of the opinion that resignation is the only honourable course left to the Prime Minister.

Mr SPEAKER Is the motion seconded?

Mr WENTWORTH:
Mr SPEAKER:

– The honourable gentleman cannot second his own motion. The honourable gentleman will resume his seat. I ask: Is the motion seconded?

Mr Nixon:

– I second the motion.

Question resolved in the negative.

page 1732

MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS

Mr WHITLAM:
Prime Minister · Werriwa · ALP

I inform the House that this morning His Excellency the Governor-General appointed the Honourable Frederick Michael Daly, M.P., to hold the office of Minister for Administrative Services and to administer the Department of Administrative Services following his resignation as Minister for Services and Property and a change in the name of the former Department of Services and Property.

This action follows an amendment to the Administrative Arrangements Order to which the Governor-General agreed this morning. The main effect of the change was to transfer responsibility for property and survey matters from the former Minister for Services and Property to the Minister for Urban and Regional Development.

I also inform the House that the Special Minister of State (Senator Douglas McClelland) left Australia last Friday to lead the Australian delegation to the South Pacific Conference which is being held in Nauru. He is expected to return tomorrow. In his absence the Minister for Manufacturing Industry (Mr Lionel Bowen) will act as Special Minister of State.

page 1732

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

page 1732

QUESTION

PROPOSED MOVE OF SCHOOLS COMMISSION

Mr GORTON:
HIGGINS, VICTORIA

-Will the Minister for Education acquaint the House with the thinking of the Government in the recent decision to move the Schools Commission to Albury-Wodonga? Does he realise that many members of that Commission have bought houses in Canberra, having sold their previous houses, and are subject to considerable loss? Does he further understand that many members of the Commission have working husbands or wives and that they will either have to live in Canberra while their spouses live in Albury-Wodonga or give up their jobs?

Mr BEAZLEY:
Minister for Education · FREMANTLE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

-First of all, I should like to make a comment on the arrangements and then on a deputation which waited on me on this matter. In his announcement on 8 September concerning the relocation of the Schools Commission, together with other bodies, in AlburyWodonga the Prime Minister stated that a minimum of 12 months notice will be given to staff when the compulsory transfer of positions is involved. I should like to emphasise that positions and not necessarily people are involved. In the case of the Schools Commission positions in the organisation will be compulsorily transferred from Canberra to Albury-Wodonga at a time to be determined, probably towards the end of 1976. In relation to the staff occupying those positions a number of matters apply. Firstly, each staff member will be formally advised of the date of transfer of his or her position to AlburyWodonga. This advice will be given at least 12 months prior to the date of the transfer of the position. The members of the staff will have 6 months to decide whether they intend to transfer with the position. This period is intended to enable members of the staff and their families sufficient time to assess the personal, social, economic, educational and other implications of the transfer. The maximum assistance practicable will be provided to members of the staff by way of information on the conditions to apply with respect to a wide range of matters such as available housing and associated finance and rental provisions, settling in and settling out allowances, provisions for special leave and visits to Albury-Wodonga, available educational and cultural facilities and so on.

Consultative machinery involving representatives of the authorities being transferred, staff associations, the Albury-Wodonga Development Corporation and the Public Service Board has already been established to consider the matters already mentioned. At the end of this 6 months members of the staff not wishing to move to Albury-Wodonga will be transferred to the unattached list. They will retain their salary classifications and will continue to perform the duties of their present substantive positions until the appointment of a replacement or the transfer of the position. During the second 6-month period members of the staff have the opportunity to secure another position. Assistance which might be given to members of the staff seeking alternative employment in their present location is being studied and special consideration may be necessary in cases such as employees who elect not to move because of closeness to retiring age.

I would say to the right honourable gentleman that those who waited on me indicated that it was certain that two-thirds of the officers will not be transferring because they find the problems of leaving their houses, leaving their associations, a wife leaving her employment and so on too great. A new matter has arisen which does concern me about this. Many of them, of course, are having children educated at the Australian National University and it was envisaged that the university of Albury-Wodonga would be being developed. In the slowing of the rate of educational development associated with the Budget the Albury-Wodonga university is not proceeding immediately and this has created for a good many people a problem which I think needs re-examination. A second factor is that the Hawker and Phillip secondary colleges will be opening next year. They are an advanced form of secondary education that many of these employees desire their children to enter and there is no equivalent in Albury-Wodonga, so some of the things that were once in phase and in coordination have ceased to be so. I have had close discussion with the deputation which came to see me and I do want a re-examination made of these matters. I am not in a position to give an immediate reply.

page 1733

QUESTION

BANKRUPTCIES

Mr WHAN:
EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I address my question to the Attorney-General. How many bankruptcies were reported by the Registry of Bankruptcies during the financial year just completed? How does this figure compare with previous years? What were the main causes of bankruptcy during 1974-75?

Mr ENDERBY:
Attorney-General · ALP

– I thank the honourable member for the question. The number of bankruptcies during 1974-75 was 2052 and that can be taken from the Second Schedule of the Attorney-General’s annual report to Parliament on the operation of the Bankruptcy Act 1974-75. This is a low figure and is in keeping with the record of this Government. The lowest figure recorded over the past 7 years was 1619 for last year, 1973-74, and that figure comes from the Attorney-General’s annual report for 1973-74, again the Second Schedule. These figures should be compared with the 2657 bankruptcies for the last full year of office of the Liberal-Country Party Government. That figure comes from the Attorney-General’s annual report of 1971-72, again the Second Schedule. This figure is over 600 more than that reported for the 1974-75 financial year. The lower level of bankruptcies under the Labor Government is well exemplified by the fact that the number of cases for June 1975-182-and July 1975-169-was lower than the average monthly figure over the past 7 years which was 1 84. The main causes given and assessed of bankruptcy were, and they remain- in a descending order- lack of business ability, lack of working capital and general economic conditions. I emphasise that they were in the order that I have given.

page 1733

QUESTION

UNEMPLOYMENT STATISTICS

Mr STREET:
CORANGAMITE, VICTORIA

-My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Labor and Immigration. Has the Department of Labor and Immigration lifted its estimate of the number of unemployed next year from 400 000 to 450 000? Does this estimate assume that the indexation guidelines of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission have been complied with?

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

– No such change in estimate has been given. I understand that the Department of Labor and Immigration has estimated that the actual unemployment figures- not the seasonally adjusted figures- in JanuaryFebruary of next year to be of the order of 400 000. The Department’s estimate is not subject to variation on the basis of the figures released over this last weekend. For example, the figures at the end of September showed that on a seasonally adjusted basis the number of unemployed rose by . 1 of 1 per cent, that is, from 5 per cent seasonally adjusted to 5.1 per cent seasonally adjusted.

The actual number of persons registered as unemployed in fact declined by 2135. There are some other figures too which might interest the honourable gentleman. For example, there are now 6000 less people employed on Regional Employment Development schemes of one kind or another since the end of August. But the number of those persons who have registered as unemployed is only 1700. So we can see that two-thirds of those who have been displaced from RED schemes have not registered as unemployed.

The other figure which might be of interest to the House is that the level of overtime as disclosed by the survey conducted by the Department continues to rise. Honourable members will recall that it was 1.6 hours in June, 1.7 hours in July, and an average of 1.8 hours in August last. So, there is some indication that the labour market is marginally strengthening rather than weakening. Hence, the assertion that there would be 500 000 unemployed, and now apparently a figure of 450 000 out of work, in the January-February period seems to be poorly based.

page 1734

QUESTION

TAXATION

Mr THORBURN:
COOK, NEW SOUTH WALES

– In view of the Treasurer’s comments in the Budget concerning the Mathews report, has he been able to give further consideration to the proposals in that report? Would he consider it appropriate for his Department to assist in a consideration of the Mathews report?

Mr HAYDEN:
Treasurer · OXLEY, QUEENSLAND · ALP

– It is correct that in my Budget Speech I did say that there would be further consideration of the Mathews report. My words in relation to the report in respect of inflation and taxation were:

These are important recommendations with complex ramifications and there is a need for farther study of them before final decisions are made.

I went on to indicate some of the problems associated with the report which must be addressed in detail before we would find ourselves as a Government in a position to make a firm decision. I said:

After careful consideration we have decided that it is not at this time possible to act on this recommendation partly because of its enormous revenue cost but also because of the complexity and difficulty involved in giving effect to the Committee ‘s proposal to defer tax for individual firms on the basis of each individual firm’s changing stock values. Very serious practical problems would also be created for both industry and the Taxation Office in implementing the Committee’s suggestion that deferred tax would be collected when stock values fall or when businesses change hands.

These are matters to which the Government is currently addressing its attention. I noted in one newspaper report that apparently one of the journalists is well informed on the subject. I found it rather curious, however, to observe the comment attributed to the Opposition’s economic spokesman, for the time being at least- the Deputy Leader of the Opposition- that it was improper of me to use the Taxation Office in any way at all to provide briefing papers for members of the Government so that a properly informed decision could be made in respect of those important topics. It is unfortunate that the comment appeared in the newspaper. I was rather surprised when I saw it, although I will not indicate whether the nature of my surprise was pleasure or displeasure.

I noted that on the same date there also appeared in the newspapers a document which the Opposition had been waving under the noses of journalists concerning the costing of the Opposition ‘s so-called Budget. I presume the Opposition decided that it was time for it to be released. But honourable members opposite did not bother to read it before they released it. If they had done so they would have discovered, as the journalist indicated in his article, that the document was a clear criticism of the Opposition’s proposals. He pointed out that they had under costed what they put forward by about $500m. It is quite proper for the Government to use the resources of the departments which back it. I suggest that the detail and the caution with which the Government is approaching what is a key proposal in economic management reflect a responsibility appropriate in this sort of case. In the meantime I ask Opposition members to address themselves to some of the complexities to which we are now addressing ourselves and which have apparently appeared in the Press, and to give us their views on how to handle them.

page 1734

QUESTION

SECURITY CHECKS OF MINISTERIAL STAFF

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
WANNON, VICTORIA

-Has the Prime Minister recently ordered that all members of ministerial staffs be subject to a security check? If so, what has prompted him to do this and why, if it is correct, has it taken him nearly 3 years in government before he came to to that kind of decision?

Mr WHITLAM:
ALP

-As honourable members will be well aware, a few months ago it came to my notice that ministerial staff had acted in a way in which no Minister should act. I thought then that I should take the action which the honourable gentleman has mentioned.

page 1735

QUESTION

KEMERTON PTY LTD

Mr SHERRY:
FRANKLIN, TASMANIA

– I address my question to the Minister for Manufacturing Industry. I preface it by saying that the Minister will be aware of the announcement by Kemerton Pty Ltd that it intends to cease production of calcium carbide at the Electrona plant which is in my electorate. I ask: What initiatives have been taken by this Government in the last 2Yi years to assist the company? Is it a fact that Kemerton is a corporate body, owned 51 per cent by Consolidated Gold Fields of Australia and 49 per cent by the Australian Industry Development Corporation? Finally, will the results of the feasibility study into the production of ferro silicon be made a public document?

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

-It is true that the Australian Government has taken a number of initiatives to assist not only the company concerned but also its predecessor, Australian Calcium Carbide. Through the good offices of the honourable member Australian Calcium Carbide sought assistance from the Government as far back as 1973. That assistance was readily given. There was a guarantee that there would be no penalty for what was then deemed to be a liability in respect of bush fire compensation. At that time it was said clearly that if the Government could see its way clear to provide this form of assistance this new venture in the production of ferro silicon would certainly appear to be viable.

I now note that following that assurance a sale took place in 1975. It is with some regret that we now find that the company is unable to continue the viability study of the production of ferro silicon because I think that some 150 employees are involved. The Government’s main concern is to guarantee the employment of the people at that site. It is disappointing to learn that the company has been obliged to take this action. Whether it is necessary for the company to make its own decision on the action or whether it should be looked at in the context of responsibility for the employees is a matter which the Government might look at again. I understand that correspondence has been entered into with this Government and the Tasmanian Government. In 1974, following a report by the Industries Assistance Commission, the Australian Government took another initiative as to the tariff protection on calcium carbide and increased the protection from 25 per cent as recommended to 30 per cent plus $17.22 a tonne. That was given on the basis that the production of calcium carbide would continue until September 1976. In defiance of that arrangement this apparently precipitate action now has been taken and it is said that the company will not continue that production. There would be no point in the Government trying to encourage these initiatives unless there were a guarantee that there would be employment for the personnel involved.

Finally, I am not at all clear why the report, which apparently is a report from overseas consultants to the company, should not be made public. I would hope it would be made public because everybody is entitled to be informed of the contents of the report. The Government has taken a number of initiatives to assist this company and its main concern, I repeat, is the benefit of the employees. If there is some viable prospect in that report I would be anxious that the Government explore it.

page 1735

QUESTION

HEARING AIDS

Mr LLOYD:
MURRAY, VICTORIA

– I ask the Minister for Health when the Government’s promised free hearing aid scheme will be introduced. If it is to be this financial year, has Budget appropriation been made and if so for how much? What administrative or legislative procedures will be required before the scheme can be implemented?

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

– The honourable gentleman will be aware of widespread demands from the Opposition and elsewhere in the community for a curb on the rate of increase of social services and welfare services provided by this Government. When we are in a financial position to provide this service it will be announced.

page 1735

QUESTION

MEDIBANK

Mr KERIN:
MACARTHUR, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Is the Prime Minister satisfied with the capacity of the New South Wales Government to give effect to its obligations under the hospital side of Medibank? Has the Prime Minister seen a report that doctors in New South Wales have withdrawn their services from outpatients ‘ clinics?

Mr WHITLAM My doubts on this score would arise from the reaction by many doctors in outpatient clinics in New South Wales hospitals. I would accept that the New South Wales Government, albeit belatedly- it was the last of the State governments in Australia to do soaccepted the hospital Medibank arrangement in good faith. It is a matter of regret that so many doctors in outpatients’ departments in New South Wales hospitals have defied the undertakings of the New South Wales Government and the arrangements which it made with the Australian Government. There is no doubt that if any persons working in other essential occupations or industries were to act with similar irresponsibility there would be outcries in all the newspapers and on the other side of this Parliament. In this case doctors have not acted with proper decency or dignity. I am not saying that all doctors have done that but quite obviously a great number of doctors have not acted with decency or dignity in serving the public who go to outpatient clinics.

The people who go to outpatient clinics are most likely to be people who up to now could not have received hospital treatment or, indeed, medical treatment of any other character except in outpatient clinics. It is shameful that doctors should be seeking to impose on taxpayers in this way now that they in fact would be paid on a sessional basis for continuing to treat patients as hospital outpatients.

page 1736

QUESTION

SECURITY CHECKS FOR MINISTERIAL STAFF

Mr SINCLAIR:
NEW ENGLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question, addressed to the Prime Minister, is supplementary to that asked by the Leader of the Opposition. What was the action by ministerial staff to which he referred in his reply? Has that action adversely affected Australia’s standing abroad or our security? Will the new security check ensure that the same improprieties do not occur again or is it a fact that the new security check in no way relates to past domestic, financial or business dealings?

Mr WHITLAM:
ALP

-The circumstances were given to the House on 9 July last. No harm was done. No harm can now be done.

page 1736

QUESTION

OPPOSITION TAXATION PROPOSALS

Mr DAWKINS:
TANGNEY, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– Did the Treasurer see a statement in the West Australian newspaper this morning indicating that the Australian Government should vacate a part of the income tax field equivalent to the value of the Australian Government ‘s reimbursements to the States? What would be the implications for overall national economic management if this suggestion were adopted?

Mr HAYDEN:
ALP

– This is further clear evidence of the imprecision of the presentation of this proposal from the Opposition. It obviously has not worked out the details of what it is putting forward to the community, and yet its proposal has key influence on the way in which the economy of this country would be managed. For instance, a Liberal Party of Australia Press release, on an official letterhead released yesterday by Senator Carrick, the Opposition spokesman on intergovernmental relations and federalism, stated:

The Commonwealth would vacate a part of the income tax field equivalent to the value of Commonwealth reimbursement to the States.

This year net pay-as-you-earn income tax collections will be of the order of $8.7 billion. Total payments to the States this year, including the Loan Council arrangements, will be about $8.4 billion. Allowing for the fact that there can be wide variations in the amount of money which can be raised in the loan program in the course of a year- less than 11 per cent of the amount which was approved by the Loan Council was in fact raised on the loan market- there is a clear indication that there would be practically no function left for the Australian Government in terms of financing its own revenue needs from pay-as-you-earn income tax.

Then of course there are the other anomalies in this scheme. Presumably people in Canberra would not have to pay a surtax to which people in every State in Australia would be subjected. Federal politicians, no matter where they live in Australia and in spite of their comparatively high incomes, would pay no State surtax, I presume, back in their home States although the man next door with perhaps more dependants to support on a much lower income would have to pay that surtax. This scheme has not been thought through. It is a phoney proposition. The Opposition has to come clean. It has to give the details as to how the scheme would work. How does it expect to meet the discrimination which would clearly arise between States as a result of some States imposing higher surtaxes on taxpayers than applies in other States? The poorer States in a relative sense would certainly be in this position. A very serious undermining of economic management would arise once the central government completely surrendered the sort of efficient fiscal management which has stood the test and gained the support of a large succession of governments, especially Liberal-Country Party governments. This is a return -

Opposition members- Oh!

Mr HAYDEN:

-Members of the Opposition encourage me to continue because I know it is hurting when they make that noise. This is a return to the discredited pre-war days of everyone being double taxed, of 2 taxes, of some people in one State, in spite of being on the same income as people in other States, paying more tax. Why should there be that discrimination between States? We ask the Opposition to come clean and give us the details. What is the basic amount it would give the States? What is the formula for providing it? It cannot say it will be a fixed proportion of basic personal income tax collections because there is not a fixed rate of growth in collections of basic personal income tax. How would the Opposition provide equalisation grants and if it is to provide them why does it propose there should be a surtax? The 2 things seem to be contradictory. This scheme would lead to endless confusion and unnecessary complexity. It would lead to great difficulty in economic management and most of all it would lead to great dissatisfaction in the community when people realise that under this proposal they would pay a lot more tax.

page 1737

QUESTION

SECURITY CHECKS FOR MINISTERIAL STAFF

Mr SINCLAIR:

– I ask a further supplementary question of the Prime Minister following the 2 questions, the one asked by the Leader of the Opposition and the one asked by me. Does the security check of ministerial staff on which both previous questions have been asked relate to the past financial propriety of the members of that staff?

Mr WHITLAM:
ALP

– It would clearly apply only to persons who are on ministerial staffs. I can also reassure the honourable gentleman that the Government is going to introduce legislation to cover ministerial staff in accordance with the report of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Pecuniary Interests of Members of the Parliament, and this also will apply to members of Opposition staff.

page 1737

QUESTION

EXPERIMENTS ON ANIMALS

Mr MATHEWS:
CASEY, VICTORIA

– I ask the Minister for Science and Consumer Affairs a question arising from public concern over the use of animals for the development and testing of commercial products. Will he take action to see that the use of animals for this purpose is kept to the minimum compatible with avoiding the use of human beings in testing programs? Will he draw up a code of requirements with a view to seeing that suffering is kept to a minimum?

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

-The question raised by the honourable member for Casey is one which he has taken up with me by correspondence so it did not catch me altogether by surprise, although I was nearly asleep when he started his question. I have raised this with Sir Hugh Ennor, the Permanent Head of my Department, who is a distinguished scientist in his own right and one who, I understand, has conducted experiments on animals himself. He has assured me that every precaution is taken to ensure that there is no unnecessary suffering. In most cases where experimentation is likely to result in death the animal is, of course, to use the common phrase, put to sleep before the experiment takes place. But it is inevitable that there are some experiments in which amputation or surgery is conducted while the animal is under anaesthetic. Naturally when the animal recovers and the results of the experimentation are studied the animal does suffer a great deal of pain which is unavoidable. The only alternative is for us to conduct these kinds of experiments on human beings. The very purpose of the experiments on the animals in most cases is to assist medical science in dealing with the ailments and complaints of human beings. As much as we regret that these experiments on animals are necessary, they are unavoidable if science is to discover or seek to discover ways of easing the sufferings of human beings.

I can assure the honourable member that my Department is not unmindful of the concern which animal lovers have for these experiments. We are doing, and will continue to do, all that is within our power to ensure that experiments are carried out in a proper, humane and sensible manner. If the honourable gentleman or any other member of the House has any examples of where this has not been the case I would be glad if he would bring such cases to my attention. I can assure honourable members that my Department will act with alacrity in the matter to see that steps are taken to ensure that the experiments are carried out in accordance with the normal procedures that are recognised all over the world as being essential to prevent unnecessary suffering.

page 1737

QUESTION

SECURITY CHECKS FOR MINISTERIAL STAFF

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

– I again ask the Prime Minister a question. If I may say so, we are not concerned with past members of ministerial staffs, only with present members. Does the security check to which he has referred relate to the past financial propriety of present members of ministerial staff? Does the security check examine the financial propriety of the persons under check?

Mr WHITLAM:
ALP

– I, too, am concerned only with present members of ministerial staff. The check will be one which commends itself to the security authorities. If they believe that past financial transactions would bear upon the security of a Minister’s staff, presumably they would carry out that check.

page 1738

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY HOSPITALS

Mr MULDER:
EVANS, NEW SOUTH WALES

-My question is directed to the Minister for Health. The Minister will recall recent serious allegations made in this House about health services in the Australian Capital Territory. Is it a fact that expenditure on the Canberra and Woden Valley hospitals will decline this financial year, that only 29 residential medical officers have been employed although an establishment of 38 has been approved, and that some specialists with doubtful medical qualifications have been accepted?

Dr EVERINGHAM:
ALP

– The Opposition still peddles inaccurate information in the House on health matters. This propensity to confuse the facts with fanciful claims is quite consistent with its subservience to the feud-fomenting faction which prevents doctors talking to colleagues in the ACT unless the other colleagues toe the Australian Medical Association line on employment conditions. The Opposition spokesmen would do better to check the accuracy of the material they use in this House. The amount allocated in the Budget for Canberra and Woden Valley hospitals is 28 per cent higher than the expenditure in 1974-75. There are about 70 resident medical officers in the 2 hospitals, not 29. The hospitals are meeting the needs of patients with the staff available. Indeed, the resident staff give a free emergency service to the patients of private doctors, who are so bitter in opposition to other salaried appointments.

The assertion that salaried specialists with ‘doubtful medical qualifications’ have been accepted is baseless and scurrilous. In the unprofessional Australian Capital Territory atmosphere a few medical practitioners are apparently so uncertain about their own standards and their ability to compete that they have to create grounds to slander salaried specialists. The honourable member for Murray will have to beware he does not become their little Sir Echo. Only one specialist is registered under the 12 months provisional procedure because that specialist’s basic degree was taken in a university not recognised for automatic registration purposes in the ACT. However, what the honourable member for Murray did not say is that this specialist has post-graduate qualifications, including fellowship of the British and Australian Royal Colleges in the relevant specialty. He did not say that the same specialist worked for 7 years as a staff specialist in Hobart. So much for the claim that specialists have been accepted from medical schools that have not been recognised by any Australian medical registration board, to quote the phrase of the honourable member for Murray. I may add that the profession itself substantially provides the membership of the Board which approved the provisional registration.

page 1738

QUESTION

HANDICAPPED PERSONS

Mr HUNT:
GWYDIR, NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Treasurer. Does the Government regard mentally and physically handicapped people as being high in the priority of needs? Does the Government regard voluntary organisations and sheltered workshop associations as being important in caring for handicapped people? If so, when will the Government expedite payments for salary subsidies which in some cases have been owing for some months? When will the Government establish its own expenditure priorities to ensure that capital subsidies are available for hostel and other accommodation for handicapped people?

Mr HAYDEN:
ALP

– Of course we give these matters high priority- higher priority than any previous government ever gave any of the matters in the field of welfare. For instance, in the last Budget we introduced a wide-ranging program of initiatives to benefit the handicapped in the community. We extended the aged persons homes legislation to cover handicapped people too. We made provision so that holiday accommodation could be provided for handicapped people. We provided a range of subsidies for professional and semi-professional people working in centres providing services for the handicapped. We extended benefits to cover activity centres as well as the existingly covered sheltered workshops. We improved the rate of benefit from a $2 for $1 subsidy to a $4 for $ 1 subsidy. In its way this has brought some problems for us. It is now so much easier than it ever was before for community agencies to seek assistance from the Government. Before, with the strict and mean $2 for $ 1 subsidy arrangement, there was an effective financial rationing system. We have to develop some more effective queuing system so that the more needy sources of application are assisted earlier. These things have suddenly come forward and the number of applications for assistance under this wide-ranging program of benefits in capital and recurrent services for not only the handicapped but also generally in welfare has led to a great upsurge in demand for assistance from the Australian Government.

This is not big government; this is the role of government responsibly providing a facilitating support for the community. Without this sort of facilitating role the people in the community could not achieve the sorts of objectives they have set themselves. Without our interest in the field of welfare and in the field of need of the handicapped, the psychiatrically disabled or ill dominating our decision making the Minister for Health would not have undertaken a most extensive program of community psychiatric health centres. None of this has been undertaken before. There are numerous other instances of these sorts of initiatives for which the Government has been responsible. This is what the Opposition calls big government. When members of the Opposition say they want less government so that there will be more freedom they really mean that they want to cut back on these sorts of initiatives, cut back on education and cut back on urban improvement so that there will be freedom of the wealthy- those who have had a happy and wealthy inheritance- to hang on to what they have and to mimimise their liability to support the rest of the community. That is very good for a minority, but it is not too good for the great majority of people whose only freedom without the support of an adequate functioning government role is never to succeed or to succeed in a very uneven sort of way, to have few satisfactions in life and to achieve very little compared with what they would like to achieve. It is only this sort of role of government that will improve the quality of life. The other matters concerning payment rest with another department. I suggest that that part of the question be directed to the relevant Minister.

page 1739

QUESTION

INDIAN OCEAN

Mr YOUNG:
PORT ADELAIDE, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Does the Prime Minister consider it to be in the best interests of this country for encouragement to be given to the super powers to build up their respective military powers in the Indian Ocean?

Mr WHITLAM:
ALP

-The Government’s attitude is that it would be undesirable for the 2 super powers to have any mutual escalation of their armaments in the Indian Ocean. The Indian Ocean hitherto has been the most free of all the world’s oceans from such military rivalry between the super powers. The view that Australia supports in this respect is shared by every country around the Indian Ocean. At this stage there is no pre- . ponderant military power in the hands of one super power as against the other. Whether it is Diego Garcia which might be built up by the Americans, or whether it is Somalia or some of the places in the Gulf of Aden which might be built up by the Soviet Union, the attitude is the same towards each. No country in the Indian

Ocean region wishes the 2 super powers to promote their rivalry in the Indian Ocean.

page 1739

DEPARTMENT OF THE MEDIA

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– On behalf of the Minister for the Media I table for the information of honourable members the annual report for the Department of the Media for the year ending 30 June 1975.

page 1739

QUESTION

DEFENCE SERVICE HOMES

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

– I seek leave to clarify a matter raised in a question asked of me last Thursday.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Mr UREN:

-Last Thursday the honourable member for Wide Bay (Mr Millar) asked me a question concerning the waiting period for Defence Service Homes Loans. I wish to clarify the situation. As previously announced, persons who applied for assistance under the Defence Service Homes scheme prior to 31 July 1975 are having loans made available to them immediately their contracts are finalised. Eligible persons who applied after that date to purchase the new or existing homes would, except in hardship cases, have to wait 11 months before receiving a loan although they can arrange bridging finance as an interim measure.

page 1739

SCHOOLS OF HIGH MIGRANT DENSITY

Mr BEAZLEY:
Minister for Education · Fremantle · ALP

– For the information of honourable members I present the report of the Inquiry into Schools of High Migrant Density. Due to the limited number available, reference copies of this report have been placed in the Parliamentary Library.

page 1739

AUSTRALIAN SHIPPERS COUNCIL

Mr CHARLES JONES:
Minister for Transport · Newcastle · ALP

– For the information of honourable members I present the annual report of the Australian Shippers Council for the year ended 30 June 1975.

page 1739

ANNUAL DEFENCE REPORT

Mr MORRISON:
Minister for Defence · St George · ALP

– For the information of honourable members I present the annual defence report for 1975.

page 1740

DARWIN CYCLONE DAMAGE COMPENSATION ACT

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

– Pursuant to section 6 of the Darwin Cyclone Damage Compensation Act 1975 I present a report on the operation of the Act for the year ended 30 June 1975.

page 1740

DEPARTMENT OF TOURISM AND RECREATION

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

– For the information of honourable members I present a review of activities, to 30 June 1975, of the Department of Tourism and Recreation.

page 1740

JOINT COMMITTEE ON THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Mr WHAN:
Monaro · Eden

-On behalf of the Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory, I bring up the Committee’s report on proposals for the variation of the plan of the layout of the city of Canberra in the Australian Capital Territory as gazetted in 1925, the 59 (A) series of variations.

Ordered that the report be printed.

Mr WHAN:

– I ask leave of the House to make a short statement in connection with the report.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Mr WHAN:

- Mr Speaker, the report tabled on behalf of the Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory is the fourth this year involving variations to the plan of layout of the City of Canberra, and brings to sixty-four the number of variations approved by the Committee this year. Six items are involved in the present series. Three items are of a machinery nature and I do not propose to comment upon them. The remaining 3 items are, however, worthy of mention to the House.

Item 2 in the series provides access roads to the First Stage of the National Athletics Stadium, which is to be the venue of the 1977 Pacific Conference Games. The stadium will provide athletic facilites of international standard. A soccer or hockey field will also be provided within the athletics track. As well as the major stadium, a warm-up track will be built. A stand which will hold 6000 spectators will be provided. The stand will be augmented by other covered and temporary stands which will give the stadium a spectator capacity of 20 000.

Item 5 provides for the deletion of portion of the gazetted reservation for Gowrie Drive, a proposed by-pass road in the suburb of Deakin.

The proposal also provides for the provision of a cul-de-sac access road to the recently approved Deakin Telecommunications Centre adjacent to the originally gazetted reservation for Gowrie Drive. An objection to this proposal was lodged by a number of residents of Deakin who feel they could be adversely affected if the proposed variation indicated an intention that the National Capital Development Commission no longer intended pursuing the development of Gowrie Drive as a by-pass road. The NCDC assured the Committee that it had not taken such a decision and the present variation in no way prejudiced any decision which may be taken in the long term concerning Gowrie Drive.

The final item, Item 6, involves development of the Belconnen Retail Mall which is being undertaken by the Canberra Commercial Development Authority. The variation identifies the site for stage one of the development and requires the closure of Totterdell Street in the Belconnen town centre to allow the development to proceed. The Committee was informed that the Canberra Commercial Development Authority is planning to open part of the development by October 1976.

Currently the question of parking facilities at the Mall is the subject of negotiations between the NCDC and the Canberra Commercial Development Authority. The Committee was assured that the deletion of Totterdell Street was in no way dependent upon future decisions in respect of parking facilities, and accordingly the Committee has recommended the implementation of this variation, together with the five accompanying proposals. I commend the report to the House.

page 1740

ROYAL COMMISSION ON PETROLEUM

Discussion of Matter of Public Importance

Mr SPEAKER:

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

The failure of the Government to take account of doubts expressed by the Secretary and the President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions about the findings of the Royal Commission on Petroleum in relation to the contract between Allied Petrochemicals Pry Ltd and ACTU-Solo Enterprises Pry Ltd for the supply of crude oil.

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

Mr ANTHONY:
Leader of the National Country Party of Australia · Richmond

– The Opposition raises as a matter of public importance the statements by Mr Harold Souter, Secretary of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, and Mr Hawke, President of the ACTU, which call into question the findings of the Royal Commission on Petroleum in relation to the contract by Allied Petrochemicals Pty Ltd to supply crude oil to ACTU-Solo Enterprises Pty Ltd. The Government has fully accepted the findings of the royal commission. The royal commission found that the directors of ACTU-Solo Pty Ltd and the company APC and one of its directors deliberately deceived the Government by misrepresenting the price being paid for the oil involved. Mr Souter, however, disputes the findings of the royal commission. He has stated publicly that he has been ‘maligned’ by the report which is a ‘whitewash’, and which makes him a ‘scapegoat’ while ‘letting the Government off the hook’. Mr Souter says that the report is ‘ not only unfair but it is also incorrect ‘, that it has not analysed the facts of the case, and has not presented the facts in relation to the evidence. Mr Hawke has supported Mr Souter’s claims and he has described the report as unfair. These are very serious charges, yet the Government has hastily accepted the findings of the royal commission without bothering to investigate the claims made by Mr Souter and supported by Mr Hawke. The Opposition is not satisfied that the Government has considered the report and findings of the royal commission sufficiently. The public statements made by Mr Souter and Mr Hawke lead us to believe that the Government may have been too hasty in accepting the report of the royal commission. We also believe that there were omissions during the hearing before the royal commission- and consequently in the report itself- which lead us to call for further examination of this matter.

The first question which arises is why the Minister for Minerals and Energy (Mr Connor) was not called to give evidence before the royal commission. The royal commission’s findings that the Minister was deceived is based on ‘natural inferences’ drawn from a report of a telephone conversation between the Minister and Mr Souter, from departmental files, and from the terms of the Minister’s letter dated 26 June 1975 approving the ACTU deal. The Government’s approach before the commission was to argue that Mr Souter and the Minister had never discussed the actual deal. It is clear that Mr Liddell, counsel for the Government, was misled by the Government in its brief. Unfortunately for the Government’s case, the Minister made certain statements in this House on 2 September which contradicted this. Surely the question whether Mr Souter had discussed the ACTU deal with the Minister was vital to the question whether the Minister may have had any previous knowledge of the two contracts. Mr Liddell relied heavily on Mr Souter’s statements to argue that since Mr Souter had never discussed the ACTU deal with the Minister, Mr Souter’s statements regarding the Minister’s attitude to the deal were all based on events and discussions surrounding the IOC and AGL contracts. The Royal Commission did not call officers of the Department of Minerals and Energy to give evidence before it. This was despite the fact that amongst the documents tendered in evidence before the Commission there is clear evidence that the departmental officers suspected that there might be a supplementary agreement between ACTU-Solo and APC. The Minister admitted in the House that he had seen these documents. I ask for leave to incorporate in Hansard an extract from the telex from Mr Gartland to the First Assistant Secretary, Econcomic and General Division, Department of Minerals and Energy, dated 24 June 1975 and an extract from a departmental memorandum to the Minister from D. H. Hunter, First Assistant Secretary, Department of Minerals and Energy, dated 26 June 1975. These are exhibits before the Royal Commission.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Is leave granted.

Mr Lionel Bowen:

– I have not seen them.

Mr ANTHONY:

– I hand copies of the extracts to the Minister for Manufacturing Industry. This telex is a remarkable document. The Department raised the possibility that APC and ACTUSolo might have a secret deal and a separate contract and it is surely no coincidence that the Department made specific reference to bulk storage facilities which were in fact the pretext on which the second contract was concluded. Apart from its omission in calling witnesses, the Royal Commission in its report fails to examine the claims by Mr Souter that he was acting in a way which he believed would be acceptable to the Minister. Mr Souter made statements several times under oath to this effect. At page 4276 of the transcript of evidence, Mr Souter said: . . . my clear understanding of the concept and the basis of the sale of the crude was that the commercial sale was distinctly not a matter for Government approval.

Mr Shannon, counsel for the ACTU, even went so far as to suggest that Mr Souter obtained from the Minister the idea of two contracts. I ask for leave to incorporate in Hansard 2 extracts from the transcript of proceedings of the Royal Commission on Petroleum. The extracts, from pages 4496 and 4497 of that transcript, are from the final address by Mr Shannon to the Commission.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Is leave granted?

Mr Lionel Bowen:

– In a moment.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Leave is not granted.

Mr ANTHONY:

-Mr Souter also stated under oath, in response to a question from Mr W. Fisher, Q.C., counsel assisting the Royal Commission, as to whether he had misled a Minister of the Crown:

I strongly object and deny that any Minister of the Crown has been misled by the ACTU.

By insisting that the Government was not deceived, Mr Souter is in effect saying that it knew about the two contracts all along. In its report, the Royal Commission fails to mention Mr Souter ‘s statements and the report contains no examination of the possibility that Mr Souter may have been speaking the truth in relation to his understanding of the Minister’s attitude. It is unfortunate that this matter, which is so central to the Royal Commission’s finding, was not pursued in that report. It is also unfortunate that the proposed contract between IOC and AGL was not pursued more fully in the Royal Commission report. This is the same oil which was eventually sold to ACTU-Solo. This agreement was in the form of two contracts and was almost identical to the APC-ACTU-Solo agreement. AGL forwarded copies of both contracts to the Minister for Minerals and Energy for his approval. In his reply to AGL dated 20 May 1974, this is what the Minister stated. I ask for leave to have incorporated in Hansard a copy of the letter from the Minister for Minerals and Energy to the Secretary of the Australian Gaslight Co. Ltd- that is, the Minister’s reply.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! I suggest that the right honourable gentleman might ask for leave to incorporate this document and the earlier documents at the conclusion of his speech. We are going through an exercise of frustration at the moment.

Mr ANTHONY:

– It is clear from this letter that the Minister gave tacit approval to the arrangement entered into between IOC and AGL. However, the Royal Commission did not pursue the question of whether the Minister should have recognised that the ACTU-Solo deal was in the same form. Mr Speaker, the central question which the Royal Commission dealt with was whether the Minister was deceived. The Commission’s finding that the Minister was deceived, which has been accepted by the Government, did not take into account several important matters relating to the question of whether the Minister was deceived. The first concerns the AGL contracts. The Royal Commission did not consider whether the Minister should have questioned whether the ACTU-Solo deal was in the same form as the AGL deal. A second aspect was the departmental advice given to the Minister. The Royal Commission did not pursue the question of whether, in the light of this advice, the Minister exercised sufficient diligence in considering the recommendations of his Department. He should have been put on notice by reading the departmental telex that a second contract relating to bulk facilities might exist, particularly as he had seen the AGL contracts. Finally, it was common knowledge within the industry that APC wanted $5 a barrel for this oil. It had been offered to all the major oil companies at this price, and all had quite correctly refused it. The Minister has also stated in the House that he knew oil was being peddled around. Many people in the industry knew about the twocontract agreement for getting around the official price. Surely the Royal Commission should have pursued the question whether the Minister was aware of these facts, especially when his departmental advisers pointed out to him that, on the face of the single contract submitted for approval, it seemed that APC was not making any profit out of the sale. It is also unfortunate that the Royal Commission did not attempt to investigate the origins of this two-contract agreement. The Royal Commission did not attempt to find out where the idea came from and whose idea it was. I have heard reports that there have been statements by parties involved in these deals to the effect that the Minister himself may have suggested this arrangement as a method of circumventing the official pricing policy. None of these issues, however, was pursued.

Another important aspect of this matter, about which the Opposition is concerned, is the fact that, by circumventing the official pricing policy, huge windfall profits were made by several parties. APC made over $lm. ACTU-Solo gamed over $1.7m in not having to import crude oil at $9 per barrel. When such large amounts of money are involved one naturally questions whether some other parties might have been deriving benefits. There are too many irregularities in this whole business for the gravest suspicions not to be raised concerning the integrity of the Government and Ministers of the Government who were involved in this matter. Furthermore, one questions whether Mr Hawke, the President of the Australian Labor Party and the sponsor of the ACTU policy of becoming involved in retailing, was himself involved.

Mr Speaker, the Opposition raises these matters because there are many unanswered questions in this whole business. Why has the Government been so hasty to accept the Royal Commission’s report? Why has it prevented debate on the report in this House? Why has Mr Souter been made the scapegoat, to quote his own words, in this affair? Mr Souter has had a long career as a senior trade union official. He is respected throughout the community. Why should a man, approaching the end of his career, do anything dishonest? Is he an innocent party to a shady and crooked deal in which others were involved? If so, who are these people? These are matters of the gravest importance. Doubts surround the motives of a Minister of the Crown in approving this deal. We know that large sums of money were involved. A respected and honourable man claims that the Royal Commission report is a whitewash and that he has been made a scapegoat; and the Government has been let off the hook. The Opposition believes that the Government must answer some of these questions. The matter is on the minds of the Australian people. If the Government is to be seen to have any integrity these questions with which I have challenged it must be answered. If the Government cannot answer them there must be further investigation into this whole matter.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Dr Jenkins)Order! The Leader of the National Country Party requested the incorporation of certain documents.

Mr Lionel Bowen:

– I have no objection.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

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

Extract from telex from Gartland to First Assistant Secretary, Economic and General Division, Department of Minerals and Energy, dated 24.6.75. ‘. . . this agreement is a straightforward sale and purchase agreement between the two companies with SoloACTU purchasing the APC allocation of crude oil at the same price that APC are paying for it. There is no ‘windfall’ profit to APC who don’t even recover the costs of the paperwork involved let alone the costs of their High Court action with XL Petroleum over who had the right to the allocation. If there is in fact no additional secret deal in existence conditional on this one being signed, we can only speculate that the benefit to APC must come later when the ACTU might be seeking bulk storage facilities in capital cities.

Extract from Departmental memorandum to Minister from D. H. Hunter, First Assistant Secretary, Department of Minerals and Energy, dated 25.6.75. ‘. . . On this evidence, there is no ‘windfall’ profit to APC, such as it hitherto sought in its attempt to sell its allocation to the Australian Gas Light Company. In fact, APC would not recover the cost of the paperwork involved, let along the costs of their High Court action with XL Petroleum to determine the right to the allocation. We can only speculate on the benefit that APC will derive from the deal.’

Extract from Transcript of proceedings from the Royal Commission on Petroleum, Page 4496. ‘The fact that there must have been some other arrangement is clearly shown by commonsense. It is most unlikely that they would buy and sell at the same price and fight a court case in the meantime over the package of crude and the fact that there must have been some other consideration or arrangement or agreement which must have been known or suspected- (certainly strongly suspected)- by the minister’s department is clearly seen from the telexes. Hence, Your Honour, it must have been, in my respectful submission, strongly suspected by the Minister himself. ‘

Extract from transcript of proceedings from the royal commission on petroleum, page 4497. ‘It is not unreasonable to assume because of the very good relationship that existed between the Minister and Mr Souter, as evidenced by the telexes and the tone of those telexes, that had for some reason the Minister found there was anything wrong or contrary to Government policy in the two documents and Mr Souter discussed that with the Minister, that Mr Souter may well have come out of that discussion with a knowledge of a way to go about the transaction which would give the same ultimate consideration to APC and achieve the same benefit to ACTU-Solo. ‘I earnestly submit that it is a very valuable consideration and there is considerable light on the fact that Mr Souter did not suspect for one moment there was anything wrong with this transaction. ‘For all the reasons I have attempted to annunciate, it is my submission that the allegation of deceit is ill founded, that the worst that can be said is that not ail the information had been placed before the Minister, but in so doing it should be recognised, in my submission, that Mr Souter and the directors had, for the reasons which I have advanced, every reason to believe that there was not need to do so, or alternatively, if they adverted to the possibility of doing so, they had every reason to believe that the Minister would regard it as a commercial transaction and not a matter for his consideration.’ . . .

Minister for Minerals and Energy

Parliament House, CANBERRA, A.C.T. 2600

1974

Dear Mr Connellan,

I refer to your letter of 13 May seeking my approval of a transaction whereby the Australian Gas Light Company would purchase 650 000 barrels of indigenous crude oil from IOC Australia Pty Ltd at a premium of $ 1.50 per barrel over the fixed price of $2.09.

I do not regard this commercial transaction as a matter for my consideration. However, I observe that the proposed price is in excess of that operating in respect of indigenous crude.

Yours sincerely REX CONNOR

Mr N. E. Connellan, Secretary,

The Australian Gas Light Company,

Box K481, P.O

Haymarket,N.S.W.2000

Mr KEATING:
Blaxland

-This is another attempt by the Opposition to make cowardly and contemptible insinuations against the

Government as it did during the loans affair debate. It called for a royal commission. The Government requested this royal commission, which the Leader of the National Country Party of Australia (Mr Anthony) has described as a whitewash. He proposed that the Government investigate the royal commission. How bereft of common sense is this man and how bereft is the Opposition for supporting him? He said that the Government has acted too hastily. From the moment that Mobil Oil Australia Ltd called into question the ACTU-Solo Enterprises Pty Ltd deal during the proceedings of the royal commission on the next sitting day of the commission Mr Liddell, the Government’s counsel, requested a special report on the matter.

Throughout the administration of the indigenous crude oil policy, in the days of the former Government and in the days of this Government from 1972, the Government and the Minister for Minerals and Energy (Mr Connor) have upheld consistently the basic thrust of the policy. To use the Minister’s own words, so long as crude oil is sold within Australia at the proper price, it benefits all Australians. That is the basis of the policy and it has been adhered to rigorously. The Leader of the National Country Party has today tabled argument placed before the royal commission, not evidence. The royal commission’s findings exonerate the Government and the Minister. Now the Opposition wants to go beyond that and has called for a special inquiry into the royal commission itself. Let us look at Mr Souter ‘s evidence, which is not hearsay. Mr Liddell questioned Mr Souter and pointed out that an option was entered into between ACTU-Solo, IOC and Allied Petrochemicals Pty Ltd on 1 6 May 1 975.

Mr Staley:

– It was Solo then.

Mr KEATING:

– It was not Solo then; it was ACTU-Solo. On 17 June- one month later- Mr Souter wrote to the Minister. At no time did the Minister see any second agreement. The operative document was the $100 option of 16 May. Mr Liddell questioned Mr Souter as follows:

I suggest that in the course of that discussion you -

Meaning Mr Souter- stated that the price payable for the crude was the Government approved price or words to that effect.

Mr Souter replied:

What I stated was that there was discussion in relation to the prospect of purchase of APC crude, and the Minister’s response was, and I agreed, that it would be at the Government approved price for the crude.

Mr Liddell asked:

The Minister specifically raised the question and you say you agreed that would be the price?

Mr Souter said: ‘Yes.’ He said ‘Yes’ under oath. Then Mr Liddell asked:

From what you told us on Tuesday you were well aware, were you not, at that stage that the Minister would not have approved any sale of this crude other than at the Government-approved price -

Mr Staley:

– That was never in dispute.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Dr Jenkins)Order! The honourable member for Chisholm will contain himself.

Mr KEATING:

– He went on:

Was that your belief?

Mr Souter answered under oath: ‘The sale of the crude, yes. ‘ He was asked:

That was your belief at the time of the discussion and you in the course of this discussion stated this was to be a sale at that price?

Mr Souter replied under oath: ‘That is right.’ What is the point of the Leader of the Country Party now tabling argument in this political discussion? These are the facts under oath from the royal commission. There is the documentation, the details of the agreement and the details of the option. Yet the Leader of the Country Party tries to suggest that the Government has whitewashed the whole issue. There has been no inconsistency in the administration of the indiginous crude oil policy in respect of the Australian Gas Light Company, IOC, APC, Caltex or ACTU-Solo. The only single difference was that ACTU-Solo deceived the Australian Government. Apart from that there has been no inconsistency. The Leader of the Country Party rises in this House regularly like a lackey for AGL, which he has been for 2Vi years ever since the pipeline dispute started, and tries to put its case here suggesting that the Government was responsible for the increase in gas prices in Sydney.

Let us recount the AGL deal. On 13 May 1974 AGL wrote to the Minister asking him to approve a contract for the sale of crude oil over and above the fixed price. The Minister replied 7 days later, on 20 May 1974. It took AGL 5 months to respond further. Yet the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Malcolm Fraser) has alleged that the Government was tardy. AGL responded on 11 December 1974, 5 months later. Mr Connor replied on 16 December 1974. The Leader of the Country Party tabled a letter in which the Minister said:

However, I observe that the proposed price is in excess of that operating in respect of indigenous crude.

Mr Anthony:

– It is an approval.

Mr KEATING:

– It is not an approval. The Minister wrote again. AGL wrote on 23 December and asked for favourable consideration of this request. On 9 January the Minister wrote and said that he had nothing to add. I will read from his letter of 1 6 December. He said:

I note that one of the agreements presupposes, among other things, that I do not object to the transaction.

That was written on 16 December to Mr Connellan of AGL. The Minister said:

I invite your attention to my letter of 20 May last, and particularly to my comments in the second paragraph thereof.

This is a positive indication of the Minister’s disapproval of the AGL-IOC arrangement. If the members of the Opposition had any sense they would realise that the crude oil policy has no legal backing. It is a gentlemen’s agreement. To the credit of the oil producers of Bass Strait and elsewhere in Australia, they have honoured that agreement. The policy is administered on a very flimsy basis. The Minister does write in cautious terms to these people. The Broken Hill Pty Co. Ltd took the cue. It knew that it could not release an uplift of crude to AGL without a change in the Government’s policy. Here is Connor writing to Connellan after Connellan waited 5 months to respond to him. He wrote:

I refer to the second paragraph pointing out the authority does not exist for them to uplift the crude.

What happened was that the AGL deal fell through. So the Opposition has no case for complaint.

Let us have a look at the IOC-Caltex deal which is another matter mentioned by the Opposition. IOC was not able to pay for its crude originally. That was the basis of the AGL propositionthat AGL was to have paid it. There would have been no objection if IOC paid for it, but the company was not able to do so. The liquidator picked up the assets of IOC. One of the assets happened to be the call upon the indigenous policy for an uplifting of crude. The liquidator wrote to the Minister, and the Minister put out a Press release which said:

On 9 July, Mr Evans as liquidator had written to me stating that he desired to lift IOC’s crude.

He was prepared to pay the Government fixed price of approximately $2.10 at the well head and have the crude refined on a subcontract basis.

I advised him that this was unexceptionable as far as the crude absorption scheme was concerned.

Mr Evans also proposed that:

1 ) Caltex would refine the uplifted crude and market the refined produce on a joint basis with IOC.

What is wrong with that? Where is the inconsistency in that? The liquidator is still paying the

S2.10 for the crude. There has been no inconsistency in the administration of the crude oil policy in respect of AGL nor has there been any inconsistency in respect of the IOC-Caltex deal. The inconsistency was the deception perpetrated by ACTU-Solo. The Opposition should be ashamed for trying to suggest that the Government conned the royal commission, for trying to suggest that the royal commission whitewashed the Government’s situation and for calling for an inquiry into the royal commission.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– Order! The House will come to order. The Leader of the National Country Party was heard in relative silence. I think the honourable member for Blaxland should receive the same courtesy.

Mr KEATING:

– If one goes over the royal commission’s findings one finds at page 3 1 of the report the details of the damning evidence delivered under oath before the commission. At page 31, paragraph 25.4 it states:

On 17 June 1975 Mr H. J. Souter wrote to the Minister for Minerals and Energy enclosing an unsigned agreement in the terms of Annexure 1 by which ACTU-Solo purchased the crude from APC for $2.10 being the ‘Government approved price’ as if the document represented the whole of the transaction of purchase. The option was not mentioned.

What does one do? Does one just disregard evidence? Does one say that the royal commission is phoney and crooked? That is the Opposition’s imputation or suggestion if it says that the royal commission is a whitewash. What is the Opposition going to do now? Are we to sit here and listen to another barrage of innuendoes and slander such as we heard when the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party, Mr Lynch, the super sleuth with a fistful of dollars, was buying evidence around the world? Is this to be a similar operation? Finally during the loans affair we got to the Liberal fall-back position when the honourable member for Wentworth, Mr Ellicott, came to this chamber with the dubious charge that the Government floated the Loan Council agreement. Is the Opposition again going to resort to very narrow legalisms, to supplement repeated innuendo and slander? Why does it not face the facts? This time it got what it in fact asked for in connection with the loan affair. It has a royal commission’s report. Unfortunately the report points out clearly that ACTU-Solo deceived the Government.

There is no point in my reading the detail because honourable members would have read it, but as one reads through it one finds one fact piling on top of the other, damning the ACTUSolo dealings with the Australian Minister for Minerals and Energy. So, again, if the basis of the complaint by the Leader of the National Country Party is that of inconsistency let him look again at the Australian Gas Light Company deal. Let him look at the correspondence. What does he say of this when the Minister says: ‘I note that one of the agreements presupposes amongst other things that I do not object to the transaction. I invite your attention to my letter of 20 May last and particularly to my comments in the second paragraph thereof.’ Obviously that meant that his first letter was a disapproval of the arrangement. If honourable members want to read through the transcript of evidence they will find that the major distribution companies in the oil industry refused the offers by APC and IOC to take up their crude.

Why did they refuse it? Do honourable members opposite think they like turning their back on a dollar? Why did they refuse? Honourable members opposite know why they refused. They refused because they realised it was contrary to the Government’s policy. They realised that every time one of these deals is hawked around BHP writes to the Government seeking its approval. If approval is not forthcoming in very clear terms BHP does not agree to the lift of the crude. None of the companies, to their eternal credit, was prepared to try to trick the Government or BHP by taking up an arrangement with any of these people who had an allocation under the indigenous crude policy. I will not cast aspersions upon Ampol; I am prepared to believe what it said, that it did not understand the real import of the arrangement with ACTU-Solo. But I am ashamed of the fact that it had to be an Australian company that facilitated this arrangement. The fact of the matter is that at no time did the Minister for Minerals and Energy realise that there were 2 agreements, and the second agreement referred to the first -

Mr Howard:

– Are you absolutely certain of that?

Mr KEATING:

– The evidence establishes it. The Government’s counsel offered this. The departmental files and information were scrutinised by the royal commission. The second agreement refers to the first. The totality of the deal can be seen only by reading the 2 agreements. The Minister was never at any time aware of the second agreement. The sham argument that the Leader of the National Country Party is trying to put across is that the Minister said somewhere to Mr Souter on the quiet: ‘Look, providing it shows $2,101 will not be concerned. You just do a backdoor deal and everything will be okay’. That allegation is not true, because the Minister has never operated in that way. Why would AGL have been refused its deal? Why would any other deals have been refused? Why was there consistency in the administration of this policy up to this time?

Do honourable members opposite think that any Minister, particularly a Minister associated with the ACTU through his own political party, would leave himself open to the charge that he gave open sesame to the Secretary of the Council to do a back-handed deal while only showing him an arrangement or an agreement for $2.10? Obviously that did not happen. The Minister was not aware that there was a second agreement. This is apparent no matter where one looks through the correspondence or through the evidence in the transcript. I invite honourable members opposite who jeer to look at the appendages in the back of the report, the details of the transactions, the details of the option entered into in May this year one month before the Minister saw any correspondence from ACTU-Solo. It is an open and shut case.

The Government has acted honourably and with propriety. When Mobil mentioned this first in the proceedings of the royal commission the Government asked its counsel to request the commission to bring down a special report, and that the commission did. The royal commission brought down the report and honourable members have had time to look at it. The point it makes clearly is that the Government and the Minister in fact acted with propriety and honesty and they have been exonerated. The Opposition can read into that what it likes. Cast aspersions, if you must, and get yourselves bogged down in another sordid loans affair if you think that will help you. Basically you have nothing to offer. You have a royal commission’s report staring down your throat, and that is too bad for you. Honourable members opposite are the people who are supposed to uphold the dignity of things such as royal commissions and parliamentary practice and the Consitution- but only when it suits them, of course.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

- (Dr Jenkins)Order! The honourable member’s time has expired.

Mr ELLICOTT:
Wentworth

-I mean no offence to the honourable member for Blaxland (Mr Keating) but on a question like this I would have preferred to hear from the Attorney-General of the Commonwealth (Mr Enderby). I mentioned this matter in the address I made on the estimates for the AttorneyGeneral’s Department and I sought an assurance from the Attorney-General that he would look into this report and see whether any criminal conduct was involved. The reason for that was apparent from an elementary reading of the report because on its face it raised an extremely serious question as to whether criminal conduct was involved; that is to say, whether a person, with intent to defraud, deceived the Government for the purpose of obtaining a benefit for another person. The Attorney-General of the Commonwealth has a clear responsibility, on the face of this report, to look at that matter. It is equally apparent that if the report is accurate no Government could allow ACTU-Solo Enterprises Ltd to have the benefit of this fraud, an allocation in the future of crude oil.

It is not surprising, however, that since the report was publicised it has come under consistent criticism from Mr Souter and others. Mr Souter said that he had been maligned and made a scapegoat and that the report was unfair and incorrect. He denied, as he did in evidence, that he ever deceived the Government. He has been supported by Mr Hawke and others of the Australian Council of Trade Unions executive. The Government, however, has been firm in its acceptance of this report and shows not the slightest indication of rejecting the Commission’s findings. Not unnaturally it suits the Government to make Mr Souter the scapegoat for this attempt to subvert the announced Government policy on crude oil purchases.

The vital question here is not whether ACTUSolo agreed to pay Allied Petrochemicals Pty Ltd more than the Government agreed price. With respect to those who think otherwise, it clearly was an agreement to pay an additional sum. The royal commission was right on this score.

The real question here is whether the Government was really deceived and whether the Minister was really deceived. Was the Government, through its Minister, party to an arrangement with the ACTU whereby the Government policy on crude oil would be subverted to the advantage of ACTU-Solo and to the detriment of other oil companies in the country? Did the Minister, for example, agree that he would not question the transaction and would approve it provided the additional consideration was the subject of what Mr Souter called a commercial transaction which was not brought to his notice? If this was done there could not possibly be any deceit of the- Minister, nor any criminal conduct. That is why I raise the matter. Further, if it were so it would reveal a degree of corruption which this Parliament and the people of this country would not tolerate.

Since speaking in the debate on the estimates for the Attorney-General’s Department I have had the opportunity to peruse the transcript and the exhibits. I must say that I have grave concern as to whether this matter was adequately investigated. I would have liked the opinion of the Attorney-General on that matter also in the face of this House. Honourable members on each side all know that Mr Souter is a man of honesty and integrity. I do not believe there is anybody in this House who would want to question that. It is difficult to believe that he would deliberately deceive a Minister of the Crown. This is reason enough for being circumspect about the report and looking at it very carefully. Consistently in his evidence Mr Souter maintained that what he regarded as a commercial transaction, the second agreement, did not require submission to the Government. He said in evidence: … it was my firm impression in discussions with the Minister that the question of the sale of the crude was at the government approved price, and the commercial contract in relation to the refined product is a matter between the parties.

Of course this meant that he regarded the second agreement as falling within his understanding of what the Minister told him. No question of his being under any misapprehension about the second agreement arises. He believed, from what the Minister said, that the second agreement did not require production. In other words he was saying that the Minister had indicated to him that he need not produce an agreement like the second one, which was obviously a device, by fixing the figure relating to gallonage of refined products, to pay what APC really wanted for the crude, namely, $5 a barrel which represented 9c a gallon. This allegation by Mr Souter is extremely serious. It can be answered in only one way when made by an honest man and that is by calling the Minister. As has already been indicated, no evidence was given by the Minister.

Paragraphs 19.3 and 19.4 of the report contain the only basis upon which the Commission came to its decision that the Government was deceived. Firstly it relies on the Minister’s telephone inquiry concerning prices and Mr Souter’s admitted assurance in reply that the sale would be at the Government approved prices. That does not add to the matter at all and it is no answer because what Mr Souter was saying was that he did not have to produce the second agreement and provided he had an agreement at the Government agreed price that was sufficient. That was all he was talking about in that telephone conversation. That matters nothing. The third reason- I shall come to the second in a moment because it is the most significant- is the terms of the letter of 26 June 1975 in which the Minister stated that the transaction is an unexceptionable transaction. Again the Commission relied on that as a ground for saying that the Minister had been deceived. Again it adds nothing. The thing to look at is the file.

Mr Keating:

– On the basis of the file.

Mr ELLICOTT:

– Let us just have a look at this file. Let us see whether the file really assists- -

Mr Keating:

– That is rubbish.

Mr ELLICOTT:

– Do not speak too quickly, my friend, because in a moment I am going to lay you low. Let us see whether the file really assists to form the view that the Minister was deceived. We have already had reference to the interdepartmental memorandums to the Minister. I do not need to go into them any further. But there is one aspect of this memorandum that is very interesting. The memorandum states:

So far as the crude oil absorption scheme is concerned, the transaction is to be welcomed as it removes one of the underlifters from the fields.

That was the reason given in that memorandum; it removes one of the underlifters from the scheme. The underlifter of course was APC. The Government wanted to get rid of it in favour of ACTU-Solo -

Mr Keating:

-At $2. 10, not $5.

Mr ELLICOTT:

– This is not the thing that is going to lay you low, it is something else.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Dr Jenkins)Order! The honourable member for Blaxland will cease interjecting.

Mr ELLICOTT:

-I shall now refer to something else that is in this file. It is a letter from Mr Sykes to the Minister dated 7 July 1975. That is five or six days before this crude began to be uplifted. Mr Sykes wrote to the Minister as follows:

There has been a grave miscarriage of justice in APC (Allied) getting this crude and now selling it at an enormous premium of, I believe, 9c per gallon . . . This means the ACTU-Solo will have to pay out some $ 1.2m to a 100 per cent overseas firm owned by a man called Steiber in the USA . . .

On 7 July 1975 the Minister knew about it. One can search that file and one will find nothing to show that the Minister did anything about it. He knew nothing about it? It was the evidence of Mr Sykes that brought this matter before the Commission and before the Government late in August of this year. The Minister knew about it early in July. Do not try to tell me that the Minister did not know. Do not tell me that he was not party to a transaction. I again ask: Why did the

Commission and the Government counsel not call before the Commission the Minister and Mr Kelty of the ACTU and also Mr Gartland and the other gentleman, Mr Hunter? Why were they not called and why were they not asked about this matter and all the matters that were raised? It is pretty clear that the Government in this matter is trying to make a scapegoat of Mr Souter.

When one thinks of the great integrity of this man one wonders why. There must be indeed very serious matters that the Government wants to cover up if it is prepared to sacrifice this very loyal servant of the trade union movement. So, Mr Deputy Speaker, I suggest to you that this debate today has brought out into the open these very serious questions: Why is it that the Government is still not questioning this report? Why is it that it does not go behind it? Why do we not have the Attorney-General here, the first law officer of the Commonwealth, to tell this Parliament whether he has read the transcript, whether he has read the report and whether he thinks some criminal conduct is involved or whether he thinks a grave injustice has been done to Mr Souter of the ACTU?

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
KingsfordSmithMinister for Manufacturing Industry · ALP

– In reply to what has already been said, let us make it clear that the royal commission’s report clearly exonerates the Minister for Minerals and Energy (Mr Connor) from any improper conduct at all, and that is the disappointing part for the Opposition. The Opposition has already pre-judged the whole situation. Unless a Minister of the Crown was found guilty it would not accept any report at all. What sort of an Opposition is it to say such things after a royal commission has taken evidence and has made a finding on the evidence. Not one member of the Opposition wanted to appear before the royal commission. I invite the honourable member for Wentworth (Mr Ellicott) to go there tomorrow. He is a legal officer. If he goes to the Commission tomorrow and makes the accusations he has just made, he stands a good chance of being impugned on the basis of what he has said.

Mr Ellicott:

– What for?

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:

-On the basis of saying that the Commission did not make a proper report, that the Commission did not call the Minister and that the Commission failed to look at the letter. What right does the honourable member have to make such allegations here when he knows that he could appear before the Commission tomorrow and make those allegations?

Mr Ellicott:

-You read the letter.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:

-I shall read what was said by the Leader of the National Country Party (Mr Anthony) in a Press statement. Let us have a -

Mr Sinclair:

– Do you not think the Parliament should know?

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:

-By all means. Let us just take that point up. Do not let the Parliament be a commission of its own, making its own findings. That is what the Opposition wants to do. Have a look at the Press statement of the Leader of the National Country Party issued on the weekend about the royal commission. This Opposition that upholds the quality of law and justice and evidence wants to destroy it here today on the sheer nonsense that Mr Souter would of course not have misled anybody. That is the whole issue that the Opposition makes today. The Leader of the National Country Party asked why the royal commission did not pursue these matters more assiduously and why it did not do what he wanted it to do. I suggest that the Leader of the National Country Party go to the royal commission tomorrow and ask to give evidence in the box. I also suggest the honourable member for Wentworth should do the same with his letter from Mr Sykes. What does the letter of 9 July prove? I shall tell honourable members what it proves. If we want to talk about the unfortunate person Sykes -

Mr Ellicott:

-The letter is to the Minister. It proves the Minister knew. Let us not malign another man.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:

-We are not maligning; the Opposition did.

Mr Ellicott:

– Let us not malign another man.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:

– Having maligned the Minister, Souter, Hawke and everybody else the honourable gentleman now wants to say: ‘Do not malign anybody else here’. The point we want to make clear is that it was no advantage for Hawke and Souter to sell cheap petrol. They got no benefit out of this matter at all and the finding was that way. The honourable member for Wentworth stands up here today and says that they should be charged criminally.

Mr Ellicott:

– 1 did not say that.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:

-Yes you did. Under section 29 of the Crimes Act -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

- (Mr Keith Johnson)- Order! I would ask that the debate be conducted through the Chair and not across the table.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:

-I apologise to you, Mr Deputy Speaker. The point is that accusations were made today by honourable members opposite that certain people ought to have been the subject of criminal investigation. Members of the National Country Party interject by saying ‘Hear, hear’. What a weak-kneed approach this is to the situation. Members of the National Country Party assassinate everybody’s character when they are not here to protect themselves. They do not have enough courage to face up to the fact that a royal commission made findings which exonerated both Hawke and Souter from any suggestion that they had made a gain.

Mr Anthony:

– It did not.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:

-It did. The royal commission gave a clear finding that they got no benefit at all under this contract. Is it not elementary that when petrol is sold so cheaply it has to be sold at a loss? Is it not a fact that as a result of the petrol being sold cheaply it was decided to have a royal commission inquire into this matter? Was that matter not first raised at the royal commission on 30 August by counsel who wanted to know why it was that this could be done?

I want to record that immediately that was said the Minister contacted Mr Liddell, counsel for the Australian Government, to ask Mr Liddell to see him on the morning of Saturday 3 1 August. Mr Liddell was asked to seek from the commission an urgent report on all the circumstances of the transaction. Mr Liddell went back into the commission on the next sitting day and asked for that report. A Minister of the Crown instructed the counsel to ask for this report. It is a report which exonerates the Minister, the Government, Mr Souter and Mr Hawke of having made any beneficial gain.

Mr Ellicott:

– Nonsense. It calls him a fraud.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:

-It does not. It exonerates the lot. But the Opposition is not satisfied. The onus is on the Opposition because it is not satisfied with a report of the royal commission which is now taking place.

Mr Cope:

– I rise on a point of order. The honourable member for Riverina (Mr Sullivan) reflected on the judiciary by saying: ‘Is it the truth?’ I ask in accordance with Standing Orders that that statement be withdrawn.

Opposition members- Oh!

Mr Cope:

– You read the Standing Orders.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The chair did not hear the remark. An accusation has been made. Would the honourable member for

Sydney repeat what was said by the honourable member?

Mr Cope:

-He said:. ‘Is it the truth?’ The honourable member was reflecting on the report of the commissioners, which is a reflection on the judiciary. I ask for a withdrawal in accordance with Standing Orders.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-An objection has been made to the comment. Will the honourable member for Riverina withdraw?

Mr Sinclair:

– Nobody else heard him. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER-Order! I will deal with one point of order at a time.

Mr Sullivan:

– The honourable member for Sydney is assuming that I was speaking about some judicial matter. I said -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! There has been objection to the words used. Is the honourable member going to withdraw the remark?

Mr Sullivan:

– No. I was not referring to the judiciary.

Mr Bourchier:

– I rise on a point of order. Mr Deputy Speaker, if you did not hear the comment how can you ask the honourable member to withdraw the words that the honourable member for Sydney said were used? I suggest that you cannot ask for a withdrawal.

Mr Cope:

– I want a withdrawal.

Mr Sullivan:

– I know what I said. Don’t you tell me what I said.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– I ask the honourable member for Riverina: Were the words alleged to have been used by you the words that you used?

Mr Hunt:

– What words?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– I do not need any help from the Opposition side. The chamber heard the words alleged by the honourable member for Sydney. Were those words used by the honourable member for Riverina?

Mr Sullivan:

– In referring to what the Minister at the table was saying I said: ‘Is it the truth?’ The words ‘Is it the truth’ were to the Minister.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– I do not find those words offensive. There is no point of order. The debate will continue.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:

-Perhaps we can get back to the subject under discussion. The point that is quite clear is that the commission foundand this does not exonerate Mr Souter one iotathat 2 agreements were made on 4 July. It is clear that the first was pursuant to the Government’s policy on crude oil that there would have to be a sale of the crude, and that was the only agreement submitted. Why would there not be submitted a second agreement which said that it was supplementary to the first? That is the position, and that is where Mr Souter failed. We cannot save him from that. So it is not dishonest.

Mr Ellicott:

– It is dishonest.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:

-It is not dishonest. The point is that the Minister was deceived and Mr Souter admitted it. The dishonesty was in the preparation of these documents, the date of these documents and the fact that one purported to be related to a sale, without any reference to the second one. The second document, which was not submitted, purports to be a supplementary document. Why is it that the Opposition cannot face up to that fact? If it knew, as it does now as a result of a royal commission, that there were 2 agreements, the deception clearly falls on the person who had those agreements in his possession. The deception clearly falls on that person. That is where Mr Souter has had to bear the brunt of this situation.

Mr Ellicott:

– He knew 3 days after the agreement.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:

-The point that I am making here is that the letter to Mr Connor was sent on 1 7 June and had nothing to do with July. The agreement was made on 4 July but the draft was submitted as a single document. It is on that basis that the commissioners found that Souter was guilty of deception. Why would one prepare 2 agreements when the whole situation could have been covered in one? There was no need to do it from the point of view of the agreement. The Minister had already said to the Australian Gas Light Co. that it could not pay in excess of $3 for the crude. He said the same to everybody else. The big issue here is that the oil industry is honourable and it understands who pays what for crude. The people who refine the crude, the Minister and the industry have worked in harmony on the basis of guaranteeing a low price for crude because that is of benefit to the Australian motorist. The real issue- and this has determined policy- is that the motorist has borne the burden of the high priced crude in the early stages. He is now entitled to the benefits of the lower priced crude. No individual person- including Allied Petrochemicals Pty Ltd-could have got approval for such a deal because the price was in excess of Government policy. This deal meant $lm going over to Maddison Avenue in New York. There would have been no benefit to anyone in Australia, to anyone in the Australian Council of Trade Unions or anybody in general.

Members of the Opposition who are making accusations and maligning members of the royal commission and denigrating members of the judiciary should go to tomorrow’s meeting of the royal commission and give evidence. We invite them to do so. We are prepared to offer them counsel because it appears that they need it.

Mr STALEY:
Chisholm

-Everybody in the oil industry knows that the Minister for Minerals and Energy (Mr Connor) deceived the Parliament and the Australian people.

Motion (by Mr Daly) proposed:

That the business of the day be called on.

Mr STALEY:

-The Australian Council of Trade Unions and everybody else in the oil industry -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– Order! The honourable member will resume his seat. If interjections do not cease there will be fewer people in the chamber. The question before the Chair is that the business of the day be called on. Those of that opinion say ‘aye’, to the contrary ‘no’. I think the ayes have it. A division is not required.

Mr Howard:

– I called for a division.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Standing order 192 states that when a division is required 2 members must ask for the division to be called. Members of the Opposition should not stand and say like parrots that the noes have it. The Standing Orders are quite clear on this point. The Standing Orders have been in existence for longer than I or anybody else have been members of this chamber. Unless members on the Opposition side of the House comply with the Standing Orders I will not recognise them.

Mr Sinclair:

– I also call for a division.

Question put.

The House divided. (Mr Speaker-Hon. G. G. D. Scholes)

AYES: 58

NOES: 52

Majority……. 6

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

APPROPRIATION BILL (No. 1) 1975-76 In Committee

Consideration resumed from 2 October. Second Schedule.

Department of Housing and Construction

Proposed expenditure, $ 1 78,9 1 9,000.

Mr McLEAY:
Boothby

-In the few minutes available I should like to say something about the Priorities Review Staff report on housing which was discussed in this Parliament last week and which has been mentioned a couple of times by the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr Riordan) on television and in Press releases. Last week the Minister chose to discredit the Opposition for referring to this report and in fact to discredit the report itself. He implied that the Priorities Review Staff report on housing and some of the matters I specifically introduced were in fact argued against by the members of that committee.

I make the point that in the first place the PRS has already prepared half a dozen reports for this Government, and many of the suggestions and recommendations it has made are now enshrined in legislation. There are 23 people on the Staff, and I cannot believe that any responsible Minister would say that the Government will not listen to them, whether on this issue or any other issue. The Staff is described as the Whitlam think tank. The Children’s Commission, the rebate system of taxation to apply from 1 January and the abolition of the superphosphate bounty are some of the things that have been suggested by the PRS. We on the Opposition side of the Parliament believe it is a report which should be heeded by us and the Australian public at large.

There are several contentious issues to which I would particularly refer. The first is the recommendation that the dwelling that one lives in should have its rental value assessed and that that rental value should be added to one’s income and therefore to one’s tax. Last week the Minister described me as being a humbug. He said that what I alleged was utterly false and was a misconstruction. I say that this is a recommendation which is being considered by the Government, and it is quite possible, and in fact likely, that it will be adopted as legislation. Contrary to what the Minister says, there are half a dozen places in the report where the Priorities Reveiw Staff actually recommends this to the Government. It does not in fact talk against it. On page 14 mention is made of taxing the owneroccupier. Also on page 14 there is reference to the personal income tax deduction for rates and taxes. It is recommended that this deduction should be abolished. The Minister has not bothered to mention that. Also on page 14 there are references to the current concessions under estate duty legislation for a principal matrimonial home passing to a surviving spouse. The clear implication is that those concessions should be scrubbed off. Page 14 also refers to the current exemption for owner-occupied dwellings from the means test for many pensions. The implication is that that exemption should be abolished. The Minister has not referred to that. Page 14 contains a strong implication that the Priorities Review Staff believes that this imputed rental tax scheme should become legislation. On page 21 there is reference to the Henderson report. The Priorities Review Staff states:

The Henderson system would work still more fairly and progressively if imputed rents were taxed.

Are these arguments against such a tax? The Minister, when he was discussing this matter the other day, just resorted to bullying tactics, blunder and bluff. I say we have to consider acceptance of these recommendations by the Government as a strong possibility. On page 125 the PRS report states:

Failure to tax imputed rent affects distribution between rich and poor, the rates at which other things must be taxed, the demand for housing and, possibly, the price of housing relative to that of other goods.

That is not condemnation by the Priorities Review Staff of this scheme. On page 126 it states:

The addition of imputed rent to taxable income need not apply through the whole range of either incomes or house values.

Dr Gun:

– You must think people are pretty stupid.

Mr McLEAY:

– I think the honourable member is extremely stupid. Anyone who has read this report perhaps would believe that the Minister is in the same category. The Minister said that he did not read past page 14. 1 do not think he has read any. I think recently a member of his staff read the report. Page 126 states:

If the existing exemption of imputed rent cannot be abolished, there could be advantage in replacing it by a tax rebate.

Surely to heavens honourable members will not say that that is not unqualified support for such a scheme. Page 127 of the report states:

The proportion of imputed rem allowed as a tax credit (one-third in the example given) could be set, if desired, at a level which would yield no net revenue;

All the way through this report there is ample evidence that the PRS wishes the Government to adopt its recommendation. I think that the Minister was mischievous in calling me mischievous and implying that I am untruthful when in fact he is the one who has been making- I cannot say he has been untruthful- false statements. I suppose a further comment on page 127 more than anything else gives the line to whether or not the Review Staff is recommending this idea to be put into legislation. I will quote once again from the report. Page 127 states-.

Taxes on imputed rents create administrative burdens and difficulties of valuation -

And this is the important line- . . . such taxation has nevertheless been applied in the past in Australia and until very recently in the United Kingdom and is applied currently in Germany and Sweden.

I believe that the PRS has made strong recommendations and brought forward a whole range of options. No matter what the Minister saysapparently he is coming out on the side of whacking this committee- this organisation was set up by the Government to provide recommendations. The Prime Minister describes it as his think tank. The examples I have given show what the think tank has recommended.

It is absolutely ridiculous for the Government to say that it is not considering the recommend.tions. By the very way this report was introduced into the Parliament by the Prime Minister- it was introduced in the dying hours of the Thursday of the last 4-week period- no opportunity was given for anybody to debate it. It was substantially missed by the media. It is only by our drawing attention to it and to the dangers in it that proper and informed public debate can take place. We believe that the Government has tried to bury this report and that it is too hot for the Government to handle. The Minister has panicked. He started off on one track and has now gone onto another. There is no doubt in our minds that the recommendations could possibly be the basis of future legislation. Our job is to inform people who pay taxes. At the moment members of the Opposition are putting this information out to their electorates and in some cases petitions on this matter are being presented to this Parliament. I know from my own experience that enormous concern is being felt in the electorate. It is not mischievous to stir up interest in these matters. This is an attack on home ownership. It is our job to inform the electorate.

Three main points concern us. The first is the recommendation concerning imputed rental value. According to the formula in the recommendation the owner-occupier of a home worth, for example, $25,000 will have an amount of $36 a week added to his income and he will be taxed on that. Does the Minister deny that that is in the report? He is not nodding or shaking his head. But there it is. There is no doubt about it.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr Keith Johnson)- Order! I do not think the Minister should shake his head. The honourable member should be addressing the Chair and not the Minister.

Mr McLEAY:

-That is fair enough, but it is interesting to know the Minister’s reaction. He does not deny that that recommendation is contained in the report, the Government does not deny it and I trust that you, Mr Chairman, do not deny it either. It is legitimate for me to ask the Minister whether he will shake his head or what he will do. He is unhappy with the recommendation. He is junior in the Cabinet. It is all very well for him to say that the Government is not considering the recommendation. I would like the Prime Minister to say whether or not the Government is considering it. I would like to hear what the Caucus members have to say. The second point relates to the building tax. The PRS makes the recommendation that anybody living in or building a house of more than 12 1/2 squares may be subject to an additional building tax. Anybody who is living in a house which is that size now and adds an extra room will attract the same tax. The Minister does not deny that. I remember an interview of his recorded some weeks ago on a Sunday night in which he drew attention to the fact -

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

Mrs CHILD:
Henty

-In speaking to the estimates for the Department of Housing and Construction I would like to congratulate the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Les Johnson), the previous Minister for Housing and Construction, together with the present Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr Riordan), for many of the innovations introduced in the last 2Vi years which were pretty long overdue. In particular I refer to the tax deductability scheme for housing interest payments. This scheme has helped more than 1.3 million families throughout Australia at a cost of $ 130m. I also mention the special appropriation of $150m to savings banks for housing loans and the increased expenditure on aged persons housing. The expenditure has been increased from $30m in 1972-73, which was the last year of the LiberalCountry Party Government, to $56m last year. I think these innovations have been of great benefit not only to the building industry throughout Australia but also in all fields of welfare housing.

I would like to comment also on a ministerial statement issued by the Victorian Minister for Housing, Mr Dickie. A couple of points need to be answered. It is not true that a drastic cutback has been made in advances this year to Victoria for welfare housing. The figures are irrefutable. There has not been a drastic cutback. In fact if one goes through the figures carefully, as Mr Dickie evidently failed to do- I give him the benefit of the doubt; he may have done so but brought up a better story- one will find that all types of housing in Victoria received a total of $1 12.7m from this Government for the 1975-76 year. Certainly there has not been any drastic cut. The amount of $68.7m going to the State Housing Commission this year is a record. It is $6.9m more than last year’s total. Certainly the entire welfare housing advance this year to Victoria is the same as last year- it is $98. lm- but the proportion going to the Housing Commission is greater.

Mr Dickie also failed to note in his ministerial statement that the ratio of the advance is made at the request of the State Government. It was not our decision to split the funds into amounts of $68.7m and $29.4m. It was done in the way the State Government requested it to be done. The Housing Commission’s portion is $68. 7m, which is 70 per cent of the total. The remaining 30 per cent, which is advanced to the terminating building societies for lending to low income home buyers, is $29.4m. In commenting on Mr Dickie’s ministerial statement I refer to where the Minister said that in 1974 Victoria had $8m unspent of its allocation from the Australian Government. I find this interesting. Further down in his statement he points out that there was a building boom on in Victoria at that time and the Housing Commission had a great difficulty in obtaining enough builders to interest themselves in government contracts. I find that very interesting. In my electorate the Holmesglen Construction Co. has a tremendous capacity. It has something like 93 tables which can be used in connection with the manufacture of concrete components. The company has been under threat from the Housing Commission for a period of years. Its work force has been depleted because not enough work has been coming from the Housing Commission to keep the company operating at full pace. If this money has been available and in fact has been unspent at the end of any financial year I wonder why it has not been put into the Holmesglen Construction Co. to hold onto a skilled work force instead of seeing it dispersed.

Again this year we have heard in my electorate rumours that more of the work force, which is already depleted, could be put off because the factory is no longer economically viable. No factory will be economically viable if it does not get a full flow of work to cut down its production costs. If the Victorian Housing Commission has available this amount of money and it was unspent at the end of the year, I should like to know why it was not using this factory to its capacity. The factory is capable of turning out the full components needed for the building of primary schools. In fact it can turn out the entire components for a primary school within 7 days.

In Spring Road, Springvale, there is a perfect example of the type of building that can be turned out by the Holmesglen Construction Company, if it were working to capacity, at a much cheaper rate than educational buildings that are built by the State education department in Victoria today. If one is building through the non-government sector one will get a school reasonably quickly and for about $90,000 less than one can get it through the State education department

I should like to know why the Holmesglen factory is being allowed to run down and why skilled workers are being put off at a time when we need them to be kept on when the allocation to Victoria is at a record level- $6.9m above last year’s figure. At the same time the Victorian Minister does not point out in his statement that the split-up of the allocation was at his own request. Incidentally, Mr Dickie’s claim that the increase in the Victorian Housing Commission rents should be blamed on Canberra is just one more poor attempt to cover up the inadequacy in the State. Housing Commission rents are a State matter and Mr Dickie knows that as well as I do. As the Commission is being advanced this year the highest amount that it has ever received in one year I would have imagined that he would have done his bit to hold rents down.

Another point which I wanted to bring up is the tied grants that go to State housing in all the States. I have not been able to get hold of a copy of the federalism plan of the Opposition, but I am interested to know what will happen to those tied grants under the federalism plan. What will happen to the welfare housing money? Will the States raise it themselves through their own taxes, or through a double tax or double slug? How will the smaller States then make up the amounts which they are going to need for their welfare housing if the money will have to be raised through extra taxes by the States themselves? Even with the tied grants as we have them now the States wriggle out from their responsibility. One need only look at what Victoria has done in the technical education sphere to see how they can wriggle out. The larger the tied grant that comes from the Australian Government for technical education the less that is put in by the responsible government, or what should be the responsible government. I think the system would completely collapse if the States were to raise their own money in their own way through their own populations, regardless of the disparity between them, and to set their own priorities on the spending of it. I hazard a guess that welfare housing will come a pretty bad last if it is to be left in the hands of the States to raise the money.

As I did last year I should like to congratulate the 2 Ministers on establishing the Australian Housing Corporation. I believe it was an imaginative innovation which will provide home loans to low income families who may perhaps never have any opportunity to own a home or may not even be able to get a subsidised rental home. In Melbourne it is pretty hard to get a Housing Commission home. The list is 4y2 years long if one has fewer than 5 children. If one has 5 children the list is cut down to about 2 years. I believe the Australian Housing Corporation is a very imaginative step. I wish it very well. I think the flexibility within the Act is extremely interesting and will lead to a lot more families- particularly families of deserted wives and those Aborigines who are not able to move into home ownership- being able to buy a home, which is the dream of most of us, through the Australian Housing Corporation.

I was rather interested to see that Mr Malcolm Fraser stated that in his alternative budget that he would dispense with the Australian Housing Corporation. I am also interested to see that the State Premiers, mainly the non-Labor State Premiers, are calling for extra allocations for their housing programs. I wonder whether they have ever got together with the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Malcolm Fraser). I presume they all come from the same Party, yet he is calling for cut-backs in our spending and they are calling for increases. It might not be a bad idea if they got together to decide which they want.

Mr ELLICOTT:
Wentworth

-I wish to make some remarks about Aboriginal housing. The Australian Labor Party’s policy on Aboriginal housing was clearly enunciated at Surfers Paradise in 1973. I want to examine its three-fold pledge. The first is the promise to house properly every Aborigine by the end of 1982. Nearly 2!6 years have elapsed since that pledge was made and the Aboriginal waiting lists for public housing continue to grow in every State and in the Federal territories. For example, in one New South Wales town, Moree, the waiting list for Housing Commission homes for Aborigines in 1974 alone grew by twelve. That means that 12 additional Aboriginal families in Moree are further away in 1975 from their promised house than they were at the time of Labor’s Surfers Paradise pledge in 1973. I am told that in Sydney housing conditions for Aborigines are so desperate that South Sydney Community Aid literally has to beg real estate agents to accept Aboriginal tenants. On the few occasions on which accommodation is found the rents charged are often more than 60 per cent of the income of the tenants.

Mr Riordan:

– I raise a point of order. Perhaps I should draw the attention of the honourable member for Wentworth to the fact that this subject is not within the Department of Housing and Construction estimates. It is under the Department of Aboriginal Affairs.

Mr ELLICOTT:

-I thought that the Department of Housing and Construction administered part of the Aboriginal housing area.

Mr Riordan:

– No.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr Keith Johnson)- There is a reference in Appropriation Bill (No. 1) to the Department of Aboriginal Affairs and there is a sum of money for this year.

Mr ELLICOTT:

– To be spent through the Department of Housing and Construction.

Mr Riordan:

– It is not within these estimates.

Mr ELLICOTT:

– Under the Department of Housing and Construction there is a reference to furniture and fittings for the Department of Aboriginal Affairs.

Mr King:

-The Minister is just trying to take up time.

Mr ELLICOTT:

– The Government must be worried about what I have to say.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- I am afraid I have to find that there is no substance in the point of order.

Mr McVeigh:

– That is right; very foolish.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- I do not need any cheering from the Committee. I find that there is a reference to the Department of Aboriginal Affairs in the estimates for the Department of Housing and Construction and on a quick glance through the estimates for the Department of Aboriginal Affairs I can find no reference to housing. I call the honourable member for Wentworth.

Mr ELLICOTT:

– This Government has pledged to house properly all Aborigines by 1983. The real facts need to be understood. I am sure that Aborigines understand them and the public also must understand them.

The facts are that this Government cannot even cope with emergencies as they arise let alone catch up with the massive Aboriginal backlog. This Government, always so free with its promises, has in this Budget markedly cut the appropriation for public housing for the States in real terms by allowing an increase of only $ 1.5m in absolute terms or a mere 3.5 per cent to cover inflation. Yet the overall increase in the Budget is 23 per cent. The New South Wales Minister for Housing has announced that no new public housing will be put out to tender in 1975-76. Let there be no doubts on one score. When this Government is ordered by the Australian people to go it will leave behind it more Aboriginal families unhoused than when it came to office in 1972 so full of promises.

What of the second of Labor’s pledges? Let us not forget any part of it. It was to make funds available to assist Aborigines who wish to purchase their own homes, taking into account personal wishes as to design and location. That assistance was to be in compensation for the loss of traditional lands. Certainly money has been spent. This Government has always been good at spending. It always counts its achievements by how much of other people’s money it has spent. In 1 974-75 over $2 1 m was made available to the States for Aboriginal housing programs. A further $22m was spent directly on Aboriginal housing associations and Aboriginal Hostels Ltd. A total of over $43m- more than one-quarter of the 1974-75 Aboriginal Affairs budget- was spent on Aboriginal housing in one form or another.

But what of the promise ‘to take into account Aborigines’ personal wishes as to design and location’. Here, as always, Labor’s technocrats have fallen down on the job. Have they consulted Aboriginal communities? Have they allowed Aborigines to participate in the housing programs? This Government does not really stand for dialogue, for participation, for open government. These are catch cries to attract gullible voters. When the matter is really examined this Government stands for experts telling local tribal communities how to run their lives. As a substitute for real consideration of the wishes of Aboriginal communities on designs and locations, outside consultants have been flown in from Sydney or Darwin or Alice Springs or Perth to plan new communities in the space of a few days. Then, after disasters at Jigalong and at Warburton and Laverton in the eastern goldfields of Western Australia, the Labor Government has decided to try a different approach. In comes the Aboriginal Housing Panel of the Royal Australian Institute of Architects. The Aboriginal Housing Panel has provided a new wave of white technocrats, this time acting under the guise of ‘community catalysts’. These architects, quite predictably, have indulged all their pet ideas, from geodesic domes to the restoration of the wattle-and-daub era. And still the Aborigines have remained the victims, remained dependent. The only real difference is that they are tormented by the knowledge that millions of dollars are available, are being allocated and are being spent without any more passing directly into their hands than before.

Ask the Moree Aboriginal Housing Company what it thinks of Labor’s housing policy; ask the Bakandji Housing Co-operative at Wilcannia; ask the Papunya people and the Warburton people. What is happening then to the money for Aboriginal housing? It is being devoured by white administrators, white architects, white surveyors, white engineers, white accountants and white building teams. These Labor technocrats devour the Aboriginal Affairs budget and then have the gall to praise their own efforts, their own humanitarianism, their own self-sacrifice. Labor just cannot escape the fact that to plan for Aboriginal communities- to respect their preferences- you need to sit with them, talk with them and employ Aboriginal people to achieve Aboriginal goals. Finally, I come to Labor’s third Surfers Paradise pledge- to provide ‘trained social workers … in areas where such housing has been undertaken under the jurisdiction of local communities’. As I have already pointed out, this Government’s record of consultation and participation is abysmal. I can only say that this part of Labor’s policy does not appear to have been attempted- for which we should be thankful. This pious promise to place social workers under the jurisdiction of local communities shows a total ignorance of Aboriginal opinion. The tribal councils in Arnhem Land do not easily suffer white social workers intruding in their affairs. Nor do the clans at outstations or on cattle stations -

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr Keith Johnson)- Order! The Chair has been lenient but we are discussing housing, not social workers.

Mr ELLICOTT:

-I am talking about Labor’s policy.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- With the greatest respect to the honourable member the debate is on housing. The honourable member was given some latitude before when a point of order was raised. I would prefer that he spoke on housing rather than social workers.

Mr ELLICOTT:

-What is progressive opinion beginning to say about Aboriginal housing policy? It is saying that where housing is a live issue, whether among tribal Aboriginal communities or non-tribal associations, it is reasonable to assume that Aborigines themselves Will discuss the housing they prefer and determine their own priorities. This is what anthropologists have been telling governments for a generation: That European ‘resource people’- Labor’s expertstend only to insinuate their own prejudices into policy. And this has been the case with Labor’s policies. It has tended to tell Aborigines what their housing needs are. It has manufactured European needs and transported them to Aboriginal sites by medium of consultants and ‘advisors’. The Opposition takes a radically different view. The Liberal and National Country Parties are ready to determine Aboriginal housing needs and preferences in consultation with Aboriginal people and their community leaders.

Wherever practicable, self-management by Aborigines is our objective. Housing policy has a vital contribution to make toward achieving it. If Aboriginal organisations have the skills to fulfil that aim then the Aboriginal housing problem may well be resolved by the early 1980s. We will not be a parry, however, to the enforcement of uniform housing standards by uniformly minded bureaucrats just for the sake of a cheap political pledge. We know that the only road to achievement in Aboriginal affairs is through Aboriginal achievement by Aboriginals themselves. They must set the targets. They must achieve them. The task of white administrators and politicians, indeed of the entire white community, is to fund, to facilitate, to encourage, to sympathise. The days of whites calling the tune and craking the whip are over,

Mr ARMITAGE:
Chifley

-I think the honourable member for Wentworth (Mr Ellicott) had better check up on his research officers who prepare his speeches for him because obviously they have been looking at the wrong statistics and the wrong reports. For a start, the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr Riordan) is not responsible nor is his Department responsible for Aboriginal housing. What was looked at apparently was the statistics on capital works and services undertaken by the Department of Housing and Construction. The Department undertakes various works for various departments. These include the Parliament, Aboriginal Affairs, Agriculture, AttorneyGeneral, Foreign Affairs, Health, Labor and Immigration, Manufacturing Industry and the Media. I could go on. You name it and the Department does it. This work is undertaken on a contract basis. In effect, it is carrying out contract work for other departments.

I think the honourable member should really have looked at the statistics on the Department of Aboriginal Affairs to see just what has been done. The facts are that he has given no credit whatsoever for the tremendous initiative of this Government in the field of Aboriginal affairs. Great effort, great work and much expenditure has been used to try to improve the lot of our Aboriginal brothers. I would suggest that the honourable member go back to his research officer and tell him to be more careful with his research work in the future so that the honourable member as shadow Minister will not come into this place again and make a speech on the wrong department, for that is what he has done. He has made that fundamental error. A former honourable member for North Sydney did the same thing when he came into this place one night to make his first speech in 5 years and spoke on the wrong Bill. This is very similar to that incident.

Mr Ellicott:

– I raise a point of order. Is the honourable member entitled to criticise me in view of the fact that when a point of order was taken during my speech you, Mr Deputy Chairman, disallowed it and I continued to speak?

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr Keith Johnson)- No point of order is involved. The point of order was taken. It was resolved and you were able to continue. The honourable member may criticise you.

Mr Ellicott:

– Therefore what I said was quite proper.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- If the honourable member wishes, he may make a personal explanation. No point of order is involved.

Mr ARMITAGE:

– Thank you, Mr Deputy Chairman. The facts are that the honourable member spoke from a prepared speech on the wrong department. He ought to check his facts first and make sure that his speech writers do a better job. The major matter I want to speak on today is the effort, the job performed by and the initiative of this Government in the field of low cost housing. In 1972-73 when this Government took office from the previous government expenditure in this field totalled $60,700,000. Proposed expenditure for the year 1975-76 totals $123,411,000. I refer to those amounts because the Minister for Housing in New South Wales, Mr McGinty, made the extraordinary statement about a month ago that because of a cutback in funds by this Government the New South Wales Government would have to reduce commencements of Housing Commission homes from, if I recollect correctly, 6000 down to 1500. Yet in 1972-73 only $60,700,000 was allocated by the previous Government for low cost housing. This financial year $123,411,000 is allocated for advances to the States. That sum is more than double what was allocated in the financial year when this Government came to office.

I turn now to deal with the figures for the actual number of houses completed each financial year. All these figures are for New South Wales. In 1972-73, 4824 housing commission homes were completed. The estimate for 1974-75 is 7150 homes. We find also that there has been a reduction in the number of ‘Applications for Accommodation-Outstanding’. At 31 December 1972, when we came to office, there were 39 562 such applications outstanding in New South Wales. Today the figure is down to 35 74 1 . This reduction has occurred only because this Government has allocated so much more under the housing agreement. The funds that we have allocated have made it possible for the. States to undertake this work.

For this reason, one must therefore give the lie to the claim by the New South Wales Minister for Housing, Mr McGinty, that he is being starved of funds. That statement is like the claims that we have heard recently from the New South Wales Minister for Education in respect of which it has been shown that he is receiving extra per capita grants of an additional 43 per cent from which he pays teachers’ salaries. Here the same type of attitude is being adopted; statements are made without any respect whatsoever being paid to the authenticity of those statements. They are being made simply to grab headlines in the Press and to try to damage the image of this Government. After all, the area of housing is one in respect of which this Government can be very proud indeed of its activities. It introduced increases in expenditure which were long overdue and which have certainly assisted the building industry through a difficult period.

I refer also to the work which has been done in respect of units for pensioners. In 1972-73, $2,705,352 was provided for this purpose; $5,140,000 is the estimated expenditure this financial year on units for pensioners. The number of units approved in building schemes in 1972-73- that is, in the days of the previous Government- was 188. That had risen to 667 units in the financial year 1974-75. A great deal more remains to be done in this field. As our health standards improve and people live longer, a greater demand will be felt for facilities for the aged. Nevertheless, since this Government came to office, a good start has been made in this respect.

I wish to refer also today to the refusal of the Housing Commission of New South Wales to provide normal facilities and amenities in the large developments which it undertakes. In this respect, I refer to sporting facilities, community centres and so on which are permitted under the new agreement- they were not permitted under the agreement with the previous Governmententered into by this Government to build such facilities and to use its funds to provide such facilities. I make this point because when a housing commission area such as Mount Druitt, which is in my electorate, is constructed and in which approximately 1 1 000 houses and flats are built, sporting fields, community centres and other facilities are not provided, the responsibility for the establishment of such facilities is left to the local government authority. It is simply completely beyond the financial ability of the local authority to do that work; it has not the capacity to do so.

Accordingly, the people are dumped in these massive housing commission developments. They are all from the same socio-economic background. There is no tendency on the part of the Housing Commission to integrate the facilities and the homes. I have always believed, as I have advocated time and again in this chamber, that housing commission homes should be integrated with private development housing. This is the most effective way to do the job. This ensures that a great many of the problems which can occur are avoided. For those reasons, once again I advocate that integration and also that the Housing Commission of New South Wales in building these massive developments should make sure that it provides these necessary facilities. If this is not done people are left for up to a decade without the normal facilities which they would enjoy were they to live in any other part of New South Wales.

Mr McVEIGH:
Darling Downs

-The speeches from the Government side of the Chamber in this debate up to the present have been of no importance and nil significance, except in one instance. What we thought was impossible occurred. Those of us who have listened to the honourable member for Henty (Mrs Child) since she came to this chamber have thought that she was incapable of being educated. But, finally, the message has filtered through. She now believes that free enterprise is better than socialism. If one wants to have something built cheaper and more quickly, one goes to free enterprise rather than to a socialist government enterprise. That was the redeeming feature of her speech- one who appeared to be unable to be educated showed that she can learn something sometimes.

One would expect the Government Department to advise the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr Riordan) on desirable and attainable objectives within its sphere of responsibility. It should have a roving commission to ferret out information, to analyse and to interpret facts and trends, to make objective judgments and to recommend possible corrective measures when and where necessary. What is going on in the Department of Housing and Construction and the ministerial staff?

We find that in an era when Australians of all ages are desperately seeking housing the allocation in the Budget is down $69. lm this financial year as compared with the allocation last financial year. This is a disastrous policy, particularly when cognisance is taken of the inflationary rate of approximately 20 per cent. The economic policies of this Government have plunged us into the depths of a housing trough. They have sought to use housing policy as a tool of restructuring society. This is a serious distortion of policy objectives. The purpose of the Department of Housing and Construction is to supply homes. It should not be used as an instrument of economic management. People should not suffer by being required to do without shelter because the Labor Party and the trade union movement have severely damaged our national economy.

Mr King:

– They have let the workers down.

Mr McVEIGH As the honourable member for Wimmera says, they have let the workers down. We will not let the workers down. What is needed in Australia is a national housing policy, broad in concept and challenging in outlook. It must be concerned with the whole process of housing the population and the aspirations of all- the age pensioner, the businessman, the farmer, the worker, large and small families, the Aborigine and the student. Its thrust must be towards home ownership- a piece of land and a home which one can term his or her castle. In a climate where current rates of inflation, especially in real estate and housing, exceed the interest rate on home loans, it is essential to make money available to people to purchase their own home thus gaining equity in an appreciating asset while paying for it in a depreciating currency.

In this Estimates debate, the Government has telegraphed its lead and thinking with the Priority Review Staff report on housing. The Minister has been rather touchy, as the honourable member for Boothby (Mr McLeay) said, in denying the implications contained in it. He wants to get rid of it. We, on this side of the Committee, will not allow him to get out from under. We do not care what he or his colleagues call us, be it animal names or other descriptions. We have had to take it. But we do have memories. We do not forget. We remember the report on medical care. We remember the Coombes report. These were socialist reports designed to destroy freedom and free enterprise. They are now joined by another similar report. We recall how those reports were released, as the present report is being released, to gauge public reaction, and then they were used subtly and ingeniously to sabotage us. We will not have this housing report thrust upon us. The Minister is fond of saying: ‘Read to page 18 and you will find what is envisaged.’ The honourable member for Boothby suggested we read to some other page. I suggest that the Minister reads to page 100 and he will see there what is envisaged. He should take time off to acquaint himself with what the report says. I suggest that he reads the report and then digest its message. As the honourable member for Boothby said, this report is a blueprint for machining into shape the proposition of control of living through government dictation of housing objectives.

The Minister can pivot and pirouette as much as he likes, but he has tabled in this chamber a document which has the imprimatur and the support of his Party. We will expose these policies. We will recite, chapter and verse, the false ideologies and principles contained in the report. We will let the 41 400 households and all the households in Australia know why these 41 400 families are living permanently in tents, huts, caravans and houseboats. We will expose how the policies will lead to this number being increased. The Australian Labor Party Government wants to increase the number. It just does not care. The Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) commissioned a report, and the Minister tabled it, which suggests that no encouragement be given to people to build better types of homes and that homes should be stereotyped.

It is diabolical even to consider for discussion that home owners be taxed on an assessed rental value for living in their own homes. The Opposition will not have a bar of that. Let Australia be made aware that the intention to tax owners on the rental value of their homes is in the Labor pipeline. Some Ministers have suggested this prior to the release of the lastest report. The Opposition is totally opposed to this scheme, both philosophically and morally, because it is wrong to tax a person for owning his own home. It is anathema to us and we will not tolerate this type of thinking. Let the Minister try to wriggle out from underneath, but where there is smoke there is fire. It is his report; he tabled it.

Local government is financed basically by rates paid by landholders. Yet another burden is suggested to be placed on them. Ratepayers are asked to finance local amenities but the Labor Party will not allow a person to subtract his rate payments for income tax purposes. We have already seen the first steps taken in this journey in the 1973 Budget with the changes in the rate payment allowances made by the then Treasurer, Mr Crean. A rose will smell the same no matter what it is called. Socialism is socialism no matter how one camouflages it. The socialists do not want people to own their own homes. They do not want people to be allowed to deduct their rate payments.

Mr Bourchier:

-It is part of their platform.

Mr McVEIGH:

– As the honourable member for Bendigo said, it is part of their platform not to allow people to subtract their rates and to make them pay for the privilege of owning their own homes. The free enterprise Government in Queensland has completely abolished death duties on estates passing from spouse to surviving spouse. This makes the maximum impact in the area of greatest need. Queensland leads Australia once again in this most essential social reform. But the Labor Government is considering restoring full death duties on the family home by abolishing the current concessions implemented by the Liberal-Country Party Government. Obviously it is determined that the present 80 per cent of high income earners and 55 per cent of the lower income group who are home owners are to be drastically reduced in number.

The Opposition is totally opposed to all these matters discussed in the report. It will not have one ounce of these suggestions. It will tell the Australian people on the hustings what the Labor Party has in its plans and policies. The Opposition will pierce through and expose the puffery and the propaganda of the Labor Party. The Labor Party policies will be sorted out as bizarre- ours will be accepted as essential. The policies of the Labor Party in the housing area, as contained in the report of the Priorities Review Staff, which the Minister is trying to sidestep, are like giant snakes twisting and turning, dipping and curving. They will poison the Australian nation if they are allowed to bite. The Opposition will not allow them to bite. It will destroy them before they can rear their heads.

I ask: When will the Australian Housing Corporation get off the ground? When will its pump be primed so that some money will flow to the people desperately requiring it? The Corporation is doing everything except what it is supposed to do. Its principal function was to lend money for the building or purchase of dwellings and the purchase of land to be used for dwellings. Yet the allocation to it- other than for the defence service homes scheme- is to be used mainly for administrative purposes. This is in a time when the cost of building in Australia has risen alarmingly. I was recently informed that a 17-square home in Canberra cost $17,500 in 1968 and that an 11-square extension cost $17,850 in 1975, in the time of the Labor Government.

I should like to comment in the few seconds left to me on the disastrous record of the Labor Government in the field of housing for aged and infirm people. Everywhere one goes one finds that there are insufficient beds available to house the people who in the past have made Australia great. As the honourable member for Lyne (Mr Lucock) says, that is so true. The Labor Party does not care about the aged and the infirm as is shown by the drastic cutback in the allocation of money for housing. I now want to comment on the role of building societies.

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

Mr KEOGH:
Bowman

-From listening to the honourable member for Darling Downs (Mr McVeigh) and for that matter to the honourable member for Wentworth (Mr Ellicott) one would believe that aU the problems associated with housing Australian families eventuated in the last 3 years. They soon and easily forget that for over a generation they were responsible for overcoming the problems of housing Australian families and that their attitude constantly was that it was the responsibility of the private sector. I can remember one occasion since I entered this Parliament in 1969, a Minister for Housing in b.e Liberal-Country Party Government, the honourable member for Lilley (Mr Kevin Cairns), at one stage being asked about a survey to forecast housing needs of Australian families. His reply was that the conducting of such a survey must be the responsibility of the private sector. He looked to the Master Builders Federation to conduct the survey. He did not believe it was the responsibility of the Australian Government. Yet today, after the Australian Labor Party has been in office for 3 years, the Opposition seeks to tell the Parliament and the Australian people that all the problems associated with the needs of housing

Australian families have occurred in the last 3 years. That is as far from the truth as are many other things which the Opposition proposes. For argument’s sake, the fantasies of the honourable member for Boothby (Mr McLeay) here today and his valiant efforts in the last few weeks to propose something in an effort to con the Australian people into believing are almost equal to the fantasies of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Malcolm Fraser).

In the short time available to me I want to refer to the dishonest approach that has been adopted by the Queensland Government in respect of the amount of funds available to it this year for welfare housing in Queensland. The Queensland Government has claimed that the amount this year is down by about 29 per cent. Of course, that is not true. The amount that has been allocated this year in the Budget- $3 lm- is exactly the same as the amount that was allocated in the last financial year. In fact last financial year $37.4m was allocated and spentthe $31m that was allocated originally plus $6.4m that was given to the Queensland Government on 1 1 June this year. At the time it was given, the present Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr Riordan) advised the Queensland Minister that the funds that were to be made available for Queensland- and Western Australia, which received additional funds at the same time- were advances out of the next year’s Budget allocation. That was clearly understood by the Queensland Housing Minister and it is recorded in the conference transcript. If the honourable member for Petrie (Mr Hodges) is seeking to find it, let me tell him that it is on page 84. In that transcript it can be seen that it was clearly laid down by the Minister for Housing and Construction that that was the position. It was agreed to very meekly and mildly by the Queensland Minister for Housing. He said: ‘We do thank the Commonwealth for giving us $6.4m.’ On 23 June in a letter the Queensland Minister made the same point. Mr Jon Petersen, the Queensland Premier, who is often quoted by members of the Opposition, should perhaps appropriately be quoted on this occasion as saying that the funds provided by the Australian Government were very much appreciated. The Queensland Government on this occasion this year has also complained that it has not received the same amount of money that it requested for welfare housing. It asked for a sum vastly greater than that allocated by the Australian Government and complained that Queensland’s position in the field of welfare housing in comparison with that of South Australia was such that it was being unfairly treated. It said that Queensland got less money than South Australia although South Australia had a lower population, being in the vicinity of 62 per cent of that of Queensland.

It is interesting to see the statistics and to compare the effort made by South Australia in the field of low cost welfare housing over a great number of years. In South Australia, not only under the Dunstan Labor Government and the previous Labor Government but also under governments as far back as the Playford Government, a real effort has been made. But that is not the case in Queensland and that is something that the Minister for Housing in Queensland might like to explain. I want to refer to the comparative figures for the last few years. In Queensland in 1972-73 the total number of dwellings in the welfare housing field that were completed, under the arrangements of the State housing authority and the home builders account, was 1973. In the same year the number of completions in South Australia totalled 3802, almost double the figure for Queensland. What does Mr Lee say about this? Where was the real effort by Queensland in 1972-73?

In 1973-74 the total in Queensland was 1398, less than the number for the previous year, while in South Australia 3983 dwellings were completed. The comparison on that occasion is more odious than the previous comparison. In that year South Australia completed almost three times the number of houses in the low income welfare housing area than Queensland did. Referring to 1974-75, it might be argued on the figures that Queensland made an effort and had lifted the total housing completions. The final figures for that year are not yet available but the estimated number to be completed is 2300. But even so, in comparison with the figures for South Australia, that figure is miserably low, South Australia having completed 3370 dwellings in that year. The figure for Queensland in that year is somewhat up on that for the previous year and is due in no small measure to the advance by this Government which was made, as I explained, with a clear understanding on the part of the Queensland Government that it was to be taken from this year’s allocation, the advance of $6.4m made in June this year.

Why is it that the Queensland Government seeks to deceive? Why is it that with gross hypocrisy it puts forward these figures and maliciously says that the Australian Government has cut the allocation to Queensland by 29 per cent? If it had any semblance of honesty in its reasoning and its public statements it would accept the fact that the figure this year is the same. Admittedly it would be nice to see an increase; that would be very welcome as far as Queensland is concerned. However I doubt that the Queensland Government could live up to its claim that it will complete in the vicinity of $80m worth of housing in the welfare housing field this year. On the figures I just gave to the House, based on last year’s effort, it would seem most unlikely that Queensland could greatly exceed 2300 to 2500 dwellings this year.

The Queensland Government has received a very fair deal in welfare housing from this Government. It has received a very fair deal when compared with the figures made available to Queensland by the previous Government. It is interesting to note that in the last 10 years of Liberal-Country Party administration at the national level the amount made available to Queensland was miserable in comparison with that made available by this Government in the first 3 years that it has been in office. The Queensland Government has received $92.2m from this Government which is nearing the end of its first 3 years in office, and that is $500,000 more than the State got in the last 10 years of Liberal-Country Party administration.

I see that honourable members on the Opposition side are taking note of these amounts, and so they should. They should bring them up in their party meetings and show their leaders the hypocrisy of the statements they are supporting. It is interesting to see the Opposition Whip taking notes; I hope he has the figures right. The sum of $37.4m that Queensland got in 1974-75 and will get in 1975-76 is $4.3m more than it got- the honourable member might also like to note that it got it without question and without complaint- in the last 3 full year allocations in this sphere by the Liberal-Country Party Government. Advances for welfare housing for Queensland per head of population have increased under this Government from $8, when this Government took office, to over $15 in this Budget. The hypocrisy of the Queensland Government and the Queensland Premier, supported in equally hypocritical terms by spokesmen on the Opposition side, has been effectively shown by the figures I have given to the House.

Mr BOURCHIER:
Bendigo

-There are one or two points I would like to mention in particular while speaking to these estimates in order to answer the previous speaker, the honourable member for Bowman (Mr Keogh). He made statements which showed his lack of understanding of the cost of building and trends in the building industry today as compared with when the Opposition parties were in Government. He made the great statement that this year the Australian Government is providing the same amount of money as last year and therefore is providing the same service. Obviously the honourable member forgot that there is such a thing as inflation which is running at about 20 per cent. However, even allowing for that, he did not bother to consider that when our parties were in Government a house cost between $6,000 and $9,000 and that the same house today costs, at least $20,000 to $30,000. Considering that increase I think the Government of today in fact is supplying less money when compared with what was provided then.

If one looks at the Australian Labor Party policy or platform, as produced at Terrigal, to see what it says about housing, unfortunately one does not find it mentioned. The ALP does not have a policy on housing. This is understandable when we see the hash it is making of the housing situation. Returning to my comments about the cost of housing when the Opposition parties were in Government I want to refer back to 1972 when the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) made the promise in his election speeches to the people of this country that if elected to office he would reduce the cost of houses by between $2,000 and $6,000. 1 think everybody would agree, even the muddle-headed members on the Government side of the chamber, that judging by the tremendous increase in the cost of housing the Prime Minister was quite wrong, as he has been on so many occasions.

I refer honourable members now to Appropriation Bill (No. 1). On the several occasions on which I have had the opportunity of speaking about the Estimates I have drawn the attention of the House to what I consider the blatant disregard of honesty by the Government in drawing up its estimates. It has not taken into consideration the true facts of variations. In the housing appropriation, under administration, it has reduced the estimate for travelling by $400,000 and has reduced the estimate for office requisites by $69,000 as against the figures for last year. Here again you find this remarkable situation of the Government not understanding budgeting and not understanding finance. It has reduced the cost of postage, telegrams and telephones by some $370,000. Honestly, is it not a fact that the cost of postage and telephones has gone up by some 80 per cent?

How on earth can this Government afford to estimate for such reductions? It is totally ridiculous, as the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Les Johnson) indicates by the smile on his face. The estimate for motor vehicles has been reduced by $240,000. Perhaps the Minister and all his staff are going to ride to work on horseback or by bicycle. Yet the Australian Housing Corporation has increased its estimate in the administration section by $44m. In preparing this Budget the Treasurer obviously took note of what the various Ministers proffered to him as proposed cuts at his request. They said they would cut here and there. But there is no way in the world that one could cut all these costs unless one reduced staff to use the various vehicles or the factors that I have outlined. The staff are still there. They will travel, use the telephone and use the same amount of postage.

It appears to me that in many sectors of the Budget, not only in this one, as I mentioned the other day this Government has provided for extremely large amounts in hidden sectors of administration- hidden away where the Government hopes the people of Australia will not see them. I have done my sums on these cuts. Outside the transferring of expenditure from the Department of Services and Property to the Department of Urban and Regional Development, I think, the total amount of general cuts in administration costs alone is something like $2lAm. There has not been a reduction in staff; in fact I think there is an allowance for an increase of 1 Vi per cent. So obviously this is a complete lie and a contradiction, as I stated before.

I turn now to the advances to the States. These come up for question time and time again. The Budget shows that there has been a total reduction of $23.8m in advances to the States. How can the Minister say there is no reduction to the States. Obviously there is. I refer to a Press release which I know was issued before the Budget but nevertheless on the eve of the Budget. By that time, on 20 July, the Minister for Housing and Construction surely would have provided the Treasurer with all his estimates of costs because the Treasurer has to have his Budget ready by the beginning of August. The Minister issued a Press release which stated:

page 1763

QUESTION

MINISTER REJECTS COMPLAINTS BY STATE HOUSING MINISTERS

Advances by the Australian Government for the States’ Welfare housing programs in 1 975-76 will not be less than in the previous financial year, the Minister for Housing and Construction, Mr Joe Riordan, said today.

What tragic news that is. How unfortunate that the Minister can make a bald statement like that knowing full well his total cut is to be $23. 8m. States grants are dealt with in Budget Paper No. 7. As I have mentioned, the State grants have been cut by more than $20m. The amount provided for Victoria is listed as $99m- I think $99,800,000 to be exact. That is exactly the same amount as was provided last year. Again I ask as I did of the honourable member for Bowman- I am sure the Minister, if he does not know, would have some staff behind him who would have some idea that there has been inflation in the country- how can the Minister honestly say that he has not cut the grants to the States in real terms? How many houses could the Minister for Housing and Construction build this year with $99m as against those he could have built with $99m last year? He would have to acknowledge honestly and truthfully that he would be able to build 20 per cent fewer homes. Therefore I say to the Minister that he has cut the provision of funds to the States and has seriously affected the housing of the people in need- the people that the Government as a socialist Government is supposed to be protecting, the people for whom the Minister claims he will provide cheaper housing. He has provided more expensive housing for these people.

I suggest that the Minister perhaps should have a good look at his sums. In fact in some States the cost of housing has increased by not just 20 per cent; because of wage increases, material price increases and a shortage of supplies of materials the cost of housing has increased by up to 40 per cent. Allowing that there has been no alteration to those circumstancesthe trend has been at least as bad, if not worse, with a bigger cost increase because of inflation- we will find that the reduction of the overall States grants from $366m down to $342m is in fact a cut back of not $23m but in effect of something closer to $90m. I hope the people of Australia are aware that this Government will provide much less housing in the forthcoming year, with all the problems that will mean. It does not mean only that there will be a cut back in the availability of homes to those in need; it means that there will be a cut back of employment to those in the building industry, and we already have far too much unemployment in Australia at present.

I should like to mention one other point, the homes savings grants. I have mentioned this matter before. The Budget for the Department of Housing and Construction shows an appropriation of $10m for homes savings grants- a worthwhile system of funding homes for young people introduced by our Party when in Government. But what a ridiculous situation the Minister has placed these young people in. They cannot qualify for this grant unless they buy a home and land for a total of no more than $22,500. 1 challenge the Minister to go anywhere in the Commonwealth today, even to Oodnadatta if he likes, and buy a block of land and build even a reasonably small home on it for less than $22,500. He knows that it is not possible. None of this money will be used. The Minister has made yet another blatant mistake. I ask the Minister to consider seriously introducing a small amendment- nothing really to upset anything and not involving any extra cost. It is merely to lift the limit from $22,500 to something over $30,000 so that the $10m that is budgeted for will be used by young people in Australia who are at present being deprived in every possible way by a socialist government dedicated to nationalising the building industry and doing away with home ownership and looking for socialism to the extreme.

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

– I thank honourable members for the contributions that have been made- some more than others because some contributions were more relevant than others. I regret that the honourable member for Wentworth (Mr Ellicott) decided to make a speech in this debate about Aboriginal housing which has nothing to do with this portfolio or this Department in any way whatsoever, except for the Department acting as an agent for the Department of Aboriginal Affairs. I do not wish to canvass the ruling of the chair but I simply say that the honourable member gave a speech about nothing that was really relevant to the portfolio that I have. However, I want to say that he was quite unfair in his criticism of the activities of the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Les Johnson) and the Department of Aboriginal Affairs. He was quite unfair and indeed it is false to suggest that this Government does not stand for dialogue, consultation and co-operation with Aborigines in the field of Aboriginal housing. But my Department of Housing and Construction is concerned with Aboriginal housing only as a service department. It acts on behalf of other departments.

Having spoken on the irrelevance of that speech for a moment I turn briefly to the contribution of the honourable member for Bendigo (Mr Bourchier). He seems to think that the estimates for this Department are hopelessly understated.

Mr Bourchier:

– I have only quoted your figures.

Mr RIORDAN:

-He has looked at the figures and he has discovered that on things such as travelling expenditure, office requisites and cost of postage and telegrams less money is apportioned this year than was apportioned last year. I congratulate him on being able to look at 2 columns of figures and to recognise that one represents a lower figure than the other. That is something to be commended. But what he also might have done is to have made some preliminary inquiries about the matter and looked at the administrative arrangements that were made in the early part of June. He then would have understood the clear and simple reason for the reduction. It is no plot. It is no plan to deceive. It is no error of judgment. It is no accounting fault. It is simply that 1234 employees who were previously employed by the Department of Housing and Construction have now been transferred to the Australian Housing Corporation. In other words the transfer of the defence service home loans activities from the Department of Housing and Construction to the Australian Housing Corporation transfers that expenditure to the Department of Urban and Regional Development. That is the simple explanation.

A great deal has been said in this debate and further scandalmongering has been indulged in. The Opposition has engaged in scandalmongering and misrepresentation in respect of the Priorities Review Staff’s report on housing. I say again and I shall keep saying that those who say that the Australian Government is considering a tax on home ownership, a tax on imputed rent or a tax on houses of more than a certain size are spreading a false, malicious rumour. They are making false and mischievous statements which have no foundation in fact. Reference is made on page 22 of the Priority Review Staff’s Report on Housing to the propositions which members of the Opposition have referred to and which are canvassed in the report. In this regard the report states:

But such devices have relatively little to be said for their equity and efficiency, are not less administratively complex and are not obviously more saleable politically than the preferred alternatives outlined above.

If the honourable member for Boothby (Mr McLeay) will simply look at the report, up to page 18, he will see that the propositions to which the Opposition claims the Government is giving consideration at the moment are described by the Priorities Review Staff as ‘politically infeasible and administratively complex’. The propositions are canvassed, and I concede that they are certainly canvassed at some length.

The alleged merit is canvassed as well as the alleged deficiency. But it cannot be truthfully or accurately said, I think, that the PRS has recommended to the Government that it adopt these 2 proposals. That cannot be said, unless there is a massive misconstruing, deliberately or otherwise, of the proposals which the PRS has put before the Parliament in this report.

Of course, it is all very well for those opposite to complain that they do not get access to all the reports, all the discussion and all the propositions which are made from time to time, but as soon as we see put forward a report which openly and frankly canvasses alternatives, it seizes on an aspect, on one point, misconstrues it and attempts to attack the Government. The Opposition s misrepresentation will not be swallowed. I know that members of the Opposition are engaged in a cynical campaign at the present time. I know that they are engaged as the political desperadoes of Australia, desperate to try to get power by any means, to use any strategem, to use any tactic to try to grab power. But they shall not succeed because they cannot succeed on a falsehood. If the premise of their argument is false -

Mr Cohen:

– They succeeded for 23 years.

Mr RIORDAN:

-Well, they will not succeed now.

Mr McLeay:

– Would you like 2 bob on it?

Mr RIORDAN:

– Yes I will.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr Innes)Order! The debate will continue through the Chair.

Mr RIORDAN:

-Yes, Mr Deputy Chairman. I say that honourable members opposite will not succeed because they will not succeed in pulling the wool over the eyes of the Australian people ever again.

Mr McLeay:

– You have done it for 3 years.

Mr RIORDAN:

– I know that you can claim to have done it for 3 years, but the thing is that that you will not do it for the next 3 years. The Opposition did not succeed in 1972 and in 1974 and it will not succeed whenever next there is an election, whenever that may be.

Let me just ask honourable members to consider some very significant points in the next minute of two. Firstly, in the last 2 years this Government has made available more funds for public housing than ever before and its record will stand up against any long period of time to which one might wish to refer.

Mr Bourchier:

– They are worth less.

Mr RIORDAN:

-Worth less, nothing. In each of the last 2 years the funds made available represent 2Vi times as much as was made available in the last year of government of honourable members opposite. That is a fact that cannot be denied.

One of the reasons there is a rental problem in this country today is because of the continued neglect of the State colleagues of honourable members opposite who have sold off housing commission homes without regard for the problems of renters and at a substantial capital gain for those who have least deserved it. But when we talk about the rapid escalation in costs, let us look at the facts. The wholesale price index of materials used in house building is showing a steady considerable fall. For example, it was running at 22 per cent- almost 23 per cent in fact- in March of this year. It is now down to less than 15.5 per cent. The time taken to construct an average cottage has fallen. Total costs are starting to be reduced. In other words, the increase in costs is reducing. Wage indexation will bring greater certainty.

I think honourable members opposite ought to recognise also that the reason total money amounts in this year’s Budget are lower than those of last year is because advances were made in June of last year clearly on the basis, as the honourable member for Bowman (Mr Keogh) said, that they would be taken into account, as they were, and offset against this year’s amount.

Motion (by Mr Riordan) agreed to:

That the question be now put.

Proposed expenditure agreed to.

Department of Labor and Immigration

Proposed expenditure, $314,208,000.

Mr STREET:
Corangamite

-There are 2 matters to which I would like to refer specifically in speaking to the estimates of the Department of Labor and Immigration. One is a matter which is largely completed now, but one which did create some problems and which was referred to, as I am sure the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr Riordan) who is at the table is aware, in the Auditor-General’s report. I refer to the income maintenance scheme. The Auditor-General drew attention to some highly undesirable features of the results of that scheme and some abuses of it. If my memory serves me right, I believe the Department was trying to recoup some money which it had found upon investigation to have been wrongly paid.

Mr Riordan:

– It has recouped most of it.

Mr STREET:

– I am interested in the comment that the Minister has just made. I had in my mind -and I do not want to be held to this- something like $260,000 as being overpaid. I am glad to have the Minister’s assurance that the major portion of that amount has been recovered. When the Minister replies in due course he may be able to give some more information on that matter.

The other aspect of the estimates to which I would like to refer is the Regional Employment Development scheme which still involves a very large sum of money- $ 135m- in the estimates but which the Government has announced is to be run down over the next few months. I think that the Minister said today in answer to a question from me during question time that employment on the RED scheme had been reduced to something of the order of 20 000 from, I think, 32 000 at its peak. But still, very large sums of money are involved. As the Minister would know, there had been a great deal of confusion and uncertainty among local government bodies which have been involved with projects which were either just started or approved and about to be commenced when the announcement was made that the scheme was to be phased down. A letter from the Department of Labor and Immigration states: . . . projects not already commenced will be finalised only in a limited number of areas experiencing the most severe unemployment- in general where the local unemployment rate is twice the national average.

Therefore letters have been sent out to various local government organisations saying that particular projects of theirs do not fall within that category and that, therefore, even though they had hoped that the projects would go ahead, they now will not do so. To give an illustration of the severity of this decision I would like to quote the experience of certain areas, namely, the electorate of Braddon in north-west Tasmania plus municipalities in the Latrobe and Kentish areas on the eastern boundary of that electorate. The value of the schemes cancelled in six of the municipalities totals $568,000. That is a very considerable sum of money.

As the Minister would know, the unemployment situation in Tasmania is extremely difficult. I imagine that in Braddon and municipalities adjoining it the cancellation of projects of that magnitude at pretty short notice is going to involve even greater difficulties for the area in the immediate future. For instance, the councils which had RED schemes cancelled are King Island, $99,000; Circular Head, $97,000; Wynyard, $160,000; Latrobe, $99,000; Kentish, $108,000; and Stratum, $25,000. In an area which is already suffering high unemployment that obviously is going to have a very severe effect.

The most difficult cases of all involve projects which were approved and had been started but which it may not be possible to complete. I quote again from the letter sent out by the Minister’s Department. It states:

The question of reimbursing you for financial commitments which you have already incurred will be sympathetically considered.

That sounds fine if the sympathetic consideration which is mentioned turns out to be in favour of the council or whatever the organisation is. But if the Minister, having sympathetically considered the question, decides that the council is not going to be reimbursed for this money some local government authorities are going to be seriously embarrassed. Even more seriously embarrassed will be individual organisations which believed that they were going to get their facilities upgraded through the RED scheme. I cite merely one. It is the Muswellbrook Park Sports Club, which was to get a grant. It has been left with bills for labour escalation of a bit over $2,000, for cost escalation of just under $1,000 and for material escalation of just under $2,000. So there is about $5,000 for which this sports club is left holding the baby.

Mr Cohen:

– What was its original grant?

Mr STREET:

– I have the application in front of me. A grant of $54,060 was duly approved and the job commenced during the week ending 30 April. The point is that it is left now with an uncompleted facility and there is an amount of about $5,000 which it has to pay or may have to pay. I just make a plea to the Minister on this question of sympathetic consideration that in the case of organisations which have very little financial backing- not that I am saying that all municipalities are very well off at the present time by any means- particularly sporting clubs or charitable organisations -

Mr Riordan:

– Sporting clubs are not charitable organisations, are they?

Mr STREET:

-‘ Or charitable organisations’, I said.

Mr Riordan:

– I thought you said ‘or other’.

Mr STREET:

-No, I said: ‘Sporting clubs or charitable organisations’- organisations of that nature, which have been left holding considerable financial burdens through no fault of their own. They should receive special consideration because of their limited financial backing. As I say, I am not implying that all local government authorities are able to stand the financial loss with which some of them may be faced, but these other organisations are able to stand it a good deal less. I would hope that the Minister in his reply would give a rather more certain indication to a great number of organisations which at the moment merely have an undertaking that their requests will be sympathetically considered that their commitments will be met. I have something like a dozen local government organisations in my own electorate which find themselves in that position, but fortunately they had not started the scheme concerned so they are not up for any money themselves specifically.

The RED scheme had great difficulties during its time of operation mainly because this Government insisted on its being administered from Canberra. I think this has illustrated the great difficulty of central government in trying to set priorities which are best known and best handled by the people closest to them, that is, the local organisations and local government authorities.

Mr Hodges:

– It took 7 Ministers to administer it too.

Mr STREET:

– It was administered by 7 Ministers. The Opposition’s policy, of course, is to return administration of such schemes in times of high local unemployment to the people who do it best. They are the people closest to the problem- local government and local organisations.

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

– I must comment on the last point made and the point most made by the honourable member for Corangamite (Mr Street) about the Regional Employment Development scheme. I think it ought to be said that the honourable member is a member of the Liberal Party and comes from Victoria. The Government has been berated by the Opposition on more than one occasion about its spending and has been asked to cut back on government spending. In fact, it has been demanded that we cut back on government spending. It has been said that this is the way out of the woods. Now- I do not necessarily agree that I am in favour of it- because there has been a cutback in government spending, and RED schemes are government spending, the Opposition is now saying: ‘This is not the way out of the wood at all. You do not cut back on government spending but in fact you increase it’.

The argument gets a little bit more circular than that even. The closing remarks of the honourable member were that the Opposition would leave administration of this scheme up to the local bodies who, the Opposition believes, would be best equipped to deal with it because they are local. I remind the honourable member again that he is a member of the Liberal Party, that he is a Victorian, that he lives in a State that has a Liberal government, that the Premier of that State, Mr Hamer, a Liberal, has taken the trouble of going to the High Court for a writ to restrain the Australian Government from dealing with local government in matters like this. It is curious that members of the Opposition should stand up, as they have done on more than one occasion on this matter, and criticise the Australian Labor Government for not doing this and not doing that when in fact their friends in 3 States of Australia have taken out writs in the High Court to restrain us from doing it. I understand that the basis of the writ is that the Australian Government has no authority to deal with local government. Yet the closing words of the honourable member for Corangamite were that the Liberal Party in government would deal with local government. I wish that members of the Opposition would be a bit sincere about it and make up their minds as to where they stand on it.

I take the point about a cut-back in spending. I mention one area in which I have a criticism of my own Government. Perhaps the Minister- I am sure he can- will properly explain to me in closing this debate why such a thing has happened. By unanimous agreement both Houses of this Parliament have passed a Bill to set up a trade union training authority to set about training trade unionists and to build a college, which the Australian Council for Union Training has appropriately decided ought to be named the Clyde Cameron College, at Wodonga. That Council submitted a budget to the Australian Government for something more than the amount which it has received in the Budget. In other words, after careful assessment of the needs of each of the States and the need to spend $1.7m or preferably $2.2m in this financial year on the construction of a college at Wodonga, the Council was told that the Budget would have to be pruned back. The Council did that. It did it in the knowledge that the Government in these times of economic difficulties must cut back onsome of its spending.

I express my disappointment rather than my criticism of the Government- ‘disappointment’ would have been a better word to have used initiallythat this item in particular was singled out for cutting back. It can easily be said that because I have a great interest in this matter all other things can go to pot so long as this issue continues. I do not say that at all. I simply make the point that a substantial cut was made in the funds available for the Australian Council for Union Training and express some regret about it.

Another point I wish to make in the short time available to me relates to the Commonwealth Employment Service. The service is a very integral part of the Minister’s Department. It finds work for people and finds people to fill vacancies. I think we are all aware of that. Having observed it for a long time I have come to the view that it has been reduced in status over the years to nothing more or less than a labour exchange. That fills me with some regret. I think that the Labor Government- I put in a plug for the Government- has done something about improving the status of that aspect of the service. But the function surely of every government ought to be- there has been no indication of this from honourable members who sit opposite and who for 23 years did govern- to set out a manpower policy for the nation. The Labor Government is taking great steps in that area. Surely the people who seek out job vacancies and then seek out people to fill those vacancies must play an integral part. So long as the Commonwealth Employment Service is at the level of nothing more or less than a labour exchange, dealing only with unskilled or semi-skilled people and not entering into the field of people who are technically trained, semi-professionally or professionally trained, surely to goodness a government cannot get an overall picture of its manpower requirements or where it is going.

It may be true that statistics can be collected from private agencies. A number of private agencies operate in this area. They operate under the private enterprise system. They do not give their services for nothing; they make a charge. They seem to be very profitable enterprises from what I have seen of them. That section of employee placement is rather a rewarding area. For years, because that area is profitable, it has been left for private enterprise and the unprofitable or least profitable section of the business was grudgingly taken over by the previous government. It has been left at that; something that has been grudgingly taken over and something that has been run- and I repeat- at a level of nothing more than a labour exchange.

I dare say that members of this Parliament have intimate knowledge or have availed themselves in one way or another of these placement services. But deliberately to downgrade a government service, as I believe the previous Government did, in my mind is very sinful and serves no good purpose to the community. If the Government entered the area of employment for professional people the overall manpower picture would become better. A sense of job satisfaction and career opportunities in all facets of job placement would be given for those people who work in the Department now. I have the highest regard for them. In the block in my electorate in which I have my office is the Glenroy Commonwealth Employment Service. I could not speak in too high regard for the officers and the staff of that branch of the CES. The same applies for the other 2 branches of the service that are situated in my electorate.

Contrary to popular belief I do not have a pocket handkerchief electorate. Three CES offices are servicing it. Each of those offices is equal in the way its staff members deal with the problems that come before them and the way they assist people to find better jobs. But surely integrated into that must be other aspects. I am very pleased to notice the increase in amounts made available for apprenticeship training. Things of this sort are part and parcel of that whole service. It has to go further than just finding an unskilled job for an unskilled worker. If the person is unskilled but has a capacity the service must do something about taking him and putting him through a scheme that will provide him with the necessary skills and ability to perform a task that is probably more financially rewarding than the one he has at the moment. By doing this we overcome a lot of other problems in our community. A lot of problems that are now dealt with by people from the Department of Social Security initially stem from the capacity and ability of people to earn money because of their lack of training

Mr MacKELLAR:
Warringah

-As everybody knows we are debating the Estimates of the total Budget. Again, as everybody knows, the Budget has now been revealed as describing an overall picture of economic chaos brought about by this short period of Labor Party rule since 1972. I think that if any members of the Labor Party dispute this fact they should take the trouble to walk into any hotel or club in Australia, into any country town, into any business capital or into any unemployment office and thousands of Australians will tell them exactly what I have just told the Committee.

Let us have a look more closely at some of the great achievements that the Government does not boast so much about. I refer to the 300 000 people out of work, 16 per cent plus inflation, private firms going out of business one after the other, large factories and plants putting off thousands of workers, schizophrenic fluctuations in import quotas and restrictions, share markets lying dormant and primary producers being forced off properties. What has resulted is a half baked piecemeal Budget that is deceptive in its generosity and unfeeling in its severity; a Budget that does nothing to rekindle incentive and initiative; a Budget that discriminates against the majority of middle bracket wage earners to the benefit of professional dole dependants rather than the genuinely needy.

I suggest that no group in the community would be more vulnerable to potential disaster brought on by a downturn in employment opportunities than migrants and members of ethnic communities. Due to the present Government ‘s mismanagement of all things connected with immigration, language instruction is still grossly unsatisfactory, and we all know that understanding of the language is a major factor in job placement; counselling is backward and at present distrusted by those who seek to use it. The numbers of migrants- this is most significantreturning home is increasing. With 3 million Australians born outside Australia it is a recklessly irresponsible government that would continue with its seeming lack of interest in ethnic affairs, but continuing with it it seems to be doing.

We all remember the disbandment of the Department of Immigration and the dramatic drop in morale within the Department. It caused a great deal of confusion among the ethnic communities. Valuable committees were disbanded. The Immigration Advisory Council lapsed. It has just been reconstituted. Consultation with ethnic groups was abandoned and effective channels of communication were closed. With full-time attention required to keep trade union demands under control, the present Minister for Labor and Immigration (Senator James McClelland) has been no different from his predecessor in apportioning only a fraction of his time to ethnic affairs. If Senator James McClelland can offer no more indication of his interest in immigration than letting commercial misfits such as Alice Cooper into the country I believe we have yet another example of appalling mismanagement or non-management on the part of the Government.

Let us have a look at the vulnerability of nonEnglish speaking ethnic groups. Once a person with little knowledge of the language is sacked from his employment, which is usually as a result of some government inability to manage the economy, where is he supposed to find an alternative job? Often a person’s training has been restricted to manual and semi-skilled occupations. When all factories and places of largescale personnel are laying off workers, what chance does the migrant have? With no reserve savings to fall back on, with no one in government willing to hear the migrant cause, with trade unions happy to take union dues but contemptuous and insensitive to migrant problems, it is no wonder that ethnic people in Australia are feeling more and more that they have been cheated by this Labor Government, and cheated they have been. They have families to support and to educate but no fully organised program of migrant education. They have health and psychological problems which need attention but no government action has been taken despite comprehensive investigations by migrant task forces and a host of concerned organisations. Language difficulties are undisputed and yet no effort has been made to establish a properly organised national committee to oversee interpreter needs, as recommended last year by the Committee on Overseas Professional Qualifications.

I could go on at some length further to document the miserable series of failures which this Government has made in the area of immigration. I shall identify first the principal complaint. As it has deserted the ethnic people of Australia, so I believe the Labor Government is deserting the needs of the population as a whole. It is totally involved in a legislative program which has proven to be ill conceived and badly thought out. I believe the Whitlam Labor Government will be viewed by later generations as one of the most fraudulent and hypocritical assemblies of hopeless fanatics and self-interested incompetents ever to claim to have a political mandate. I wish to turn to a few specific examples of this Government’s treatment of ethnic minorities, in the Federal Budget for this year and the Department of Labor and Immigration estimates. For the Government which has made such a great claim about its concern for minority groups in the community, its determination to be rid of inequalities and its commitment to egalitarianism, the Treasurer’s statements on immigration show those worthy principles to be reduced to something less than farcial. We may have expected something better but not from a government which is so well practised in deceit. In another outburst of miscalculations it showed to ethnic people of this country exactly what its true attitude was, an attitude so cursory and so patronising that the Government Printer had to waste no more than 3 lines on the whole ambit of the immigration field. Three lines were all that this Government could bother to give to perhaps the strongest determining factor we have today on the direction which the population and demographic trends are to take. It was not just an insulting reference of only 3 lines; the content of the Treasurer’s remarks on immigration was as logically incomprehensible as it was short. For those honourable members who may have yawned and missed the remarks, he said:

We have decided to double the migrant contribution towards assisted passage costs to an amount of $ ISO per family or single person.

Those people who have done their arithmetic on Department of Labor and Immigration appropriations will find that this 3-lihe move will save the Government $5,665,000 in 1975-76 in a projected Budget deficit of $2.7 billion. As an accounting method to improve the nation’s finances it is hardly worth the time of contemplation. The gain is negligible. The effect on those personally concerned is not far short of disastrous.

Further, we are told that assisted passages are to be made unavailable to dependent parents. How is this a justifiable proposition from a government purporting to be concerned with family reunions and with the welfare and successful integration of migrant people? I believe this present Government is hidebound in deceit. These measures, which are designed further to impede the necessary immigration flow to Australia, are solely and indisputably a result of the Government’s amateur and totally inept handling of the economy which has resulted, amongst other disasters, in a totally unacceptable level of employment. That situation particularly affects ethnic groups. If this Government were sincere in the matter the answer is not to disguise the progress of ever increasing unemployment by stopping the input of people and causing loneliness and despair among individual migrant families; the solution needs to be sought elsewhere- in better management and in reasoned policies. In terms of successful integration and the success of a smoothly interacting multi-ethnic community the Government’s Budget measures are ill-judged. In terms of humanitarian understanding they are callous and unfair.

We on this side of the House have publicly stated that our policy regarding assisted passages is one of continued support. Perhaps it will soon have to be one of reinstatement. We believe that the assisted passage element of family reunion is vital to the well-being of the migrant in the community. We have stated that immigration must be taken away from the present Government’s restricting manpower considerations and placed in a much more broad context of a vital component of the nation’s overall population policies. The ethnic people in this country are now well aware of the total disregard which the present Government has for their special problems. That disregard goes as far as to jeopardise family relations and happiness in the home. As in so many areas the Labor Government’s record in the field of immigration is abysmal. As in so many areas much was promised to migrants and Australians of migrant background. Like many a young girl those people were seduced with smooth talking and large promises. They have been abandoned to carry alone the baby of neglect, disinterest and difficulty.

Sitting suspended from 6 to 8 p.m.

Mr COHEN:
Robertson

– I wish to comment on the Regional Employment Development scheme. Basically I believe this has been the most maligned of all the schemes introduced by this Government. Now that it is being phased out we find suddenly the same people who criticised it so viciously, so violently, are screaming for its continuance. I should like to recall to honourable members some of the former forms of unemployment relief that were provided by our predecessors. When unemployment existed they provided to the States funds which were used for painting public amenities, chipping weeds, mowing lawns, clearing fire trails and railway lines and raking up leaves. As a matter of fact, the State governments were given $30m for this type of unemployment relief and that is exactly what they used it for.

I recall one incident in which the State instrumentalities in the electorate of Robertson, which includes the Gosford area, were told that they each had to employ 2 or 3 people. This was for the State. It had nothing to do with the RED scheme. They rang the local district employment officer, Mr Paslow and they said: ‘We have been told we have to take 3 people. We hope you cannot find them’. Mr Lewis and his State colleagues were saying this was the way to reduce unemployment- paint fences, rake up leaves and so on. After the next shower of rain or the next bit of warm weather when the grass had grown there was absolutely nothing to show for it. In essence the RED scheme was the exact opposite to that scheme in as much as when the work was done the community had something of value to show for it. It is more expensive because more funds have to be provided for materials whereas almost all the funds provided under the other schemes were simply for labour.

The Central Coast has had some of the worst unemployment in the State of New South Wales. I will not go into the reason for this, but it is partly caused by enormous land speculation, an incredible housing boom and also the inherent unemployment that is peculiar to the district. We have always had bad unemployment; it is usually the highest in the State even in good times. It rose to about 3500 around February or March of this year, but under the RED scheme it was cut back to 2800 people. For a period of four or five months there was an average of 700 people employed under the RED scheme. Of course these 700 were not the same people. Some people left this scheme, some came back into it and so on.

The most significant feature is the work that has been done under the RED scheme. As I said before, the Central Coast was a boom area. The population in the past 3 years increased by about 20 000 or about 20 per cent. Like many of these outer urban areas it was desperately deficient of ordinary basic amenities such as water, sewerage, roads, curbing, guttering, drainage, sporting facilities, recreation facilities, parks, gardens, hospitals and so on. One can go on forever, but the fact is that adequate provision was not made for the population that was pouring into the district.

Under the RED scheme we received approximately $7.6m over the last 9 months. I want just for the benefit of the record to show how this amount was spent because there have been people who have said that the money was going into racecourses, golf clubs and things like that. There were small grants to some golf clubs, but primarily the money was going into very important areas. This is how the total expenditure was broken up: Major drainage works, $1,477,220; kerbing, guttering and minor drainage and foot paving, $1,015,510; water reticulation, $1,124,486; council parks, gardens, reserves and public amenities, $656,327; electricity, $39,021; Gosford hospital and ancillary work, $575,869; welfare projects, $454,794; servicing the RED scheme, $88,869; miscellaneous, $89,600; and sporting and recreational facilities, $2, 1 54,7 1 4.

We have been able to catch up with some of the bad flood areas on the Central Coast. The Woy Woy area is prone to flooding. This area was seriously flooded out last May during heavy flooding. Flooding is no longer a problem in this area. The Terrigal area, where we held our Federal conference, was severely flooded every time there was a decent downpour. We have spent nearly $400,000 in Terrigal and the work carried out has eliminated the danger of flooding in this area of the Central Coast. The same applies in Davistown which was like a bog after any sort of a decent downpour. We have been able to provide water to 3 major areas on the Central Coast- Gwandalan, Empire Bay and Kincumber.

In the area I am most pleased about, because the Central Coast is a retirement area, a tourist area and a playground of the 2 cities of Sydney and Newcastle, we have been able to upgrade sporting and recreational facilities in a way that was inconceivable under the previous Administration or State government administration. We got absolutely nothing for such works. I believe leisure is very important to all people and I believe it is going to play an increasingly important role in our society. It is about time that we started to provide these amenities and not think simply in terms of kerbing, guttering and similar works. Let me mention just a few of the major things that we have been able to do. At the weekend I was able to attend a very large tennis tournament in Gosford. We were able to cater for 700 visitors who came to the area because we built one of the finest tennis complexes in the southern hemisphere. We have added to what the Gosford tennis club already had. There are now 24 courts, 12 of which were provided under the RED scheme.

In the Woy Woy area, which has 30 000 people, a population larger than that of any country town apart from the major cities in New South Wales, there are absolutely no facilities for young people. We are on the verge of opening a $600,000 youth centre. Of that cost $454,000 will have been provided by the Australian Government. At long last children in the Woy Woy district will have something to do after 5.30 at night. I believe that this is a great social advance. This youth centre will have basketball courts, squash courts, a coffee lounge, arts and craft faculties and so on. I could describe the way in which we have rebuilt, refurbished or redecorated 6 major surf clubs in this area. Is there anyone who would disagree with the view that surfing is not only a sport but is also a community service of untold value to Australians? I know from my own experience. My third son is alive today thanks to the surf club movement. I have been delighted that we have been able to do this for the surf club movement, the cinderella sport of Australian sports.

I want to say in winding up my remarks that some of the criticisms of the workers under the RED scheme have been totally unfounded and are completely untrue. Contrary to the argument that I have heard put forward, that these people are not working as hard as they should be, we have had reports from one after another of the sponsors who have come to us and said: ‘When the scheme started we thought we were going to get the wrong sort of workers- lazy people who would not work. We have been staggered. We have been getting better people than we have normally been able to get. We have had some amazing references from people who said they had got their jobs finished early and they had been able to do more work than they had anticipated. Of course there have been one or two cases- maybe half a dozen cases- of people who have bludged on the system. When there are 800 workers you are bound to have a few bad eggs, but overwhelmingly the sponsors have said how delighted they have been with the effort by workers under the RED scheme.

There has been criticism about costs. On the contrary I have found that when the work is done by a sponsor, a member of a club who acts as a supervisor, costs have been lower than when the work has been put out on tender to a master builder. The gap between the cost when the work has been done by what is called the sponsor and when it is done by the ordinary contractor is staggering. We have been able to get the job done for half the price. Of course there is room for improvement. The scheme was started with a bit of a rush, but by the time we had finished I believe the people who were working on the RED scheme, the staff from the Department of Labor and Immigration, had learned a lot about it. We all had learned a lot about it. I pay credit, particularly for the tremendous job done by the Department of Labor and Immigration, to people such as Greg Castles, Kevin Steele and Mr McKenzie, all of whom have done a fantastic job in getting this scheme going. I cannot speak highly enough of their work. As I said before, I believe that there is room for improvement and that we can improve this system. If I had time I could mention to the Committee half a dozen ways in which we could improve it so that there would be less criticism of it in the future. But I believe that the RED scheme is one of the great social breakthroughs. I do hope that when Treasury funds permit this scheme will be reintroduced. I believe that that will probably happen in the future.

The CHAIRMAN (Dr Jenkins:
SCULLIN, VICTORIA

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

Mr KING:
Wimmera

– I was amazed to listen to the honourable member for Robertson (Mr Cohen) this evening complaining that members of the Opposition originally were critical on the one hand of the Regional Employment Development scheme and yet on the other they supported the principals of our parties in the States in protesting against its cessation. What members of this Government do not understand is that honourable members on this side of the Chamber do not disagree with the objectives of the RED scheme; we agree that the RED scheme in principle is one of those plans which had to be introduced. We are surprised that the Government has decided to abandon it. What we have been criticising is not the system or the principles involved as originally laid down by the former Minister for Labour and Immigration, the present Minister for Science and Consumer Affairs (Mr Clyde Cameron), but the way in which the Government has carried out those principles.

I remind the honourable member for Robertson that the then Minister made it quite clear in his first announcement that he was not going to put up with all the useless projects that were being proposed, such as chipping of grass, kerbing and channelling and that type of work. But after a while, the Department or someone- I am not too sure who it was- changed these principles. This is one of the reasons why some of our State colleagues were objecting to the scheme. We do not object to the RED scheme as such; we favour it. We would like to see it continue or be reintroduced. After all, Australia has a huge number of people unemployed today. If the scheme were carried out to the full, at least something could be done to assist them. Some worthwhile benefit would be obtained from the RED scheme.

I wish to direct my comments this evening to the immigration aspect of the appropriations for the Department of Labor and Immigration. I have been prompted to speak on this subject because of Government decisions which have been made. Despite comments to the contrary, I believe that Australia owes a great deal to its migrant population. After listening to some members of the Government party, one wonders just where they stand in relation to migrants. Let me quote just a few lines from a speech made by the honourable member for Hunter (Mr James) when he spoke in this debate on Thursday last, 2 October. He said: . . . we got a lot of decent citizens from Hungary. They have settled here and they have adapted themselves to the Australian way of life. I believe that if we were able to assess the figures we would find that for every decent citizen who has settled here and has been an asset to Australia we got two or three scum . . .

Mr Sullivan:

– Who said that?

Mr KING:

– The honourable member for Hunter said that. I think that statement needs some further explanation by the honourable member for Hunter who referred to migrants in this country as scum. Perhaps that is only a percentage. He said they were not all scum. But he has quoted one out of every three or four in this instance as not being scum. This is a shocking statement. I think that the honourable member for Hunter should be more explicit as to what he really means because he refers in his comments to the fact that 75 per cent of our migrants are scum. That is certainly not the view on this side of the chamber.

Mr Riordan:

– You are misquoting him.

Mr Cohen:

– He did not say that.

Mr KING:

– I am not misquoting the honourable member. Here are his remarks in Hansard. Honourable members opposite may read them for themselves.

The former Minister for Labor and Immigration on 26 October last year issued a Press statement on the migration program for 1974-75. I quote part of that statement: … it would be necessary to impose restrictions but that these would not affect people who had already been approved for entry. But, having regard to the smaller immigration program- 80 000- decided upon by the Government for 1974-75, there would need to be a significant reduction in the approval rate.

The statement continued:

Family reunion still had the highest priority . . .

It continued:

Refugees and other individual cases where very strong compassionate circumstances existed, will, nevertheless, continue to be given special consideration.

I have a case which I believe to be a compassionate one. I will not set out all the details because the former Minister for Labor and Immigration knows all about that case. He certainly accepted my submission to him and acted accordingly. But before completing the project he was, as we all know, removed from that office by the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam). Naturally, he could not finalise this matter.

Let me quote briefly part of a paragraph of the letter that the Minister wrote to me. It is dated 30 May 1975. The former Minister said:

I am writing again with reference to your representations on behalf of Mr ‘H’ . . . . concerning the unsuccessful nomination for migrant entry . . . of Mr ‘K’

Because of the economic situation in Australia, the Government has found it necessary to impose occupational restrictions on the entry of migrants other than those qualifying as the spouse, dependent children, aged or dependent parents or fiances of Australian residents.

The letter states further:

However, in view of the information provided in your representations I have agreed to treat this as a special case and have directed my Department to accept the nomination and to forward details to the Australian Embassy in Athens. Provided Mr ‘K ‘ is then found to be able to meet the migrant entry criteria other than the occupational requirements, his admission to Australia will be approved.

That letter was dated 30 May. I received nothing further. The sponsor mentioned in the letter received nothing further. Then, on 1 5 September I wrote to the Department of Labor and Immigration and received a reply, a portion of which I will now quote. The letter states:

As we have received no advice to date from Athens concerning the nomination, I have asked them to let me know the present position. However, I should mention that delays in the processing of applications are unavoidable in Greece because of the very high application rate.

As soon as I have further information I will write to you again.

Mr Bourchier:

– You were lucky.

Mr KING:

– Perhaps I was lucky. I used to receive a number of letters of this type from the former Minister for Labor and Immigration, Al Grassby, who said that he was going to do a lot of things, but nothing ever happened. I was informed by the nominator as late as last weekend that he had been in touch with his relatives in Greece. This was some 4 months from the date on which the former Minister originally gave his approval. I believe that the delay is a little too long. Yet, in Division 366, which is the appropriation to which I am speaking, we are being asked to approve a proposed expenditure of $4,884,600 for Overseas Services which are basically related to immigration.

I regret the need to bring this case forward on this occasion. But I do believe that it provides an indication of what is taking place throughout Australia. It is one example only. Is it any wonder then that the migrant population of this country is very dissatisfied with the present regime holding office in Canberra. A delay of 4 months is something of which the Government ought to be ashamed. We must remember also that a big reduction has occurred in the number of migrants coming to Australia. If we were to revert to the former situation and if we sought to increase the number of migrants entering Australia to up to 180 000, how would officers of the Department of Labor and Immigration be able to cope if they cannot handle the few migrants who are coming to Australia now?

This raises another question. I have only a minute remaining in which to deal with it. I refer to the reasons why the migrant intake into Australia is being cut back. The argument used is lack of employment opportunities. If we look at this on a short term basis, I must agree. If we bring to Australia a migrant who has not a job, we have on our hands another person who is unemployed. That is the short term view. If we look at the situation in the the long term, that argument is a fallacy; the true situation is the reverse. Every time a migrant family enters Australia, we must make sure that there is accommodation available immediately for it. This means that another house is being built. If there are enough of these migrants, another school and another hospital may be required. Work must be found. All these factors result.

In conclusion what I am saying is that in my mind the Government is tackling the problem of immigration back to front. It is time the Government woke up and realised that immigration has played a very important role in the advancement of this nation. We owe a great debt of gratitude to our migrants. We have received much good service from them. I am amazed that the Government and the present Minister for Labor and Immigration (Sentor James McClelland) are not prepared to extend the program to a reasonable limit so that the original suggestion of the former Minister for Labor and Immigration, Mr Clyde Cameron, may be acceded to.

The CHAIRMAN (Dr Jenkins:

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

Mr YOUNG:
Port Adelaide

-I rise in this debate on the estimates of the Department of Labor and Immigration to refer to the schemes which have been operated by the Department over the past year. I refer specifically to the National Employment and Training scheme and to the Regional Employment Development scheme. I also wish to say a few words about the migration policies of this Government when one hears members of the Opposition decrying the efforts of this Government and when one looks back at the 23 years in which the conservative governments of this country dumped the migrants on our doorstep and hoped that everything would work out well for them as they entered the community, as they became the human fodder for the mass industries of this country and as they became the forgotten people one realises that this Government has done far more in its short term of office to assist those people once they have arrived in this country than the conservative forces did in 23 years.

I want to stress the importance of the Government’s NEAT scheme because it seems to me that for far too long it has been thought that a person would do for life the job that he did when he left school. It took this Government to realise that people have to be trained and retrained through a variety of occupations.

Mr Sullivan:

– Including unemployment.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! If the honourable member for Riverina keeps on with his low tone interjections I will give him the opportunity to slow march out of the chamber.

Mr YOUNG:

-It took this Government to realise that one training upon leaving school was not sufficient to take a person through to retirement age and that there had to be some sort of infrastructure set up by the Government which would assist people to be retrained into other occupations as it became necessary and as industries in this country became restructured. There is no doubt that a great deal will have to be done to assist a lot of people on the land whom the honourable member for Hume (Mr Lusher) represents. He does a lot of talking but takes very little action. Until such time as the people realise the importance and the ramifications of retraining people the responsibility for initiating new ideas and setting new standards will remain with the Australian Labor Party.

It is a very complex matter to understand what happens in a society and it demands that we realise our responsibilities to retrain people. There should be no stepping backwards by the individuals concerned and there should be no embarassment to the people who have to be retrained. The great difficulty in the past has been to make governments accept that this was necessary. When this Government introduced the idea there was a great deal of criticism. People asked ‘Why are you doing this?’ or they said: ‘It is being abused’. Undoubtedly one of the problems that this Government and previous governments have had when they have introduced measures such as this is that on occasions it is very difficult to police them. People often say that the unemployment benefit is being abused and so ought to be stopped. There may be some slight abuse of the unemployment benefit but it would cost more to police every person than it cost to conduct the scheme in the manner in which it is being conducted. The same thing applies to the NEAT scheme. There may have been some abuse. Some people may have been given retraining allowances which they should not have been given them and which should perhaps have gone to other people, but this is the start of what I consider to be a massive undertaking in the years to come when people realise that the occupation they enter at 20 years of age will have to be changed when they are 30, changed again when they are 40 and perhaps changed again when they are 50. American statistics show that a person may have to be retrained no fewer than 3 times during his working life. I consider that the NEAT scheme is the start of what will be a great undertaking by this Labor Government- a government which understands the problems of the community and which is introducing measures to overcome those problems.

Members of the National Country Party are interjecting. I used to work for some of you cockies out in the bush. You used to sit on the board all day watching us. So you should not talk about work. You would be the laziest people in the world. Now half of the farmers live in George Street. Fancy the Country Party talking about work. It is a joke.

In South Australia we have not felt the effects of unemployment as much as some of the other States. The Regional Employment Development scheme is so far in advance of any previous scheme in its concept of attacking the problem of unemployment that it deserves recognition. It is not only the employment of people who may be out of work that needs to be considered but also the work that they carry out when they are employed under this scheme. Under the Regional Employment Development scheme right throughout Australia some very worthwhile local projects were undertaken and paid for by this Government which will be of lasting significance to the areas in which they were carried out. I refer to some of the areas of the mid-North Coast of New South Wales, the Gold Coast and other areas where the assistance was given. It was not given just in Labor areas. I understand that it was given to all areas which put in submissions. These schemes will be of lasting significance to the communities which they service.

It seems to me that we should learn a lesson because in a society like ours, whether or not we like to accept it, the fact is that we will continually have ups and downs in employment. These may be brought about for a variety of reasons. If we look at what is called the record of the conservatives between 1949 and 1972 we see the same sort of thing occurring but with no plans and no idea of how to counteract the problems thrust upon the community except for where the National Country Party, once again in its normal role of running government policy as part of the coalition, brought about a relief scheme supposedly to help people in country areas to find employment. They undertook some of the bodgiest schemes and some of the most invalid ways of paying out moneys to unemployed people in country areas that could ever be imagined. At least the Regional Employment Development scheme demanded some sort of satisfaction to the community as to the projects that were being carried out. We have learnt a lesson and seen the failures of the rural relief scheme under the conservatives. The Regional Employment Development scheme, with its teething problems at the commencement, was recognised by the community groups- the schools and the local government authorities- that used it as being a very worthwhile contribution not only in employing the 26 000 or 28 000 people who were employed under it at its peak but also for the manner of work that was carried out.

I turn now to the question of immigration. I also service an electorate containing a great number of people who have made Australia their home. I know of their problems. I know from meeting with these groups of people that they would far rather have a Labor Government in power than the old reactionary conservatives that were in government for so many years. This is the first government that has recognised that the problems of the migrants do not stop once they set foot on these shores. They continue to require assistance from their member of Parliament or from the Government. They require some sort of help in order to integrate into the community. This Government through a number of schemes, not the least of which was the Australian Assistance Plan which has now been challenged by Liberal State governments -

Mr Lucock:

– So it should have been.

Mr YOUNG:

– It has also paid a great deal of money to open up migration information services for which people have been begging for years. It is assisting the vast migrant communities which we have in these areas. It is very difficult for an Australian to face up to the government and semi-government bureaucracies that exist in this country. It is almost impossible for the migrant. There has to be some sort of stepping stone or some sort of springboard for migrants to receive that assistance. In the case of the Australian Labor Party, having recognised this, we say that there should be no barriers to the use of any of these schemes, whether it is done through this Department or through the Australian Assistance Plan, to see that that infrastructure is built to assist migrant communities and individuals who need that sort of government assistance so that in time they can overcome the problems and fit into the community as we would like them to do. The other thing in terms of the cutback -

The CHAIRMAN (Dr Jenkins:

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

Mr JARMAN:
Deakin

-We have recently seen tabled in this Parliament the report of the National Population Inquiry, commonly known as the Borrie Report. This report warned that Australia was rapidly approaching zero population growth. In other words, if the immigration cutback by this Government were to continue Australia’s population growth would stagnate at the present figure of around 13 million. At the best it has been estimated that Australia’s population would reach 16 million by the turn of the century. The Government seems to be of the opinion that if we admit migrants to this country they will take jobs away from Australians. I believe nothing could be further from the truth. On the contrary, migrants, besides bringing many skills to this country, as they have done in the past, would create jobs. They would all need homes, they would all need furniture, schools for their children and numerous other facilities.

It is just over 12 months since the former Minister for Labor and Immigration, the honourable Clyde Cameron, announced the Whitlam Labor Government’s new restrictions on migrant entry into Australia. As a result of this Government’s policies the immigration program has been reduced from a peak of 185 000 in 1970 to an anticipated figure this year of approximately 45 000. About 50 000 applicants who would have been admitted a year ago are now ineligible for entry. Having created, by its tariffs and other policies, the largest pool of unemployment in this country since the Great Depression, the Government somehow believes it can cure the problem, or at least alleviate it, by cutting down on immigration.

I believe the impact of this policy to be detrimental to our long term needs. In attempting to remedy immediate problems the Government is abandoning long term planning. How can we, in all morality, say to a world which is bursting at the seams with a population explosion that we are going to limit the population of this vast land mass, with all its potential, to somewhere between 13 and 16 million people. Australia needs people in increasing numbers, with their numerous skills, to help us develop this wonderful country which by good fortune we inhabit.

A recent study by the Flinders Institute of Labor Studies concluded that it is wrong to imply that migrant demand is of any importance in determining total Australian employment. The Institute concluded that while migration may affect some ‘cannon-fodder’ jobs of heavy industry in the degree of its labor turn-over, it was nevertheless erroneous to suggest that the entry of one migrant specifically results in the absorption of a particular job, and consequently the denial of a particular position, for an Australian citizen. A vigorous and directed immigration program could well help re-stimulate the economy. An expansion of immigration would immediately lead to increased consumer demand. This would stimulate the economy into higher production, which in turn would call upon greater utilisation and expansion of the work force.

The Government has, I am afraid, fallen victim to its own negative outlook. It seems to envisage every new migrant as a potential social security liability. The object of our migration policy should be the long term development of Australia. You cannot turn migration on and off like a tap. By imposing the present restrictions on the inflow of migrants to this country the Government has failed to improve the employment situation. Not only has it failed to establish any connection between reducing immigration and improving the unemployment situation, but it has placed in jeopardy both our social structure and our long term national development. The Government maintains that Australia, at the present time, is incapable of sustaining an increase of more than 40 000 immigrants a year, despite the opinion of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation that the present capacity of Australia’s food energy resources is sufficient to support 37 million people immediately- three times our present population. The former Minister for Immigration and now the Minister’s Advisor on Migrant Affairs, Mr Al Grassby, has even gone on record as stating that Australia has the capacity to support 100 million people.

When the late member for Melbourne, the Right Honourable Arthur Calwell, who was a good friend to many in this House, first designed and implemented our post-war immigration policy we had a population of some 7 million. Today our population is almost double that figure and Australia is immensely enriched by the skills which migrants have brought to this country. Much credit goes to the late right honourable member for Melbourne, Mr Calwell, for introducing that policy. It is sad to see the scheme now withering on the vine.

I believe that the policy of the present Government towards immigration is wrong for a number of reasons. It fails to acknowledge that Australia’s demographic problems stem not from over-population but from a serious underpopulation compared with its size and capacity.

It fails to recognise that our resources are capable of supporting at least 3 times our present population, and the pressing need to further develop those resources. It fails to respond to Australia’s impending zero population growth, as predicted by Borrie, which by the year 2000 is predicted to leave us nationally under-developed. It assumes that the only valid basis for migrant entry is either immediate family reunion, and that is strictly enforced, or a recognised demand for certain limited classes of skills. Finally, it assumes that migration must not only be tuned to the existing employment situation, but that it must also be geared to it.

All of us, as members acting on behalf of constituents, have seen people who would have made good migrants and excellent Australians refused entry to this country- people who could have contributed greatly to Australia’s future. I believe the Government’s policy is not only short-sighted and damaging but that it fails to come to grips with the real problems facing Australia’s long term development. The reintroduction of a vigorous immigration program could do much to revitalise Australia. I call upon the Government to rethink seriously its present immigration policy.

Mr KEOGH:
Bowman

-Earlier this evening my colleague the honourable member for Port Adelaide (Mr Young) mentioned the lack of concern for migrants once they were settled in this country. It was a significant feature of the immigration policy under the previous Government, to such and extent that by the time we of the Australian Labor Party came to office in December 1972 some 25 per cent of our annual migrant intake was being lost by wastage of migrants returning to their home countries. Realising the need to reverse this trend and to develop a policy of post-arrival and settlement concern, several actions were taken very quickly by the labor Minister for Immigration, Mr Al Grassby. Among those valuable initiatives was the decision to appoint a committee of the Immigration Advisory Council to inquire into and report upon the extent of discrimination and exploitation of migrants, with particular emphasis on their use of community resources. The Committee has presented its interim report to the Minister for Labor and Immigration (Senator James McClelland). It was tabled in the Parliament in August 1974. The final report of the Committee has been completed. It will shortly be in the hands of the Minister and I would expect before the end of this session it will also be presented to Parliament.

In the interim report the Committee put particular emphasis on several aspects of community concern for migrants and highlighted several areas in which discrimination was practised against migrants. Some of the recommendations made in the interim report, which is in fact a document in its own right, have received the attention of the Government. Several others are in the process of receiving the attention of the Government. I think it is important to reflect upon these recommendations and I want to mention just a few of them tonight so that they can receive fresh attention by the Minister and by the Department responsible for their implementation.

The recommendations of the Committee in its interim report included one numbered 25 which was to the effect that training institutions should offer facilities for the training of skilled interpreters to enable the formation of a cadre of professional interpreters available for employment in government departments, private enterprise, hospitals, courts, prisons and in the community generally. Substantial progress has been made in the establishment of interpreter training courses at tertiary level institutions in Sydney, Melbourne and Canberra. One of the major unfulfilled needs of the migrant communities in Australia is for the services of interpreters. The decision of the Public Service Board to allow officers in Government Departments to undertake full time interpreter courses at full salary and for the Department of Labor and Immigration to pay allowances made under the National Employment and Training scheme to certain categories of students enrolled in these courses is a positive step forward.

It remains to be seen whether there has been acceptance by courts, police, hospitals and other bodies in contact with the public of any obligation to provide trained interpreters to facilitate their dealing with migrants. There is still much to be done by the Australian Public Service Board and the various boards responsible for the employment of public servants in the various Australian States. These bodies are responsible for determining the conditions of employment and should ensure that interpreting skills are adequately rewarded and positive action is taken to ensure that positions as interpreters are provided for the students now under training at universities and colleges of advanced education.

While it will be maintained that there are limits to the possibilities of introducing studies migrant languages and cultures into professional training courses in Australia, the Committee in considering the needs decided that it was important to emphasise that there would be value in exploring ways and means of introducing such studies into the professional training of teachers, social workers, doctors and lawyers and other professionals working in contact with migrant communities.

Another important recommendation of the interim report of the Committee was recommendation 13 which dealt with the fundamental human right of a migrant without an adequate knowledge of English to have an immediate and absolute right to the choice of a skilled interpreter in every interrogation by the police and in all courts of law. This has been of serious concern to those interested in the welfare of migrants. There have been many blatant examples of justice having been denied to people over some of the most simple offences against the law simply because of the inability of the person charged or accused to understand the English language and to communicate with the law enforcement officers charging or accusing him.

Recommendation 28 of the Committee suggested that official letters and documents issued by local government authorities and government departments offering services to the general public should be stamped in a number of the major migrant languages with the sentence: ‘If you need this translated please indicate the language required and return’. There again in that particular area there have been numerous cases where, simply because of the inability of the migrant to understand his rights and entitlements from government departmentsthis could apply particularly in relation to the Department of Social Security- he has been denied those rights. It is as well for the Government to remember that it has a responsibility to ensure that rights to every citizen, to every worker, are not denied simply because of the inability of the worker, being a migrant, to communicate in the normally used English language.

The interim report supported proposals that the criterion restricting eligibility for permanent employment in the Public Service should be reviewed. The National Committee on Discrimination in Employment and Occupation has endorsed this specific recommendation and has expressed the view that where any nationality requirement is justified it should be restricted to that of Australian citizenship. It is understood that the National Committee has included a recommendation to this effect in its submission to the Royal Commission on Australian Government Administration. Until such time as action is taken to revise the present nationality criteria, non-British migrants are being discriminated against in that they are cut off from obtaining permanent employment in Government services in some circumstances.

There, of course, we must be prepared to accept the fact that something is being done. It is unfortunately a fact that it is most unlikely that any action will be taken to overcome this problem effectively until such time as the Royal commissionreport’s. But I believe that it should be regarded by the Government as a matter of urgency that this one area of discrimination against newly arrived migrants should be eliminated by the positive action of the Government to give equal employment opportunities in the Public Service to all Australian citizens regardless of their ability to handle effectively the English language. Bearing in mind of course that there could be some reason in some particular positions where it would be absolutely necessary for persons to be fluent in English, there would be many positions that they could fill because of the skills that they naturally possess and with which they came to this country. But at the moment they are discriminated against because of the fact’ that they are not able to handle the English language.

Having had the opportunity to take part in the deliberations of this Committee under the chairmanship of Mr Walter Lippmann, representing the Australian Jewish community from Melbourne, I must compliment the work that he undertook as chairman of the Committee and recommend to all members of the Parliament the value of this report.

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

Mr MACPHEE:
Balaclava

-I wish to talk tonight about the National Employment and Training scheme. The 3 fundamental objectives of the NEAT scheme are, of course, pursuant to the Cochrane report and are excellent. The only criticisms which have come from the Opposition about the NEAT scheme have been about the manner of its administration, which has been quite deplorable. Our problems in regard to the NEAT scheme may be discerned from the impartial first annual report of the National Training Council for the year ended 31 December 1974. If one looks at that report one sees reference to the fact that the NEAT scheme has superseded the previous Australian Government administered labour market training arrangements and it has absorbed all trainees under previously operating training programs.

Of course many of these were initiated by the previous Liberal-Country Party Goverment. This is one explanation of the fact that the Minister is able to claim that there are 10 000 trainees under the NEAT scheme. That report goes on to say this and this is rather important:

Of necessity, persons unemployed by reason of tariff cuts, redundancy and other structural change agents, and who needed to undertake training to enter suitable new employment, were afforded highest priority assistance.

One has to observe that the 25 per cent across the board tariff cuts were prepared without the NEAT scheme being ready to cope with the consequent unemployment. This is one reason why NEAT is so maligned and one reason why the Department of Labor and Immigration, with the best will in the world, could not cope with the strains and demands placed upon it. I wish to make clear that the criticisms which I direct are not at the officers of the Department of Labor and Immigration but at the Government for making across the board tariff cuts of this magnitude and expecting NEAT to be able to cope.

The other aspect of the report which is important is that at the end of December 1974 twothirds of those training under NEAT were women. The policy has changed somewhat from that set out in a ministerial directive of 6 December 1974 when Mr Clyde Cameron was the Minister for Labor and Immigration. However, before referring to the training of women under NEAT I would like to make clear that all members of this Committee have experienced problems associated with maladministration, problems stemming from the fact that the policy in regard to NEAT has changed almost daily. Departmental officers, again with the best will in the world, have scratched their heads and have been unable to explain adequately the policy because it has never seemed to be clear. Members from both sides of the chamber have written to the Minister of the day asking for clarification, but this has never been forthcoming.

Before I move on to the question of women under the NEAT scheme, I would like to raise a third factor. The honourable member for Port Adelaide (Mr Young) mentioned that the present Government had recognised that retraining is necessary because persons are not trained just once by way of an apprenticeship, a degree or otherwise; they need to be retrained several times. We would be a lot further advanced if only the trade union movement in Australia would recognise that proposition. The Government of the day, whether it be Labor or Liberal, will have difficulties with the old conservative trade unionists who believe that once one has a ticket one is trained for life. Having said that, all honourable members know of many serious anomalies and injustices which have resulted from the maladministration, the frequent policy changes and the absence of any certain guidelines surrounding this scheme.

The first criticism one would make is that NEAT is supposedly directed towards labour market needs. Yet officers of the Commonwealth Employment Service appear to rely upon their own flimsy resources for market information. The accuracy of information is crucial when taxpayers’ money is being spent on trainees for 3 years. This is one reason why we hear stories of one part of the Department of Labor and Immigration compensating employees and management for structural adjustment programs consequent upon tariff reforms and another part of the Department training people for jobs which have been rendered redundant because of the tariff reforms. Equally, there was a report in the National Times of 2 June last of 22 persons being retrained for unskilled jobs. We hear of many other anomalies.

The second criticism is that of a basic error in the Cochrane report which prescribed a flat allowance for trainees. This has led to a number of abuses. The first abuse is by the wives of the wealthy, some of whom live in my electorate. Some of these people, who drive to the various educational institutions in their Mercedes-Benz or other expensive cars, are getting the same amount of approximately $97 as the unemployed labourer with many dependants who rides his bike to school.

Mr Keogh:

– And all vote Liberal.

Mr MACPHEE:

– I am not denying that. I do not congratulate myself for that fact. But it is the Government which is on trial at the moment. The NEAT scheme is also abused by husbands, some of whom are getting $97 a week although they have part-time or full-time jobs. Some are doing evening shifts and some have wives who work on a full-time basis. But these people are still getting their $97.

There is also discrimination against married women who since 6 December are not regarded as ‘primary breadwinners’. I am referring to women who wish to undertake a tertiary training program and to be reimbursed for books or fares and, where appropriate, fees. I have raised these matters with the departmental officers for many months. In some cases I have raised them with the present Minister for Labor and Immigration and with the previous Minister. But still there persists a discrimination which is really based on sex.

It is very difficult to discuss these matters adequately in 10 minutes. In my files I have some very eloquent cases of incompetence in regard to the administration of NEAT. The most impassioned and articulate of these is from a Mrs Moore whose letters are well worth reading. However, my less eloquent shorthand version raises these points. Firstly, she applied for assistance under NEAT in October 1974 when the then Minister boasted that NEAT did not discriminate against women and that both men and women had the right to qualify in their own right. She was told to contact the St Kilda Commonwealth Employment Service office when she heard from her institution that she had been accepted. This acceptance, of course, came after 6 December, the date on which the NEAT policy changed in regard to people not regarded as primary breadwinners. As it was she was never the primary breadwinner in her family. Therefore for the first time she was ineligible to receive the NEAT grant. She was therefore refused. But she sits beside people who applied at the same time as she made her application and who managed to obtain acceptances from their institution before 6 December and are therefore entitled to be reimbursed for registration, tuition and examination fees, and of course, their books.

It is important that we realise that the Australian Taxation Office does not allow her husband to deduct her educational expenses from his taxable income because she is over the age of 25 years. So here is another case of one Government department acting without coordinating with another. There are thousands of people like Mrs Moore who resent the fact that they are sitting beside people who get $97. They resent even more their inability to be able to deduct educational expenses from their taxable income. People like Mrs Moore would be content with a small sum to offset the cost of travel, books and child minding. But this is not appropriate at the moment.

It seems that a means test is clearly necessary. We have to remove this impractical theory of egalitarianism. If we were to pay married women who have a primary breadwinner less than the $97 decreed by NEAT there would be more money to go around, more people would be able to be trained and more would be able to satisfy the essential aims of the Cochrane report which are to contribute to overcoming skills in short supply; to assist in long term structuring of the work force and bring about overall increases in the general levels of skill; and to serve the social and economic well-being of the community by the removal of inequalities and the enhancement of employment opportunities. There are many illustrations of this which make a mockery of the present aims of the NEAT scheme and affect thousands of people.

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

– The honourable member for Balaclava (Mr Macphee) spent a considerable amount of his time in pointing up the deficiences and the difficulties which have been associated with the administration of the National Employment and Training scheme. I accept that there are deficiencies and that there are many imperfections in the NEAT scheme. But let me put it to him in this way: It is far better that there should be a NEAT scheme with all its imperfections, with all of its teething troubles and with all of its difficulties than that there should never have been the NEAT scheme. For a generation of neglect under the Liberal-Country Party Government this country did not have a manpower policy of any kind. We had ad hocracy at its worst. Here we have a situation where a scheme has been developed hurriedly without the adequate planning that this Government would have liked to have given it, but the urgency of events demanded that a scheme be implemented. We have learnt from our mistakes and the administrative errors, and they are being corrected. I am indeed grateful for the manner in which the honourable member brought his criticism forward. It has been noted and will be taken up and followed through.

The honourable member for Corangamite (Mr Street) raised some criticism about the administration of the Department, particularly in respect of the Auditor-General’s report concerning some overpayment under the income maintenance scheme. I am able to confirm for him that the majority of the funds which have been overspent on the income maintenance scheme have been recovered and the balance is in the process of being recovered. A considerable amount is still outstanding. The Department had the option really to dot all the i’s and cross all the t’s or get the money out to these people in need in a hurry. It opted to do what was the humane thing, to get the money into the hands of those who needed it as quickly as possible. Hence there has been some overpayment. Those who have received the overpayment are honest people and have so far responded to the call to repay the funds which were overpaid to them.

The honourable member for Corangamite also raised some criticism of the Regional Employment Development scheme. He mentioned that in the electorate of Braddon some $500,000 had been spent. The energetic and very vigorous honourable member for Braddon (Mr Davies) has pointed out to me that the figure is at least double that amount. In fact 36 projects have been approved in that electorate at a cost of $1,044,000. There are very many applications for RED scheme assistance. In the Braddon electorate 180 projects were approved, but in many cases where sponsors had indicated that they were ready to proceed immediately there were long delays between the time when the scheme was approved and when the work commenced. In some cases at least, sponsors of RED scheme projects lost sight of the objective of the scheme, which was to put to work quickly people who were unemployed, whilst at the same time engaging in a project which had community value. It has been a very good scheme, and I for one am somewhat tired of the hypocrisy of members of the Opposition who come into this Parliament and bemoan the fact that the RED scheme has had to be curtailed to a very large extent whilst at the same time encouraging their colleagues in the States to challenge the validity of the RED scheme. They attempt to assassinate it outside the Parliament but come into the Parliament on the other hand trying to uphold its virtues. Their stand is not being accepted except in the spirit in which it really should be seen.

Mr Reynolds:

– Crocodile tears.

Mr RIORDAN:

– My colleague says that members of the Opposition are shedding crocodile tears. They certainly are.

Sympathetic consideration is being given and will be given to those who have sponsored projects on which expenditure has already been incurred. It was made clear that increased costs would not be part of the scheme, but even there the Minister for Labor and Immigration (Senator James McClelland) is looking at particular projects to ensure that substantial justice is done in every case and that there is no undue hardship wherever that can be avoided. So those who are concerned ought to recall that this Government introduced this scheme and is keen to ensure that those who co-operated in it are not left financially disadvantaged if that is at all possible. Every project will be looked at on its merits.

The honourable member for Warringah (Mr MacKellar) had some things to say about the migration scheme. Again it was an exercise in humbug. He had the gall to stand before this Parliament this afternoon and criticise this

Government for the funds that are being spent on migrant education, on language training.

Mr MacKellar:

– I did not.

Mr RIORDAN:

-Of course you did. Let me remind the honourable member of some figures. In 1970-71 the government he supported, a Liberal-Country Party government, spent $3.875m on the total migrant education services. In 1971-72 it excelled itself. It went to $6.275m. This year the amount is $20.4 14m. That is the difference- nearly three times as much as the former Government’s last full year- and the honourable member criticises it. Let me talk about last year. One has to look at the estimates for the Department of Education to find the figure for adult migrant education. In 1975-76 it is $7.6m. Last year it was $4.8m. I thank those honourable members who made intelligent and positive contributions. I now move:

That the question be now put.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Proposed expenditure agreed to.

Department of Northern Australia

Proposed expenditure, $51,1 94,000.

Mr KATTER:
Kennedy

– I notice from the Estimates that the total to be allocated for expenditure in Northern Australia is $51,194,000. 1 think that is about as inadequate as the 10 minutes one is permitted to try to expose and project -

Dr Patterson:

– Your figures are all wrong.

Mr KATTER:

– I have your own figures here.

Dr Patterson:

-There is $100m for Darwin alone.

Mr KATTER:

– You get your officers to revise the summary of the Department of Northern Australia. May I make the most of the 10 minutes and overlook the interjection by the Minister. People think of northern Australia in terms of a strip of land along the coast of north Queensland and the Northern Territory. It is not; it is a vast treasure house. If the production of that part of Australia were taken away this country would be brought to its knees financially. The treatment which northern Australia gets is completely inadequate in comparison with its needs. If one were to calculate production per head of population in northern Australia one would appreciate how valuable the people of northern Australia are to this nation. They are people who suffer, particularly as you go further north and further west, unfriendly climatic conditions to say the least. However people do not go to these areas, as some would have it, to be confined to some sort of desert island or suffer some sort of second rate treatment by the rest of Australia. They are usually strategic people associated with the great industries in that area.

One of the industries most prominent in the area for which the Minister for Northern Australia (Dr Patterson) has responsibility and on which I as shadow Minister have to keep an eye is the beef cattle industry. I consider that no real attempt has been made yet by the Minister for Northern Australia or the Minister for Agriculture (Senator Wriedt) to take a stand in Cabinet on the problems of the beef industry. I would like to see them take a stand as 2 Country Party Ministers did when the subsidy on wool was at stake. In the Cabinet room they had to fight their own Cabinet for the survival of that industry which produces the best part of $1 billion and which every newspaper in the country said should be written off. These 2 young men, when John McEwen was away, took their stand in the Cabinet and fought their own Cabinet on an issue that was of vital importance to this country. I challenge the Minister for Northern Australia and I challenge his associate, Senator Wriedt, to say when they have taken such a stand and to name any substantial concession they have secured for the beef cattle industry.

Another matter which is of critical importance, particularly to the Northern Territory, is the sealing of one section of beef road. I give credit to the Minister that when he was an officer of the Department of Primary Industry one of his priorities, I believe, was the completion of the sealing of the road between Winton and Boulia. The section is some 60 miles long and is the missing link in any normal wet; never mind about the possibility of the floods we had the year before last. Had that section of road been sealed at that time immense worry and difficulties would have been avoided. Yet I was informed by the Minister that there is no plan to complete the final sealing of this road. I hope that when the Minister replies he has some better news than that. I rather wonder what would happen if some 60 miles of road, say, to the Gold Coast or somewhere in the vicinity of the great populated areas suffered a series of potholes. My goodness, the whole of the workforce would be out in action and money would not be taken into account. The Barkly Highway, particularly near Mount Isa, has a series of potholes and missing sections. No obvious attempt has been made to bring the highway into a condition where, when the wet comes- after all it is not very far away- it will not offer an obstacle to those wanting to get through to Darwin.

Let me deal briefly with the work of the Darwin Reconstruction Commission. I have said in this House and I repeat now that Tracy visited Darwin 9 months ago with all its devastation and as yet the Commission with millions of dollars at its disposal has not yet completed one house. The Minister interjected a moment ago and said $100m was allocated to the Commission alone. I agree with him. That is not taken into account in the figure I gave. I was in Darwin a fortnight ago. I went right through the area and one house is about to be completed.

Mr Keogh:

– You told them you were an exwaterside worker.

Mr KATTER:

-The honourable member should go and play with his yoyo or something; that is about his capability.

Mr Keogh:

– When did you work on the wharves?

Mr KATTER:

-The honourable member for Bowman is like the Condamine bell. He has a great tongue and a head full of nothingness. The reconstruction of Darwin is vital to the nation. Obvious facts are emerging. People who desire to resettle in Darwin are coming away with the thought that maybe they will never return because there are no homes waiting for them. Admittedly the ground floor has been laid for numerous homes. I believe that the official leak is that probably about 200 homes will be constructed by Christmas, but the reality is, according to those who know the score and who are observing the situation closely, that we will be lucky if we see 20 homes completed by Christmas. This is an obvious operation in socialised construction; a pilot scheme for socialism. It has fallen over on its face.

I ask honourable members to look at the example set by private enterprise. One has only to wander around Darwin to see that private enterprise has got everything back in action. Large companies have homes completed, including painting, for their employees. One would never know the cyclone had hit. Yet the people who want to return to their own homes find that there is no home to return to. Where are these people put? Most were put on the ship Patris. What is that costing? It is costing millions of dollars because of the over bureaucracy, the over planning and the complete bungling that always follows this sort of socialism.

I would like to stress one or two other points in the few minutes I have left. One is the freight charges which are utterly brutal to the people of the Northern Territory. Price fixing on soft drinks is practised in the Northern Territory. It cost me 40 cents for a small can of Coca Cola in Alice Springs not so very long ago. So much for price fixing. Freight charges from Darwin to Tennant Creek, for instance, have risen 82% per cent in the last 12 months. The co-ordinated freight rate to Tennant Creek is about $140 a tonne. By road it is $75 a tonne. One might say that the freight rates are actually crippling and almost coining to a point where one would write off the rail and road co-ordinated transport.

Getting away from the Territory for the moment let me refer to one project which is well known to the Minister. I refer to stage 2 of the Urannah Dam scheme. The first stage is certainly under way. The second stage is vital for many reasons. If sufficient water is not available the flourishing rice industry will be brought to a standstill. At present the amount of production is only a fraction of the amount of rice which could be produced and sold in that area. Obviously further allocations of land for sugar will be made and this will absorb the very limited amount of water in the area. The next point relates to something I put before the Minister previously. I did so by telegram, which he ignored of course. I very rarely get a detailed reply from the Minister. I asked nun whether it was true that no executive powers had been given as yet to the Legislative Assembly, and about the rumour of the Cabinet decision that there is no time set down for any executive powers to be given to the Legislative Assembly. I am sure my colleague, the honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Calder), will enlarge on that subject. It is an absolute disgrace and an act of gross hypocrisy that the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) went up there and made a great flourish of trumpets about the executive powers which would be given to the Assembly. Because the Government gained no seats in the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly this vicious party with its vitriolic detestation of those who do not go along with it has politically deprived the Legislative Assembly of any effective powers whatsoever.

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

Mr MORRIS:
Shortland

-The previous speaker, the honourable member for Kennedy (Mr Katter), handles the truth like he would handle a handful of bulldust. He was a Minister in a government which had a priority of spending thousands of millions of dollars on the murder of South Vietnamese women and children and young Australians and which could not provide a few hundred million dollars for beef road schemes. I think it is absolute effrontery for him 3 or 4 years later to be talking about beef road priorities.

Mr Katter:

– Who built the beef roads, you nincompoop?

Mr MORRIS:

– The honourable member mentioned that no new homes had been built in Darwin, but he conveniently ignored -

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- Order! The honourable member for Kennedy will restrain himself and watch the rather colourful manner in which he sometimes interjects.

Mr MORRIS:

- Mr Deputy Chairman, he is a very colourful character in the chamber. Many allusions are made about his activities. I am deliberately trying to address my remarks to the chamber in the least provocative manner so as not to disturb him. He mentioned that no new homes had been built in Darwin but he again conveniently ignored the fact that 4000 homes have been restored and are now being inhabited. He also ignored the facts that 5000 caravans have been transferred to Darwin and are now in use. He mentioned the Patris, but not in a pleasant or a congratulatory kind of way. He did not mention the 400 demountable homes that have also been moved to Darwin and are now set up in use. I think he is quite unfair and certainly some effort is called for on his part to try to bring himself to the truth of the matter.

In speaking to the estimates for the Department of Northern Australia 1 want to refer specifically to the activities of the Department in association with the Darwin Cyclone Tracy Relief Trust Fund and the reports that have been tabled by the Minister for Northern Australia (Dr Patterson) in the past few months in this chamber. Honourable members will recall the public disquiet following the tragedy of cyclone Tracy over the proliferation of funds collecting donations ostensibly for the victims of the disaster and about the method of disbursement of moneys, a matter referred to by the fund in its reports for April and May 1 975. 1 will come back to that later. Australians have always been known for their generosity in assisting those in need when disasters such as cyclones, floods, fire and drought strike. Naturally that same generosity was displayed by millions of Australians in the wake of cyclone Tracy last December. However, I believe that large sums of money that were collected have not been accounted for yet. Further, I believe that when the public subscribed to radio appeals and telethons they did so in the clear belief that all of the moneys collected in the telethons would go to the charity or organisations for which the appeal was being conducted.

I am quite certain from talking to members of the public that they were under the impression that television and radio stations donated their services to the appeals free of charge. There is no doubt that radio and television stations derive considerable goodwill from the conduct of telethons. The public sees them as carrying out a much needed public service. I think this also induces members of the public to give more readily. They feel they are joining in a massive community effort to help those who are less privileged and those who are in difficulty. In February this year I placed on notice question No. 1949 to the Postmaster-General (Senator Bishop) seeking information on the services provided by the Postmaster-General’s Department for telethons. The answer appeared in Hansard at page 1574 on 10 April. Also in February I placed on notice a question to the Minister representing the Minister for the Media. After repeated representations to the Minister I finally received an answer which appeared in Hansard of 2 June. Comparisons of those answers showed wide discrepancies in the amounts promised, the amounts collected and the amounts actually paid to the appeals concerned. When I received the answer from the Minister for the Media I issued a Press release calling on the Minister for the Media to conduct an inquiry into the conduct of telethons.

I was particularly concerned with appeals conducted for victims of cyclone Tracy. The strange thing that happened while I was seeking information on the expenses deducted from telethon collections was that suddenly the Trust Fund received funds that had been collected several months previously but had not been remitted to the Trust Fund. Where the funds had been held and why they had not been remitted previously I have been unable to ascertain. An examination of the answer from the Minister for the Media gives cause for serious concern, in my view, and there should be a public inquiry, preferably by a parliamentary committee, into the conduct of telethons and the disbursement of funds collected. After all, the public gave that money for the victims of cyclone Tracy and for other appeals. The public is entitled to know where it went and for what it was used.

I have learnt since I placed my question on notice that the Australian Broadcasting Control Board does not have any real power to order an inquiry. For that reason I feel that the appropriate body would be a parliamentary committee. The public gave those donations in good faith and is entitled to know what happens to money which it donates. Some of the variations in the amounts promised as compared with the amounts collected are shown on the page of Hansard which I mentioned previously. If one looks at radio 2KM in Kempsey one sees that 87.6 per cent of funds promised were collected. Generally radio stations do not make any deductions for the conduct of appeals, but from talking to members of the public it is quite obvious that late in the evening and in the early hours of the morning it is considered quite a convenient practice to ring up a radio station or a television station when an appeal is being conducted to get one’s name on television. All that is needed is a telephone call. There is no check that the money is actually subscribed. Mrs A or Mrs B may have her name mentioned on a television program as promising a donation of X dollars, and no one follows that through. I think that ought to be checked out.

Radio station 4GR in Toowoomba in a Mother’s Day appeal collected 81.3 per cent of what was promised. If we look at TCN9 in Sydney, $16,661 was deducted from the collections of the 1974 appeal for crippled children and only 79.9 per cent of the funds promised were collected. In the Melbourne University deafness appeal for 1974 which was conducted on ATV0 61.22 per cent of the funds promised were collected. If we move to NWS9 we find that that station in an appeal for the Minda Home Incorporated and St John Council for South Australia deducted the sum of $27,082 for operating the appeal. We can go further and look at NBN3 in my own city. In an appeal for the Newcastle Sheltered Workshops 95 per cent of funds promised were collected and deductions amounted to $3,750. In the TCN9 Darwin Relief Appeal, out of $3,077,832 funds collected, which was 97.3 per cent of funds promised, $35,644 was deducted.

At the same time not all the stations which conducted appeals provided information in response to the question which I had placed on notice because they are not required to do so. All the Minister could do was to rely on the goodwill of the stations concerned. Channel 3 in Newcastle conducted an appeal for the victims of Cyclone Tracy on New Year’s Eve. There is no record of that appeal in the answer. I think these matters ought to be looked at and ought to be brought to the notice of the public. Additionally, there were wide variations in the amounts deductied by the stations concerned. In some cases no deductions were made. In other cases the deductions appear to be equivalent to the Post Office charge which was made. In other cases there appears to be no clear reason for the amounts deducted. Finally, some of the appeals conducted for Darwin did not show at all in the answer that was given. The Minister replied to my request for an inquiry by letter on 2 1 August. I will read it to the House. He referred to my letter and to my media releases. He said:

I have discussed the matter you raised with the Chairman of the Australian Broadcasting Control Board, Mr Wright. Mr Wright has informed me that the question of telethons and appeals on radio and television has been taken up with the Federation of Australian Commercial Broadcasters and the Federation of Commercial Television Stations. When the required information is available from the 2 Federations I will write to you again.

That was 7 months after I placed the question on notice and now, almost 8 months after I placed the question on notice, we are still waiting for information. The problem is that under the Broadcasting Act the Government has no power to demand the information which I sought. It is dependent on the goodwill of the stations. This is a serious deficiency in the power of the Broadcasting Control Board. Only a parliamentary inquiry will clear the air on what happened to the money which was collected for the victims of cyclone Tracy. Who sat on it for months? Why were the amounts deducted from the funds collected? What happened to the amounts collected? Where is the balance of the funds which were collected?

I received no answer at all to this question: Can stations nominate the amounts to be paid to specific individuals or specific groups? I have absolutely no doubt at all that an inquiry would show that at least one station attempted to do exactly that, to specify how much ought to be given to a particular group. I refer honourable members to pages 1 and 2 of the March-April report of the Darwin Cyclone Tracy Relief Trust fund. I ask honourable members to bear in mind the comments of the Fund, particularly on page 2, in relation to its difficulty in trying to make an equitable and fair distribution of funds collected when many funds were operating, when many funds were collecting money and when many funds, including private funds, were distributing money. It is sad to see from the AuditorGeneral’s report that even with the assistance which was given some people had to duplicate and triplicate their applications for assistance. I think that is a very sad situation. I assume that it is a very small minority of the people involved. I hope that when the Auditor-General looks at that matter later we will have some more information on it.

Mr CALDER:
Northern Territory

-I hope the honourable member for Shortland (Mr Morris) is not calling to account the Chairman of the Darwin Cyclone Tracy Relief Trust Fund.

Mr Morris:

– I am supporting him.

Mr CALDER:

– It sounded to me as though the honourable member was accusing him of shortchanging.

Mr Morris:

– No.

Mr CALDER:

– That is the way it sounded to me. The honourable member for Kennedy (Mr Katter) said that the last time he was in Darwin, which was late last month, no homes had been built. He was dead right. I was with him. The honourable member for Shortland said that there are 4000 homes. Of course there are 4000 homes. They have hit the roofs on with roofing nails. Why would they not do that? They have had to do it to stop the rain from coming in. But those houses are not cyclone-proof. They probably have not got ceilings. I suggest that the honourable member go to Darwin and have a look. The people are not accepting caravans. They do not want to live in caravans in the pouring rain. The honourable member mentioned demountable homes. They are temporary homes but the honourable member was talking as though they are permanent homes. Not one permanent home has been built by the Government since the cyclone. At least not one had been built when I was there the week before last. They may have since put a roof on one or two. I am not criticising the Fund so much as I am criticising the honourable member for misrepresenting the facts. To put up a demountable home in Darwin one spends $1,200 on putting in the foundations. The honourable member should wake up to himself. Now the early storms are raging and the people are finding that caravans and temporary homes are not what they had hoped they would get. I feel very sorry for those people.

I wish to address some remarks to the Minister for Northern Australia about the Northern Territory form of government. Those are strange words. They were quoted in 1972 in what was referred to as the yellow book which was produced in this House on 25 October. In that yellow book proposals were outlined for the transfer of the range of functions and executive powers to the Northern Terrritory Legislative Council, as it was in those days. I will not run through them because the Minister would be well aware of them. They start with libraries and include all the incidental State-type functions such as fire brigades, buildings, bus services, cemeteries, inspection of scaffolding and machinery, and so on. They include workers compensation, the control of firearms, electricity, water supply, sewerage, housing and the Northern Territory Public Service. In 1972 the then Government recommended that the administration and control of the police be offered to the Legislative Assembly. The proposal included the transfer of the printing office, State type taxation such as stamp duties succession duty and so on. Urban land was another item which was recommended in 1972 to be handed over to the control of the then Legislative Council. In 1974 there was much trumpeting about having a fully elected Assembly. We now have it and that is fair enough. It so happens that not one Labor representative was elected and because of that I accused this Government of not producing anything even approaching the October 1972 proposals in spite of the fact that there have been 2 joint parliamentary committee reports handed to the Government-. One of them recommended in paragraph 70 transferring many of the functions mentioned in the yellow book.

The reports also mentioned that the Northern Territory police who with the Australian Capital Territory police do not want to be under the control of the great, all embracing Australia Police. A joint committee report recommended a sharing of the police functions- I think I have mentioned this in another debate- and said the responsibility for the enforcement of State-type laws over which the Territory has executive responsibility should be in the hands of the Northern Territory police. That is one of many of the recommendations contained in the reports of 2 joint parliamentary committees. The shadow Minister for Northern Australia was recently in the Northern Territory and he sounded out what the people think about this. He has come out and said- I have also said this- that the recommendations in these reports should be implemented. Why have these recommendations not been so implemented? I accuse the Government of stalling. I accuse it of not wishing to do the things which the Minister said would be done. Before this yellow book was introduced in 1972 and since that time he jumped up and down and said: ‘These responsibilities are not enough. You are not doing enough for the Northern Territory. We will do more for the Northern Territory’. There was an election coming on, of course, so those who sit opposite promised everything in the world -

Mr Fulton:

-Who won it?

Mr CALDER:

– We did and we have won it in the Northern Territory ever since. The result was 17 to nil. Think that out. We now have had a fully elected Legislative Assembly as was promised, for almost 12 months ago. The Opposition has come out on several occasions and stated very recently that we will back the joint committee report. The Leader of the National Country Party (Mr Anthony) has also stated this. We have stated that we will implement, as recommended, the transfer of those powers and also we will establish a committee as recommended in paragraph 1 18 of the report which will have on it the Minister. What has the Minister done about this? He has done nothing. The Ministers in the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly have been in office now for almost 12 months but what is happening? Absolutely nothing. The 17 members of the Assembly were elected by the will of the people, but not one Labor representative holds office.

Mr Whan:

– You had 23 years and you got nowhere.

Mr CALDER:

-Why do you not go up there and do a bit of electioneering? You would get on very well. The members of the Assembly were elected by the people but nothing has happened. I demand that this Government institute the recommendation to set up that committee, if it still holds office in the near future, so that the people of the Northern Territory can be given the things for which they voted. Honourable members opposite talk about democracy.

Just briefly I ask the Minister what he is doing about the 1600 houses that this Government guaranteed it would buy back from the people of Darwin- houses which were devastated during the cyclone- whether they were on blocks of land with or without wrecked houses? What has happened? No money is available. All we get from this Minister and a Minister in another place is insults thrown at people in Darwin alleging that they are making false claims or claiming compensation which this Government considers they are not entitled to receive. There may be a very small percentage of people who do that sort of thing but the great majority of the people in Darwin, as the Minister would know, have had their houses devastated. They have lost their livelihood. They are not able to produce receipts. How can anyone produce a receipt when the roof is gone off the house, or the house is gone? The whole lot is gone and even the refrigerator is probably piled up against somebody else’s house. The roof may be 2 miles away. This Government says: ‘We will not pay you compensation on that’.

I know the rate of compensation was 50 per cent; that is fair enough. Originally it was a generous offer but it has turned into a completely sterile offer. The Minister has been insulting the people of Darwin ever since the cyclone. He should try to meet them. Do not brush them off the way that he and other Ministers have been doing. This Government has been living by a double standard. It has said that people who suffered from Cyclone Tracy would be recompensed, but they have not been recompensed.

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

Dr PATTERSON:
Minister for Northern Australia · Dawson · ALP

– I was going to speak at length on the various projects which the Government has embarked on in the development of northern Australia but I think I will simply answer each of the statements made by the honourable member for Kennedy (Mr Katter) and the honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Calder). Let me deal first with the honourable member for Kennedy who seems to specialise in going around the country and making grandiose, exaggerated statements, usually not based on fact, criticising me personally and criticising the Government. Only 3 weeks ago he went to Mackay in my electorate and criticised me publicly over the media and in the newspapers for my bungling of the Mount Isa railway deal. He said it was a shocking deal. The fact is that the Mount Isa railway deal was made by the Menzies Government. It was the Menzies Government, not the Holt Government, not the McEwen Government, not the Gorton Government, not the MacMahon Government, not the Whitlam Government. It was made 1 5 years ago and I have criticised it. I have not stopped criticising it, because it is one of the worst deals that any government ever made. I agree with the honourable member for Kennedy. But it was the Party he supports that made that deal, not this Government. It involved a capital loan of $33m with total interest repayments of $24m. Out of a total of $57m $33m was a capital loan and $24m for interest payments. I agree with the honourable member for Kennedy, but it was a Country Party government that made the deal, not me and not the Whitlam Government.

The honourable member and the honourable member for the Northern Territory talked about statehood. Before I deal with that let me just refer to some more of these grandiose statements by the honourable member for Kennedy. He was in Darwin last last week. He criticised me. Speaking about me as the Minister for Northern Australia he said: ‘I cannot get to him to get answers to questions’. The facts are that since 1972 the honourable member has asked me one question on northern Australia. The honourable member also said: ‘It is difficult to even get to him to ask him a question’. The point is that every -

Mr Calder:

– That is right. We cannot get you on the telephone. We cannot interview you.

Dr PATTERSON:

-That is a deliberate untruth. Every member in this place, on the Opposition side and on the Government side, knows full well that any time they ask to come to my office they can come. If the honourable member for the Northern Territory is prepared to sit there and say that I have refused him permission to come to my office at any time then I cannot use language that is too strong to refute him. I say the same with respect to the honourable member for Kennedy. (Honourable members interjecting)

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr Armitage)Order! The Committee will come to order. There are far too many interjections. The Minister will not reply to the interjections. He will address the Chair. The interjections will cease.

Dr PATTERSON:

-Let me make this further point. The honourable member for Kennedy is reported in the Northern Territory News as saying that when the Liberal-Country Party coalition gained power it would take every step to make the Legislative Assembly effective and meaningful and would set about granting full powers that would lead to statehood. Statehood! ‘That is’, the honourable member said, ‘our definite policy’. In 23 years of government, the Opposition Parties gave the people of the Northern Territory nothing. Who voted in this place and in the Senate against giving the people of the Northern Territory a vote in the Senate? Look at him. Look at the honourable member for Kennedy. Look also to the honourable member for the Northern Territory. He crossed the floor in this chamber. He voted against the Opposition Parties. He was not game to support his own Country Party.

Mr Calder:

– Let us get back to the estimates for the Northern Territory.

Dr PATTERSON:

-Can you not take it?

Mr Calder:

– What about 2 senators for the Northern Territory?

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- Order!

Mr Calder:

– Why did you not introduce legislation for 2 senators for the Northern Territory in the Senate?

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- Order!

Mr Calder:

– You did not because you know you will lose both positions.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- Order! The honourable member for the Northern Territory will cease interjecting.

Mr Calder:

– You know you will lose them both.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- Order! The honourable member for the Northern Territory has spoken. He will cease interjecting.

Mr Calder:

– I am being provoked.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- Order! I warn the honourable member for the Northern Territory.

Mr Calder:

– I am being provoked.

Dr PATTERSON:

– In the Senate itself, who voted against giving the people of the Northern Territory a vote in Senate elections? It was the Liberal-Country Party senators. Who voted against giving the people of the Northern Territory a vote in referenda? It was the senators of the Liberal-Country Parties. Who took a case to the High Court to stop the people of the Northern Territory obtaining a vote in Senate elections? It was the Liberal and Country Parties.

Mr Calder:

– Who is making us listen to this nonsense?

Dr PATTERSON:

-Here these honourable members talk nonsense about -

Mr Calder:

– Get up in the Northern Territory and say a word or two about that. Your name is worth nothing.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- Order! I have warned the Committee that it must come to order. Admittedly the Minister, I think, is being rather provocative. The honourable member for the Northern Territory in particular, who has spoken and whom I have already warned, will cease interjecting.

Mr Calder:

– Well, Mr Deputy Chairman, if you keep the Minister in order I will remain in order.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- The honourable member will cease interjecting or I will name him.

Mr Calder:

– Thanks for your advice.

Dr PATTERSON:

-When the double dissolution debate on this matter took place we saw the same performance from the honourable member for the Northern Territory. He tried to get thrown out just as he is trying to do so now. But then the Speaker was a wake-up to him. Let me deal again with my honourable friend from Kennedy and what he is reported as saying in the Northern Territory News. Listen to this. The newspaper reports:

During his tour of Darwin -

Mr Katter:

-Of the Northern Territory.

Dr PATTERSON:

-You were only in Darwin for a few hours. The honourable member for Kennedy said that he was disappointed that he had not had time to meet wharf workers and the Port Authority. Listen to this:

A waterside worker in Brisbane before entering politics, Mr Katter said -

Mr Katter a waterside worker?

Mr Katter:

– That is right. I worked on the wharves. I will bet you $ 100 here and now that I can prove it.

Mr Calder:

– At least he did some work. That is more than you have done.

Dr PATTERSON:

– I did not say that he did not work on the wharves.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN -Order! The Minister will address the Chair.

Mr Calder:

– He has nothing to say, nothing at all to say.

Dr PATTERSON:

-The honourable member should listen to what I am going to say.

Mr Calder:

– You are the Minister. Why don’t you do something?

Dr PATTERSON:

-What the honourable member for Kennedy wanted to do was to ‘sort out the port of Darwin’. Those were the words of Mr Katter, a former waterside worker. I must admit that I did not know that the honourable member was a waterside worker.

Mr Katter:

– What is the point? You are the great academic, are you?

Dr PATTERSON:

-The honourable member always loves to criticise me personally. What I said was that I was not aware that he was a waterside worker. I said that he ran a picture show in Cloncurry and that the newspaper would not print that. I do not throw off at the honourable gentleman because of that. That is what I thought he did.

Mr Katter:

– I worked on the wharves.

Dr PATTERSON:

-Right. The honourable member for Kennedy asked me what stand I took in Cabinet on certain issues.

Mr Katter:

– That is right. This will be good.

Dr PATTERSON:

-Let me give you 3 examples. I mention first compensation for tuberculosis reactor for cattle. What stand did you take? You completely rejected the case of the cattlemen. You, when in government, threw it out. This Government introduced it. It accepted my submission, which you in government threw out, refused to accept.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN -Order! I would remind the Minister that he will address the Chair rather than the honourable member for Kennedy -

Dr PATTERSON:
DAWSON, QUEENSLAND · ALP

Dr PATTERSON-Well, he is interjecting.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- Then the honourable member will not have any justification for interjecting.

Dr PATTERSON:

-Let me take the next point. You asked the questions. I will answer them. I mention next the Kinchant Dam. I assume that you have heard of it because you turned it down flat and would not vote one cent for it.

Mr McVeigh:

-Who did? The Deputy Chairman?

Dr PATTERSON:

-The Liberal-Country Party Government turned it down. Not one cent. It was asked for by the Queensland Government under Mr Bjelke-Petersen. It was turned flatly down- nil, nothing.

Mr Katter:

– What about Bundaberg or the Burdekin?

Dr PATTERSON:

-The honourable member asks about the Burdekin, the Urannah Dam.

Mr Katter:

-And Bundaberg?

Dr PATTERSON:

-You are asking the questions; I am answering them. What did your Government do with respect to the Urannah Dam? Nothing. In 23 years you talked about Burdekin and the Urannah. The cold facts are to be found in the history books. They are that the former Government did nothing.

Mr Katter:

– What about Burdekin irrigation?

Dr PATTERSON:

– In 1949, in his policy speech, Arthur Fadden, as he was before he was knighted, said these words:

We will not pigeonhole the great Burdekin scheme. We will go ahead and build it immediately.

He said that in 1949. By 1972, nothing had been done. Not one cent had been spent on investigations. This Government commenced work immediately. It set up the joint Queensland Commonwealth Burdekin River committee.

Already $500,000 has been spent on basic investigations in relation to geology and engineering. This work should have been done years ago. The honourable member for Kennedy asked me a question about beef roads, specifically the Winton-Boulia road. The Winton-Boulia road is not in the priority for this 3-year program, but -

Mr Katter:

– You gave it priority.

Dr PATTERSON:

-Yes, I know I did. But there are other roads with a higher priority. What I have suggested to the honourable memberand I am not certain from memory whether I said it in the letter- is that he ought to ask the Queensland Government to spend some of its money on this road because -

Mr Katter:

– How can you say that when -

Dr PATTERSON:

-Wait a minute. In the previous 5-year program, the Queensland Government spent $9m of its own money in assisting in the beef roads program. In this 3-year program it is spending nothing. I would have thought that, as the Australian Government is spending $24m on beef roads, the Queensland Government could have found something. But not one cent is it providing. What I would suggest that the honourable member for Kennedy should do- I have not suggested this to the Queensland Government- is propose to the Queensland Government that it should spend some of its own money, the money that it has saved on national highways, for example, on this missing link with respect to the Winton-Boulia Road.

Of course it is important. I never said otherwise. It is an important road. But there are other roads which have a higher priority in relation to the cattle industry. This missing link certainly should be completed. I repeat that the Queensland Government should use some of its resources. As regards the suggestion by the honourable member with respect to the Gold Coast, if the road to the Gold Coast was full of potholes there would be action. Most certainly there would be action. The Queensland Governmentthat is the Country Party dominated Government of Queensland- should spend less money on super highways between Brisbane and the Gold Coast- and more money in the rural areas of Queensland from which the wealth of Queensland is produced. That is what the honourable member should be criticising the Queensland Government about.

I wish to deal now with the Darwin Reconstruction Commission. The fashion in this Parliament seems to be for the honourable member for the Northern Territory and to a lesser extent the honourable member for Kennedy- he not so much, although he has done so in recent weeks -to denigrate the Darwin Reconstruction Commission, together with the authorities and community organisations in Darwin, that are doing everything possible to return that city to its former state. Not once do they give any credit to the people of Darwin who have been working flat out since the cyclone repairing houses. Only 2 days ago the honourable member for the Northern Territory rubbished the Minister for Repatriation and Compensation (Senator Wheeldon) for suggesting -

Mr Calder:

-I told the truth.

Dr PATTERSON:

-The honourable member did not tell the truth. If he had read the Darwin newspaper for the last 2 days he would have found that the Legislative Assembly and the Northern Territory News completely agreed that the Government should go ahead and find those people in the Northern Territory who have put in deliberately false claims. The honourable member apparently is protecting those people, whom no one else would protect. Even the anti-Labor Northern Territory News in its editorial said that the Government is doing the right thing. Even the member of the Legislative Assembly representing that field of work said that the Government is doing the right thing. But of course the honourable member for the Northern Territory has to use every possible statement to try to denigrate those people in the Northern Territory who are doing something constructive towards bringing Darwin back to the city it once was. At the present time in Darwin -

Mr Calder:

– Why do you not get some sound advisers. They are all here in Canberra.

Dr PATTERSON:

-Why does the honourable member not return to his seat. There are certain forms of this chamber that he is supposed to obey. At the present time the Darwin Reconstruction Commission is using $71m for its housing program. It has under construction 541 relocatable units, 101 modular house units, 117 flats, 70 reconstructed damaged houses and 1300 new houses. The 1975-76 works program provides $77m for 1500 detached houses and flats, 500 relocatable units and 400 reconstructed damaged houses. The total works under construction will cost $71m and the total new works will cost $77m. The overall 1975-76 works program provides $148m for the reconstruction of Darwin. In anyone’s language, that is a magnificent effort. Over 4000 houses have been repaired. Hundreds of caravans have been purchased and put into place.

It has been said by mischievous LiberalNational Country Party sources in Darwin that all the demountable units were leaking. The fact is that the investigation carried out urgently on my instructions revealed only one complaint of a minor leak in the whole of Darwin. But that is the type of nonsense generated by the Liberal and Country Parties in order to denigrate -

Mr Calder:

– Even your own staff are laughing.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr Lucock)Order! I have spoken on 3 occasions about interjections from my left. If those interjections continue 3 names may appear in the newspaper tomorrow morning and I do not want one of them to be mine in these circumstances. I suggest to honourable members that they cease interjecting.

Dr PATTERSON:

– It is quite clear that the honourable member for the Northern Territory does not want to hear about his own electorate. He does not want to hear about the work that is going on in his own electorate, inside or outside of Darwin.

Mr Calder:

– I live there.

Dr PATTERSON:

-The honourable member lives there but he would not know. The whole objective of the Government in preparing the Budget has been to continue to maintain the impetus of its policies of reform and progress in the Northern Territory. In anyone’s language, there has been a massive injection of funds into the Northern Territory to honour the declared intention of the Government to relieve, rehabilitate and rebuild Darwin. It has done this over the last 12 months and it will continue to do so in the next 12 months. Not only is there a continuing construction program but there is also a continuing program of advancement in health, education, Aboriginal affairs, social development and improvements in outback roadworks and other facilities.

Not many people realise the magnitude of the money involved in this operation in Darwin. For example, in those early weeks following the onslaught of cyclone Tracy, the Government spent $74.7m in providing food, clothing and shelter for the homeless, evacuating 26 000 residents, restoring essential services and providing men from the armed forces to undertake the massive clean-up of debris that covered Darwin. In this Parliament the work of the Government was recognised. Apparently it is not recognised now, some months later, by the honourable member for the Northern Territory in particular. But the people of Darwin and the people of the Northern Territory recognise the magnificent work -

Mr King:

– The magnificent work that he has done.

Dr PATTERSON:

-Thank you. They have recognised the magnificent work that the Government has done since cyclone Tracy.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr Lucock)-I call the honourable member for Wakefield.

Motion (by Mr Nicholls) agreed to:

That the question be now put.

Proposed expenditure agreed to.

Department of Science and Consumer Affairs

Proposed expenditure, $ 1 39,20 1 , 000.

Mr Eric Robinson:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

– The present Minister for Science and Consumer Affairs (Mr Clyde Cameron)- has been in charge of this Department for only about 3 months, but his comments made at public meetings and at meetings of the Australian Science and Technology Council suggest that he will be energetic despite his reluctance to accept the portfolio. He talks of it as one of growing influence in the Australian community, a sentiment that I share because I believe that science and technology can contribute enormously to the nation. In practical forms it will mean greater productivity, more jobs, better conditions, better wages and greater leisure. We live in a competitive world and it is not possible for us to be able to afford to lag behind in that world-.It is about time that the present Government realy started to be energetic about science. One of the first acts of the Labor Party, despite its platform and despite the pledges made by the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) and others prior to achieving office, was to disband the Science Advisory Council which had been set up by the previous Liberal-Country Party administration. For the best part of 2 years we had a vacuum. Whilst the previous Minister for Science, Mr Morrison, had Green Papers and White Papers published, they are no substitute for action. We had Virtually no action in science in the first 2 years or So of this Government. Looking at the national record it is fair to concede that it has been mixed. I believe that in primary industry we have made a very substantial contribution. In the time that I have had the responsibility of being the shadow Minister for Science I have not been able to ascertain the same success in the manufacturing industries. In fact there are many areas which deserve a great deal of interest. There needs to be greater knowledge and greater understanding. There needs to be more informed debate both inside this Parliament and outside it. There needs to be above everything else a community involvement, which has not been apparent in Australia. If we look at the reports of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development- I think that the Minister will agree with this commentwe find that compared with similar countries there is no doubt that we do not spend anywhere near as much as they do. We have a national responsibility and an international responsibility, particularly in the areas of health, primary production and primary nutrition so far as our close neighbours are concerned.

I support the concept of a science statement. It would be very desirable if the Parliament and the. nation knew what was expended by the country in all fields of science. Not only do we want to know that; we want also greater accessibility of information. There is not much point in having spent a lot of money in gathering information if it is not reasonably accessible. We need to centralise that operation and I thought the opening of the science library at the National Library the other night was a step in the right direction. -The biggest allocation, about $ 120m, is for the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, an honoured body with a world reputation and one whose strength depends on its independence and its totality. I know that the Minister for Science and Consumer Affairs has gone on record about the independence of the CSIRO. He mentioned publicly that is should not be connected with the Public Service in any way. It is a pity he had not seen fit to make that statement immediately after he was appointed Minister because we had the regrettable step, the disgraceful step I believe, of an attempt being made by the Prime Minister, aided and abetted by the Minister for Minerals and Energy (Mr Connor), to dismember the CSIRO by transferring the solar energy studies and the mineral research laboratories out of it and into the Public Service under the Minister for Minerals and Energy thus breaking an important inter-relationship between the divisions.

I thought the honourable member for EdenMonaro (Mr Whan) tried to be of some assistance at that time. It took us weeks to sort out the situation. The Prime Minister was busy at that time belting himself into the ground, with marked success, in the Bass by-election and for weeks we had this problem about the CSIRO. We ended up with the compromise of control by 2 Ministers. I would like the Minister for Science and Consumer Affairs to be good enough to comment on how he sees that situation. Does he believe that this decision has disturbed the totality of the CSIRO? Does he think that joint responsibility will work? I hope he will concede that in the meantime substantial damage has been done to the morale of many of the staff members of the Organisation.

If that was not sufficient, only a few weeks later we had the crisis relating to the Australian Research Grants Committee. Again I would like the Minister to tell the House what is in his mind in regard to the triennial vote. We know that it has been reduced. We know that because of some bad planning and bad bookkeeping we had facing us the possible retrenchment of up to 350 skilled research workers. Again, after some weeks of substantial campaigning, particularly by the science community, success was gained with the aid of the Opposition and, I believe, with the aid of the Minister. We have now reached the stage where a loan of $2.1m has been arranged for the universities. Again I would like to ask the Minister to tell us about the future. We have overcome the short term problem but what is the future long term plan for the Australian Research Grants Committee.

The Opposition welcomes the Australian Science and Technology Council and I want to thank the Minister for the courtesy of inviting me to its meetings. We are pleased to see that it is to be drawn from the entire community. At first glance its terms of reference appeal but we will wait with a great deal of interest to see the legislative form that the Government plans this Council to take. There is no doubt that we will study this legislation when we receive it with a great deal of interest, and I hope that this happens during this session of the Parliament. Had ASTEC been functioning earlier on I think we could have overcome some of the problems that this Government has faced. I refer to the regrettable position whereby the Government, on coming to office, sacked the Advisory Council and took so long to get the Australian Science and Technology Council moving. We Will again watch with interest the thrust of the Government’s policies and how it sees the job of ASTEC. I read with interest the Minister’s comments on it at the meeting on 18 July 1975 in which there is an indication that the Government wanted to see substantial interest in marine science and in astronomy.

Surly one of the great problems we have in Australia is that of energy research. I would like the Minister to comment on the ministerial control of such research and how he sees the Government’s priorities in that field which we of the Opposition regard as tremendously substantial and tremendously important. I hope the social sciences will not be overlooked. Man has to live within his environment and I hope that this Government and future governments will do what they can to encourage not only the universities but also private industry to take a very real interest in the social sciences.

This is a significant department and one about which I have tried to learn in the five or six months that I have had some responsibility for it on behalf of the Opposition. It is crystal clear to me that for the sake of the nation we need much more informed debate free of a lot of the emotion which pervades many research areas. I think it might well be argued that an increasing share of national expenditure could be directed to this Department. I am not suggesting an increase in government expenditure in this Budget but I would have thought, from looking at some of the other departmental estimates, that there is evidence of substantial waste and some inefficiency. One would have hoped that this Department would have had a greater degree of priority. This is a Department which is worthy of greater expenditure, bearing in mind its significance. Finally, I hope we see a great deal of cooperation between the Government, the universities, the great institutes of Australia and industry. If we get that sort of co-operation, with the Government acting as a catalyst, I think it can make a massive contribution to national welfare and development.

Mr YOUNG:
Port Adelaide

-In the few minutes available to me I want to direct my remarks to the consumer affairs side of the Department of Science and Consumer Affairs. In reinforcing the views of the previous speaker, the honourable member for McPherson (Mr Eric Robinson), I also believe the Department is going to come under increasing scrutiny and to become of increasing importance in what happens to the consumers of this country. As we interpret consumers as the people who use a commodity or a service, we are throwing the net over the whole population of this country when we talk of consumers. If we are talking in those terms, talking of the whole population, it stands to reason that this Department should receive a great deal more attention than it may have received in the past. We are speaking of the purchaser, from the child who might go to a shop to purchase a sweet to the person who is buying a home. We are talking of people who use services, such as travellers, from people who go to and from their places of work in buses and trams and other forms of public transport to the jet-setter. In the case of holiday makers, we are talking in terms of a person who hires a rowboat to use on the local river as well as those who might go on an ocean cruise. Therefore it becomes of increasing importance to consider what a government may or may not do for a country to give those people the protection they need.

The protection that has been offered in years past has fallen short of the desires of the people of Australia. It is the intention of this Government, in legislation already passed and legislation intended for the future, to fill the gaps that have existed. Consumer protection always seems to the consumer to be an unreal or intangible thing. There can be no doubt, as all of us see the situation, that the citizens of this country are demanding that some action be taken about their rights. They want as much action in the future as they have had rhetoric in the past. With this Government, and especially with the present Minister for Science and Consumer Affairs (Mr Clyde Cameron), I am sure that that is the sort of action they will receive.

I want to read into this short address the policy of this Government in relation to these affairs, as set out in a speech by an Opposition member, a copy of which I have before me. They are:

To identify, publicise and otherwise expose unfair prices or practices and the exploitation of consumers, and generally to develop the involvement of the Australian Government in consumer affairs, including the use of the purchasing powers of government. To revise, and strengthen where necessary, the legislation relating to monopolistic and restrictive trade practices, much of which has been achieved in the Trade Practices Act.

To revise, and strengthen where necessary, the legislation relating to hire purchase, fringe banking and other creditcreating institutions, in order to control effective demand and prevent the exploitation of consumers;

To promote the involvement of government laboratories in research and investigations for the purpose of setting standards for consumer goods, with the Minister for Science and Consumer Affairs having a co-ordinating role in these activities;

To expand Government and Government-subsidised testing laboratories;

To interpret the Science and Industry Research Act in such a way as to strengthen CSIRO’s involvement as a research organisation in new fields, particularly in consumer standards, safety, transport and environment research;

To control, and where possible, prohibit the advertising of products which represent a danger to human health, or which release into the environment toxic or indestructible materials, or which make unreasonable use of scarce natural resources, or which have other significant detrimental environmental impact;

To enact consumer protection laws against unjustifiable price rises and unfair methods in trade and commerce;

To empower the Australian Parliament to make laws with respect to prices;

To give protection to citizens from invasion of privacy by credit agencies, data banks; and

To prohibit exemption by contract from consumer protection provisions of the law.

Having given what has been the policy of the Party, it becomes increasingly obvious, of* course, that the Australian Labor Party over a long period of years has considered very seriously the question of how the Australian Government could become involved, perhaps co-ordinating their activities with the States in giving the protection that is necessary.

But of course aU these policies under the one heading in our platform make one come to the conclusion that greater integration of laws and services is required. I must say that some of the adventurous schemes undertaken in the United States greatly impressed me during my visit there some years ago and in the major cities of the southern States of America I was tremendously impressed by the people doing work in what they termed legal aid offices. Many of the ideas I have, which I think can be implemented in Australia, stem from my experience of those legal aid offices. Their influence went far beyond just giving legal aid; they were in fact legal aid and consumer protection agencies. The staff did not sit in the offices waiting for customers but they went out and tried to agitate amongst the community to promote their services and to inform the people as to how they were being touched by false advertising and by prices in a store on one side of town which were well above the prices which were charged by similar stores on the other side of town. The officers also advised the community in no uncertain manner as to the interest rates being charged by the various money lending agencies in the cities. They were doing a great job, of course, in bringing up to date a community awareness. I think a lot of that can be incorporated in what we are trying to do here in Australia

I seriously put to the Committee and to the Minister that such a system could well be put into operation in Australia that is, a combination of legal aid and consumer protection in the one office. Unlike the Opposition which puts forward the view that authorities in control of implementing the relevant clauses of the Trade Practices Act and the testing of the physical properties of consumer products should remain separate, I believe in complete integration. The British Consumer Council said in its annual report in 1 970:

Manufacturers regularly develop new products, new methods of presentation, new marketing and selling techniques, which are in advance of general consumer experience and knowledge.

To that extent I was rather attracted to a consumer affairs document from New York which talked of the male cosmetics market that now exists in that country. I wish to quote from this New York consumer’s newsletter called Money’s Worth. It states:

The male cosmetic consumer is surfacing. Revlon and Estee Lauder, top names in the high fashion skin game, are fighting cap, tooth, lick and nail for the millions of dollars their research people tell them are available from men who are ready for cosmetics and skin care. Bronzers, wrinkle creams and moisturizers are all being peddled in terms so butch and so masculine that a Braggi advertisement, for instance, begins to make you feel as if you would as soon leave the house without your testicles as leave without your makeup kit.

That is the sort of effect that advertising could have on the Australian community. As I said previously, I should like to see established regional consumer protection agencies incorporating legal aid right throughout Australia. In all the areas that we might recognise as regions we should have these legal aid and consumer protection offices- not based, as I said, on the concept of waiting in the office for the people to come in but actively agitating out in the community and advising the people of their rights and the manner in which they should go about their shopping.

It would be difficult to participate in a debate of this nature without mentioning the name of Ralph Nader. Nader has made an enormous contribution in combating false prices and corrupt practices. For instance his book Unsafe at any Speed brought to the attention of the American motorist the way in which they had been conned for years. Traffic accidents were always the fault of the motorists. The nut behind the wheel theory existed in the United States. But the Congressional hearing on auto safety in 1965-66 found quite different faults and saw the way clear for the introduction of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. The action by Nader is a classic example of what we could term ‘people power’. The combining of the services of consumer protection and legal aid would give the necessary teeth to present and proposed Government legislation.

Mr HOWARD:
Bennelong

-Like the honourable member for Port Adelaide (Mr Young) I should like to direct my remarks to the second limb of responsibility of the Minister for Science and Consumer Affairs (Mr Clyde Cameron), and that is the area of consumer affairs. When the Minister was sworn into his present portfolio all the Australian States and the Federal Government had a member of the Government specifically designated as having a responsibility for consumer affairs. This development itself indicates the mounting community demand that Australian consumers should have a fairer deal and that there should be a proper voice for consumer protection demands in government. This is a trend which the Opposition, like the Government, welcomes. I hope that in the area of consumer protection objectives there will be some measure of agreement between the 2 sides of this chamber. We may differ in approach along the road to achieving our objectives but I hope that adequate laws to protect the rights of consumers are beyond argument in the political context.

In the time available to me I should like to make a couple of remarks about what might be palled the consumer phenomenon of the past 10 or 20 years. I think it is true to say that a generation ago the concept of elaborate consumer protection laws was not given great prominence. Whilst many factors have influenced the emergence of consumerism as a public issue, not least being a more articulate community, I think one of the factors which has led to the emergence of consumer protection as a live public issue is the development of the supermarket economy in the Australian society. A generation ago when it was a habit of consumers to purchase their day to day foodstuffs and consumer goods from the corner grocer store the relationship between a seller and purchaser of consumer goods was a far more personal thing and the opportunities for on the spot ad hoc redress for a consumer who purchased from such a store, having such a relationship with the storekeeper, were much greater of course than they are in the mass supermarket economy that we have at present. It is obviously necessary, if the consumer is to receive proper value for the money expended on consumer goods, that laws exist to protect the consumer against unfair, coercive and deceptive practices.

I think also the impact of mass advertising, particularly on television, has contributed to the emergency of consumer pressures. Whilst it is fashionable sometimes in a debate on consumer protection to criticise advertising and to point to the more extreme examples of puffing and deception that might occur in advertising, the fact remains that advertising is an integral part of the market process. The fact remains that advertising is an integral part of the market process. It does make a contribution towards the provision of information for consumers and it does facilitate the exercise of choice by the consumers. In that respect I would hope that this Parliament and the parties represented in this Parliament will continue to recognise the proper place of advertising in consumer transactions.

On behalf of the Opposition I would like to welcome the initiative of the present Government in bringing together the many consumer groups throughout Australia which led to the formation of the Australian Federation of Consumer Organisations. I believe that consumer groups should have a representative body, that this body should be able to express an articulate consumer viewpoint on issues and that it ought to have the type of access to Ministers and to the Public Service that is presently enjoyed by bodies such as chambers of manufacturers and chambers of commerce.

I would hope that in the administration of his portfolio the Minister would pursue a policy of involving consumer groups as far as possible in the development and the implementation of policies and programs. I would also like to express the hope that in implementing his policies the Minister will see the value of a consultative approach in developing consumer protection laws. By a consultative approach I mean an approach that not only involves representatives of consumer groups but also involves representatives of retailers, manufacturers, advertisers, the media and aU the other groups which are concerned in consumer transactions.

I know that the Minister some weeks ago convened a meeting in Sydney of consumer bodies throughout Australia at which he outlined his plans for this portfolio. I am glad that the Minister convened the meeting. This was a proper thing to do and a welcome initiative to bring the Government into contact with consumer groups. I wonder, though, whether the Minister before proceeding with any further legislation in this area might consider convening a meeting which involved not only consumers but also the other interested groups which I mentioned a moment ago and which I think should be involved at every stage of developing policies to protect the consumer. I make this suggestion seriously. I think the Minister may well find if he adopts that approach that there are a greater number of manufacturers, retailers and advertisers who accept the need for effective consumers protection laws than some of the honourable members who sit behind him imagine.

I would also like to commend to the Minister the need for a co-operative federalist approach to consumer protection legislation. I was disappointed, frankly, that the honourable member for Port Adelaide (Mr Young) gave only a grudging acknowledgement to the role of the States in consumer protection legislation. It is simply not on to have consumer protection legislation which effectively covers the Australian market unless there is a co-operative approach between the Federal and the State governments. The Federal Government simply does not have sufficient legislative power to cover the field. Whether honourable members opposite like that or not, it is the situation at the present time and it is likely to remain the situation for quite a while into the future.

I believe that Australia is increasingly a national market so far as consumer transactions are concerned and obviously one needs national iniatives and a national approach to consumer protection. But unless that approach involves on a co-operative basis the State governments with their respective powers, advice facilities, expertise and experience in the area, I do not believe that the Government Will be able to develop a comprehensive and effective consumer protection POliCY

I would also like to comment briefly on the remarks of the honourable member for Adelaide about the fusion of the functions of product safety and market regulations. He gently implied a criticism of me for some remarks that I made a couple of weeks ago about the difficulties of combining in the one body the expertise required to decide whether a radiator was dangerous and the expertise to decide whether market behaviour was deceptive. I would like to remind the honourable member that the United States of America, the country whose consumer protection laws impressed him greatly, preserves a division between those two functions. On the one hand the United States Products Safety Commission deals exclusively with consumer safety and on the other hand the questions of market regulation and monitoring are the responsibility of the Federal Trade Commission which exercises functions very similar to those exercised by the Australian Trade Practices Commission.

My final comment is that I believe the real challenges in the area of consumer protection are in providing assistance to the less articulate, the economically disadvantaged and the migrant groups in Australia. I think the Minister would agree with me that consumer protection ought not, as someone has said, become the plaything of the middle classes and that there is tremendous scope for the development of consumer protection policies which will assist the more disadvantaged in our community. I would like to thank the Minister for the courtesies he has extended to me in my capacity as the shadow Minister for Consumer Affairs since he has become the Minister

Progress reported.

page 1796

ADJOURNMENT

Death of the Honourable Cyril Chambers

Motion (by Mr Clyde Cameron) proposed:

That the House do now adjourn.

Mr McLEAY:
Boothby

– I personally regret that we did not have a condolence motion today in respect of the death of the honourable Cyril Chambers. Instead we recorded his passing. I would like to place on record just a few words about Mr Chambers, a person for whom I had the very highest regard. I regret that under the new order that we now support, condolence motions apparently are not accorded a deceased member who was not a current member of the Parliament.

Mr Chambers was elected to this House for the seat of Adelaide in 1943. He was elected to serve continuously in the House of Representatives at elections held in 1943, 1946, 1949, 1951, 1954 and 1955. He was a member of the Standing Committee on Broadcasting from 14 October 1943 to 16 August 1946. He was Minister for the Army from 1 November 1946 to 19 December 1949.I stress the point that he was Minister for the Army in a Labor government. I find it incongruous that the present Government does not at least have some form of recognition of the service which Mr Chambers has given to this House.

He visited Japan on a tour of inspection of the Australian component of the British Commonwealth Occupation Force in December 1946. He was Acting Minister of Transport and Acting Minister for External Territories from June to October 1947 and December 1948 to June 1949. As Acting Minister for External Territories he visited New Guinea in 1949 and Nauru in April of that year. He was a member of the Australian delegation to the Tenth Session of the General Assembly of the United Nations in New York in 1955. In the absence of a condolence motion I wish to be identified in some way with a resolution to place on record in this place our appreciation for the tremendous contribution made by the late Cyril Chambers to Australia and to Australian politics. I know that there are people in the chamber tonight who served with Cyril Chambers both in opposition and in government in the Labor Party. He lived in the electorate of Boothby for most of his life. He was a contemporary of my father’s, not only in this place but also in local government in South Australia. He was active in council administration from 1924 to 1939 and was Mayor of the City of Henley Beach for the three difficult years from 1932 to 1935 when the depression really hit in Australia.

He was especially interested in the work of the Legacy Club, although he was not at that time an ex-serviceman. He was interested in the work of the Good Neighbour Council. In fact he was present at the first naturalisation ceremony held in South Australia and presided over by Sir Mellis Napier, the acting Governor at that time.

He served in the 2/3 Field Ambulance in New Guinea as a dental surgeon in World War II. I met him for the first time about 9 years ago not long after I was elected to the House of Representatives. Although we were members of different political parties- Cyril Chambers was a member of the Labor Party, and I was and still am and always will be a member of the Liberal Party- I always found him to be very friendly and generous in his advice. He was a man of very great principles and a true friend. I extend my sincere sympathy to his widow and his family. It seems appropriate that I should quote my father when speaking of Cyril Chambers on one occasion. He said: ‘Not all good fellows are on our side of the House’. That is the feeling I have about Cyril Chambers, and I should like to see that placed on parliamentary record.

Mr COPE:
Sydney

– It was very thoughtful of the honourable member for Boothby (Mr McLeay) to refer to the memory of the late Cyril Chambers. I was honoured to know Cyril from the time I was elected to this place in May 1955.I formed a very firm friendship with Cyril for the 3 years or so he was in Parliament after that and, of course, during the time he was employed in the Commonwealth Public Service later. I had many opportunities in 20 years of gauging Cyril’s personality. The honourable member for Boothby has already described his personality. I endorse what he said by further saying that I do not think I have ever known a friendlier chap in this House since I first became a member.

Cyril Chambers was Minister for the Army during the turbulent days of 1949 when the big coal strike was on, . involving the Miners Federation, which was then controlled by the Communist Party. Just before the 1949 general election, as most of the elderly members would recall and as elderly persons outside would recall, Cyril Chambers had the unenviable task of putting the Army into the mines at the behest of the Government, which I fully supported as a member of the Australian Labor Party at the time. That was a worrying period for Cyril, but he carried out his duties as he should have done and without any apologies to anyone.

There was a great affinity between several of us. I was very pleased to see that my great friends, Ted Peters and Joe Clark, also attended the funeral yesterday. They sent word to me that they had attended. It is a fact that after serving here for so many years one builds up a friendship. As the honourable member for Boothby said, he is a member of the Liberal Party and Cyril was a member of the Labor Party. One thing you learn in this House is that all of your friends are not on one side of the House.

I add my endorsement to the remarks of the honourable member for Boothby. He has covered the situation quite well. I also extend my sincere sympathy to Cyril Chamber’s widow and hope that she will accept my hearfelt sympathy on her great loss, Cyril Chambers.

Mr KING:
Wimmera

-In the absence of the Leader of the National Country Party of Australia (Mr Anthony) I feel that I should like to join the honourable member for Boothby (Mr McLeay) and the honourable member for Sydney (Mr Cope) in paying a tribute to a former colleague in this place, Cyril Chambers. I did not serve in this House with Cyril Chambers but I have very vivid recollections of him. I recall that when I first came to this Parliament I inadvertently met him at the members’ rooms in Melbourne on one occasion. He was very co-operative and passed on certain information to me as a new member, although we belonged to different parties. As a result of that first discussion I have a fairly high admiration for him as an individual. Rather as a coincidence, from that time on I seemed to meet him quite frequently.

I would certainly join the honourable members for Boothby and Sydney in paying a tribute to a man who, I believe, was a true Australian He was a man who I believe belonged to the real old true Labor Party. Whilst we did not agree politically we certainly agreed on a lot of principles. I certainly admired him. A close friend of mine in north-western Victoria was a relative of Cyril Chambers. His family also speak very highly of Cyril Chambers. It is a pity that the Government did not see fit to carry out the normal procedures this morning. I am not too sure of the reasons why it did not. Some decision may have been made by the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) or the Leader of the House (Mr Daly) to cut down to a minimum the number of condolence motions because of the importance of the other business of the House.

Mr McLeay:

– There is nothing more important than that.

Mr KING:

– I agree with the honourable member for Boothby. I do not think there is anything more important than at least to recognise Cyril Chambers and give honourable members an opportunity to voice their opinion of a former colleague, particularly a former Minister. So on behalf of the National Country Party I join with the two previous speakers in offering my sympathy to Cyril Chambers ‘ wife.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

House adjourned at 10.37 p.m.

page 1798

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS UPON NOTICE

The following answers to questions upon notice were circulated:

China: Wheat Trade (Question No. 2287)

Mr Ruddock:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, 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 55- Chinese communications on resumption of wheat trade, 1971.
  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 Whitlam:
ALP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. Yes.
  3. The present Prime Minister drew attention to such a communication on 6 April 1971 (Hansard,page 1462) when asking the then Prime Minister to confirm that the Chinese Government had indicated that it would not buy further supplies of Australian wheat because of a statement made by a Minister of the former Australian Government, which China considered to be hostile. The then Prime Minister, the Right Honourable Member for Lowe, confirmed that his Government had received a report that a Chinese official had indicated to a British representative that China would not place any further wheat orders with Australia because of the attitude of the then Australian Government to China.
  4. It would not be appropriate in the circumstances to release any communication on this matter involving the confidence of another Government. However, I refer the honourable member to the comments in part (3) of the Prime Minister’s answer to Question No. 2243 (Hansard, 13 May 1975, page 2 198).

Department of Foreign Affairs Background Papers (Question No. 2290)

Mr Ruddock:

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

  1. 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 1 77 to 1 80.
  2. Has the Minister’s attention also been drawn to indexed item 86- Department of Foreign Affairs background papers on China, Japan, Russia, etc.
  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 Whitlam:
ALP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. Yes.
  3. and (4) The honourable member’s question appears to refer in particular to a paper, prepared in the Department of Foreign Affairs, .which formed the basis of a Cabinet submission on Australia’s policy towards China. The honourable member will be aware that the normal conventions of Cabinet Government preclude the public release of such a document. However, I refer the honourable member to the comments in part (3) of the Prime Minister’s answer to Question No. 2243 (Hansard, 13 May 1975, page 2198). In the normal course of its duties the Department would frequently prepare documents about other countries which could be described as ‘background papers’. It has not proved possible to identify the particular background papers on Japan and Russia mentioned in passing in the context of the China paper to which the honourable member’s question refers.

General Practitioners (Question No. 2498)

Mr Hurford:
ADELAIDE, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister for Health upon notice:

  1. 1) Is he concerned at the maldistribution of graduates in medicine with far too few specialising in the important occupation/vocation of general practitioners/community medicine specialist.
  2. Is the method of selection of undergraduates one of the main causes of this maldistribution, with apparently academic merit alone being the criterion instead of testing also other qualities required in a medical practitioner.
  3. If so, can he and the Australian Government do anything to alter this basis of selection.
  4. In building up the support team for the general medical practitioner to make his a more specialist occupation/ vocation, can he and the Government assist to make the pharmacist a more effective member of the health team; if so, how.
Dr Everingham:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) On advice of the Hospitals and Health Services Commission the Australian Government has recognised the need to assist with the training of general practitioners. Since 1973-74, funds have been made available under the Community Health Program to support the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners ‘ Family Medicine Program.

The objectives of the Family Medicine Program are to improve standards in general practice, the recruitment of medical graduates to general practice and the availability of general practitioners in needy areas. The Program consists of two schemes to achieve these objectives.

  1. a voluntary training Program which is a formal post graduate course in general practice; there are currently in excess of 700 medical graduates in this part of the Program.
  2. a Re-orientation Course for medical practitioners who have been away from general practice for some time. There are currently some 60 doctors undertaking the Course.

In 1974-75, $4. lm was allocated to the Family Medicine Program and it is anticipated that this will rise to $5. 5m in 1975-76.

  1. The Committee on Medical Schools of the Universities Commission which reported to the Government in July 1 973 commented on selection of medical students. It stated inter alia ‘There has been a good deal of research in Australia on the effectiveness of present selection methods. This has shown that, for university courses in general, selection on the basis of school leaving results, while by no means a perfect predictor of success at university, is nevertheless the best predictor available and there is as yet no evidence that there are simple ways of improving it’. The full text of the Committee’s comment is contained in its report ‘Expansion of Medical Education’, paragraphs 9.45 to 9.52.
  2. The Australian Government has been concerned about the number of medical graduates proceeding into community practice. Following consideration of advice from the Universities Commission and Hospitals and Health Services Commission, the Australian Government provided special funds of over $ 1.2m during 1974 and 1975 to support the establishment of departments of community practice in eight university medical schools in association with community health centres. This program will enable medical students to participate in the practice of promoting health care delivery systems outside the hospital situation. It should encourage more students to proceed to general practice.

  3. The Government can assist to make the pharmacist a more effective member of the health team by;

    1. drawing attention to the need for changes in the education of pharmacists- as was done in the Report on Australian Health Manpower, submitted in February 1975.
    2. bringing to the attention of professional pharmacist organisations material on changing roles and functions, as is being done at present.
    3. participating in meetings of such professional organisations to explore ways and means of improving the pharmacists’ contribution to the health team, as has been done frequently by members of my Department and of the Hospitals and Health Services Commission.
    4. including provision for pharmacy services in some Community Health Centres, where appropriate, this has been done.
    5. bringing to the notice of those who administer community health services that provision for involvement of, or co-operation with, pharmacists is essential; this is done. (0 preparing and distributing material to hospitals, describing new roles and functions for hospital pharmacists; this material is in preparation.

Air Pollution (Question No. 2541)

Mr Lloyd:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

  1. Does his Department, because of its public health responsibility, have a role in the prevention of the increasing air pollution in the Australian Capital Territory caused by motor vehicle exhaust emissions.
  2. ) Does his Department have an advisory role in this area of public health with State Health Departments or other Australian Government Departments.
  3. Have discussions on this subject been held with other Australian Government or State departments; if so, which departments, and when.
Dr Everingham:
ALP

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

  1. Yes- by virtue of the advisory role through the National Health and Medical Research Council.

The direct activity in the Capital Territory which was formerly carried out by my Department is now one of the functions of the Capital Territory Health Commission.

  1. Yes- this role is carried out firstly through the National Health and Medical Research Council, in particular through the Committees listed below with their terms of reference:

Public Health Advisory Committee (PHAC) ‘to inquire into and advise the Council on all matters of public health and preventive medicine and matters involving health legislation and administration by the Commonwealth and State Governments’.

Environmental Health Committee (EHC) ‘to consider all environmental factors which may influence health and wellbeing and report to Council through the PHAC’

Air Pollution Control Subcommittee ‘to inquire into and advise the EHC on:

  1. Ambient air quality standards;

    1. Emission standards for air pollutants.

Ad hoc Subcommittee on the Effects of Lead in Air ‘to inquire into and advise the EHC on the effects of ambient lead m air on human health and the needs for research ‘. and secondly through representation on Australian Government Interdepartmental Committees as follows:

National Air Quality Criteria (convened by the Department of Environment)

Membership includes representatives of the Departments of Environment, Health, Science and Consumer Affairs, Urban and Regional Development, Treasury, and CSIRO, the Bureau of Meteorology and the Australian Government Analyst.

It is concerned with the development of national policies for air monitoring in Australia and has a Working Group to advise on two major areas:

  1. A National Atmospheric Data Bank:
  2. Design and use of mobile monitoring units.

Advisory Committee on Motor Vehicle Emissions (convened by the Department of Transport)

The Committee comprises representatives of Australian and State Departments of Health, Environment and Transport and representatives of the Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries and the Petroleum Industry Executive Council for the Environment. The Chairman is an officer of the Australian Department of Transport.

The Committee’s function is to advise on motor vehicle emission standards, to keep a watching brief on overseas developments and to liaise with health and environment officials in Australia.

  1. The Australian and State Governments have been working closely together for many years. Discussions are continuing and various Australian and State Government Departments participate in these. In respect of the Australian Capital Territory there has formerly been close and continuing discussions between my department and the National Capital Development Commission on the matter. Recently, the role played by my Department passed to the Capital Territory Health Commission when that authority was instituted.

Food Standards (Question No. 2618)

Mr Lloyd:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

  1. How is it proposed to implement the decision of the Health Ministers at the recent conference in Penh to improve the supervision of food standards in Australia.
  2. ) What role is it proposed for the Department of Science or any of its divisions or associated organisations to have in this work.
Dr Everingham:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) At the Conference of Australian Health Ministers in May 1975 in Perth, it was agreed that a joint working party of State and Australian Government officers be established to draw up model food legislation suitable for application throughout Australia. The formation of this working party is under active consideration by my Department and the State Departments of Health.
  2. One of the functions of the working party will be to define and clarify the roles to be played by the various authorities involved.

Lead in the Atmosphere (Question No. 2755)

Mr Lloyd:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Has the National Health and Medical Research Council established any maximum safety levels for lead in the atmosphere and in the bloodstream of adults and children.
  2. If so, are these levels accepted overseas, or is there evidence to suggest that they should be lowered.
  3. What is the present (a) average and (b) maximum recorded level of lead in the atmosphere in central (i) Melbourne and (ii) Sydney.
  4. Has the Council made any recommendations on lead additives in petrol; if so, what recommendations and to whom.
Dr Everingham:
ALP

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

  1. The National Health and Medical Research Council has recommended in its publication Atmospheric Contaminates Threshold limit Values representing conditions under which it is believed that nearly all workers may be repeatedly exposed to lead in the atmosphere day after day at work without adverse effect.

The value for lead appears in Section 1.1 (page 7 of the publication) at 150 micrograms per cubic metre: a timeweighted average concentration for a 40 hour working week.

Four categories of lead absorption, based on blood lead levels had been defined for industrial settings: less than 40 ug/ 100 ml- normal 40-80 ug/ 100 ml-acceptable 80-120 ug/100 ml-excessive greater than 120 ug/100 ml- dangerous These levels are not regarded as applicable to the population in general, and to children in particular.

The National Health and Medical Research Council has not made any recommendations relating to lead levels in air or in the blood which are applicable to the general community.

  1. The occupational levels are in agreement with those set in the United States and the United Kingdom.

A number of studies have indicated that food and beverages are the major contributors to blood lead levels. However, lead in air does add to the total body burden of lead. While there appears to be a margin for allowance of several micrograms of lead per cubic metre of air for adults, there may not be such a margin for children.

The concentration of lead in air breathed by people in large cities is generally considerably higher than in suburban or rural areas. Because a large proportion of Australians live in large cities the need to specify maximum permissible levels of lead in general ambient air has been recognised and is being investigated by appropriate committees of the National Health and Medical Research Council.

Blood lead levels are the most widely accepted indicators of exposure to lead and therefore the need to specify critical exposure blood lead levels for the general population is recognized.

  1. (i) The Victorian Environment Protection Agency has supplied the following data from their internal report No. AQ4 Particulate Lead Concentrations in Melbourne Air

In Melbourne samples were taken on 12 separate days between June 1974 and February 1975. The sampling position was 2 metres from the kerb side in Parliament Place. A sampling time of approximately 1 hour was used and a sample size of approximately lm1 was used. Daytime averages were calculated by taking the mean of the hourly measurements. Selected results are given here:

Highest daytime average- 3.9 ug/m’ Highest hourly reading- 6.1 ug/m3 Range of daytime averages- 1.7- 3.9 ug/m’ (for the 12 days concerned)

  1. The N.S.W. State Pollution Control Commission has supplied the following information:

In Sydney 24 hour samples were taken every six days. The maximum for each month is the maximum 24 hour sample in that month. Data for four sites have been provided. With the exception of one site, the monitors were well away from roads. Therefore the Sydney figures should not be compared with those from Melbourne as lead concentration decreases with increasing distance from the source. Selected results are given as:

Highest monthly average- 3.95 ug/m1

George Street site (for period January to June 1975) Highest monthly maximum- 6.12 ug/m’

George Street site (for period January to June 1975) 1 974 yearly average- 1 . 12 ug/m’ (City site but monitor away from road) 1 974 maximum- 3.64 ug/m’ (same site as for 1 974 average)

  1. A specific recommendation on emissions of lead from motor vehicles was made by Council in May 1973, at its Seventy-sixth Session:

Council noted overseas proposals to reduce concentrations of lead alkyls in gasoline. Council agreed that, from available data, the inhalation of air containing lead from the emissions of motor vehicles using gasoline containing lead alkyls does not cause clinical human poisoning: however, exposure to such emissions adds to the total body burden of lead, the possible biological effects of which need much further study.

Council recommended that, pending the result of such studies, measures be adopted to ensure that emission of lead from motor vehicles is not increased.

Council, at its Seventy-seventh Session, November 1973, recommended quantitative limits to the concentration of lead in petrol:

Council considered available data on the effect on human health of the emissions of lead from motor vehicles.

Council recommended, pending the results of further studies on the biological effects of lead that measures be adopted to ensure that emissions of lead from motor vehicles are not increased. To satisfy this requirement, Council recommended that the concentration of lead in petrol be limited to:

  1. 0.60 gram per litre (3-month average) with a maximum of 0.84 gram per litre as from 1 January 1 974.
  2. 0.S0 gram per litre (3-month average) with a maximum reading of 0.60 gram per litre for any one sample as from 1 January 1975.

Council recognised the possible need for further progressive reductions in the concentrations of lead in petrol m order to ensure that lead emissions from motor vehicles are contained at existing levels; however, Council agreed that a valid projection of this need could not be made until developments in the uses of alternative energy sources and the viability of the lead filter are made known.

The emissions of lead from motor vehicles means the total mass emission of lead emitted into the atmosphere by the total population of motor vehicles in Australia.

These recommendations were sent to the relevant State and Australian Government Departments and representatives of the oil industry. New South Wales and Victoria have both legislated to reduce the lead content of petrol.

Cigarette Advertising (Question No. 2891)

Mr Lloyd:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

Will he encourage the introduction of a voluntary code on cigarette advertising similar to that recently introduced in the United Kingdom.

Dr Everingham:
ALP

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

It is Australian Government policy for all forms of cigarette and tobacco advertising to be banned. This has my full support.

There is opposition to the proposed introduction of uniform legislation by the Australian and State Governments in respect of health warnings to accompany all forms of cigarette advertising, and consequently, the genuine cooperation needed for an effective voluntary Australian code may not be present. The code applying to television advertising is not being observed.

A voluntary code with application only to cigarette advertising will not realise the Government’s policy, but to the extent that it may further that policy, I would be willing to consider the matter.

Smoking in Public Places (Question No. 2895)

Mr Lloyd:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

What action is he taking to implement the World Health Organisation recommendations on protecting non-smokers from exposure to smokers.

Dr Everingham:
ALP

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

I assume that the question relates to the recommendations contained in the “Report of a WHO Expert CommitteeSmoking and its Effects on Health- issued under the Technical Report Series 568, Geneva 1975”.

These recommendations and the general question of smoking in public places are receiving careful and continuing study in my Department and are under active consideration by the National Health and Medical Research Council.

My concern regarding smoking in public places and the associated discomfort and health hazard this causes to nonsmokers is well-known, and is supported by the great volume of representations received by me and my Department.

The Department is currently looking into the possibility of the Government setting an example in this area by prohibiting smoking in various facilities under its control. The possibility of segregating portions of the Department of Health’s Central Office in Canberra, so as to protect the rights of the non-smoker, is being studied. Smoking is prohibited in lifts in the Central Office of my Department, and smoking in lifts in other Australian Government Departments is being investigated.

I have sought a ban on smoking in government buses in the A.C.T., and my Department is examining legislation relating to smoking in taxis in the A.C.T. and Northern Territory. We have been successful in acquiring a greater allocation of non-smoking seating in aircraft and all Australian airlines are co-operating in this matter in a most responsible and receptive manner.

Posters, desk signs and other material with themes such as ‘Thank you for not smoking’ or ‘Please do not smoke here’ are available free of charge from the Department and from various agencies in the States.

Smokers (Question No. 2896)

Mr Lloyd:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

What percentage of adult Australians are smokers or are estimated to be smokers.

Dr Everingham:
ALP

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

According to a survey on smoking funded under the National Warning Against Smoking and conducted in JuneJuly 1974, approximately 37 per cent of Australian residents aged 16 years and over were smokers.

Health: Precautions in Darwin (Question No. 2921)

Mr Lloyd:

asked the Minister for Health, upon Notice:

  1. 1 ) What steps have been taken by the health authorities in Darwin to prevent refugees inadvertently introducing human or animal diseases to Australia.
  2. In particular, have special precautions been taken against rabies, Newcastle disease, swine fever and foot and mouth disease.
Dr Everingham:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) All refugees arriving in Darwin have been subjected to complete ‘ba’ggage search to prevent entry into Australia of disease carrying material such as live animals, foodstuffs of animal origin and plants. All refugees were examined by medical officers on arrival. They were given anti-malarial treatment to prevent the disease becoming endemic in this country. In respect of those staying in Australia there was further medical scrutiny within the resources available in Darwin. Chest x-rays were taken immediately where the need for this was indicated. It was arranged that all adult refugees remaining in Darwin would have a chest x-ray.

Arrangements also were made on the movement of refugees to southern cities, for State tuberculosis authorities to carry out radiological examinations of adults and when considered necessary skin tests of children.

  1. These strict precautions have been enforced, although of the diseases mentioned, only Newcastle Disease is known to exist on Timor.

Medical Staff in Northern Territory (Question No. 2925)

Mr Calder:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Has his attention been drawn to the acute shortage of medical staff in the Northern Territory.
  2. Is the number of medical officers in the Darwin Hospital below the critical level.
  3. Was there a recent claim by the representatives of the Northern Territory branch of the Commonwealth Medical Officers’ Association for salary increases to bring their remuneration at least into line with that of doctors employed in similar positions in the medical services of the Australian Capital Territory and the States, which was rejected by the Public Service Board,
  4. If so, what were the reasons for rejection.
  5. What action does he propose to improve the conditions of service so that doctors are attracted to positions in the Northern Territory.
Dr Everingham:
ALP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. Yes.
  3. Representations made by the Northern Territory Branch of the Commonwealth Medical Officers’ Association to the Minister are currently being examined by my Department and the Public Service Board.
  4. Not applicable.
  5. The matter is currently being examined by my Department and the Public Service Board.

Medical Officers and Dentists in Northern Territory (Question No. 2927)

Mr Calder:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Is there an acute shortage of medical officers and dentists in the Northern Territory.
  2. Is the number of medical officers in the Darwin Hospital below the critical level.
  3. 3 ) Is it a fact that salary is a problem in the recruitment of medical officers.
  4. Is the present level of salary 25 per cent below that paid to those employed in similar positions in the medical services of the Australian Capital Territory and the States.
  5. 5 ) Is it considered that salaries should be higher for medical officers in remote areas.
  6. What action is being taken to overcome the problem.
Dr Everingham:
ALP

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

  1. Yes.

  2. Yes. Factors contributing to this situation:-

    1. the rapid build up of population- now approximately 37 000;
    2. the departure from Darwin of general practitioners working in Darwin before the cyclone;
    3. the overall increase in outpatient loading of between 20-30 per cent experienced in all Northern Territory hospitals as a result of the introduction of Medibank.
  3. Yes. Salary is a most important factor because of the great disparity that exists between the current levels of salary of medical officers in the Australian Public Service, the various States and the Capital Territory Health Commission. Other major considerations on which successful recruitment depends are the terms and conditions of employment as well as availability of suitable housing.
  4. Yes.
  1. Yes.
  2. The matter is currently being examined by my Department and the Public Service Board.

Nuclear Power Stations (Question No. 2932)

Mr Hunt:

asked the Minister for Minerals and Energy, upon notice:

  1. Can he say how many nuclear power stations are operating throughout the world, and in what countries they are situated.
  2. Can he also say what fraction of the total energy generated world-wide comes from nuclear power stations.
Mr Connor:
Minister for Minerals and Energy · CUNNINGHAM, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

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

  1. At 30 June 1975 there were 159 nuclear power reactors of over 20 MW capacity in operation in 19 countries as listed below. The output of these reactors totals 68 000 MW:

Additionally, at 30 June 1975 a further 337 reactors to generate a total of 3 10 000 MW were either under construction or on order in 28 countries.

  1. ) The fraction of total electrical energy generated worldwide supplied by nuclear power stations was approximately 4 per cent in 1974. It is expected that this fraction will rise to almost 5 per cent in 1975. By 1982, when most of the reactors at present under construction or on order are operational, the fraction will rise to about 15 per cent. In 1972, 12 per cent of energy consumed in the OECD countries was in the form of electrical energy.

Solar Energy (Question No. 2933)

Mr Hunt:

asked the Minister for Minerals and Energy, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) What fraction of Australia ‘s primary energy needs is at present being supplied by the harnessing of solar energy.
  2. ) What funds have been allocated for research into solar energy in 1975-76.
  3. Have economical methods of generating electric power from solar energy been developed in any country.
  4. Is research into this problem being conducted overseas.
  5. If so, is Australia contributing to that research.
Mr Connor:
ALP

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

I am advised that:

The capacity of solar collectors installed in Australia for water heating and similar purposes amounts to less than 0.0 1 per cent of total primary energy needs.

In addition to this, an unknown amount of solar energy is being used for processes such as the drying of tree and vine fruits and the production of salt.

A complete answer to the question is not possible because of difficulties in defining the limits of solar energy research, and because of the mechanism by which some of the research funds are allocated. Australian Government spending on solar energy research is, however, mainly channelled through the CSIRO. Approximately $684,000 has been allocated to the CSIRO ‘s solar energy research programme for 1975-76.

In addition the solar energy research programmes of the universities are supported by Australian Government funds from sources such as the Australian Research Grants Committee. The Committee has not yet announced the projects to be supported in 1976. The magnitude of the sums spent in this way can be gauged from the fact that $127,000 was allocated by the Committee for these purposes in 1 975.

Electric power may be generated economically by utilising solar energy in exceptional situations, such as remote telecommunication stations, where conventional power sources are not available. Packaged units for such purposes are obtainable commercially. No economical method of utilising solar energy for large scale electric power production has as yet been developed.

The United States has instituted large research programs aimed at the development of economic methods of electric power using solar energy.

Australia is contributing to research into the production of electric power by the conversion of solar energy through studies of heat absorbing surfaces, of heat storage methods, and of direct conversion techniques. In addition, studies of solar biological processes aimed at the production of fuel are pertinent, since fuel so produced could be used to power conventional power stations. (Question No. 2969)

Mr Hunt:

asked the Minister for Environment upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Has he made any recommendations on the granting or withholding of export licences for woodchips from the South Western forests of Western Australia.
  2. Has it been represented to him that certain areas, notably the Shannon River Basin, should be preserved as National Parks.
  3. Has he had discussion on this matter with the Western Australian Government either directly or through officers of his Department.
Mr Berinson:
Minister for Environment · PERTH, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

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

  1. 1 ) A number of environmental protection measures were attached to the export approval granted to the Manjimup project in August 1973. The requirements then imposed by the Australian Government are being complied with and there has been no occasion for me to recommend the granting or withholding of export approvals for woodchips in Western Australia, because no applications have been received since that time.
  2. Yes.
  3. Yes. I inspected the Manjimup woodchip area on 24 and 25 September 1975 in the company of the Honourable T. V. Jones, Minister for Conservation and Environment and Mr Bruce Beggs, Conservator of Forests for Western Australia.

The preservation of the Shannon Basin was discussed with these Western Australian Government representatives. Our discussion was the subject of a press release issued in Perth on 26 September 1975 in which I welcomed the assurance by the Western Australian Forest Department that it would urgently re-evaluate its existing cutting programme and outline alternative measures which would be involved in preserving the remainder of the Shannon Basin.

I shall forward a copy of the press release to the Honourable Member separately.

Water Resources Management (Question No. 2976)

Mr Lloyd:

asked the Minister for Environment upon notice:

  1. Has the Department received a submission from the State Rivers and Water Supply of Victoria entitled ‘Salinity Control and Drainage- A strategy for Northern Victorian Irrigation and River Murray quality’.

    1. If so, what procedure will be followed for its assessment.
Mr Berinson:
ALP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. The submission will be considered for Australian Government financial assistance in terms of the objectives set down in the Government’s policy statement, A national approach to water resources management, which was tabled in Parliament on 10 October 1973. Procedures currently being adopted for the implementation of a National Water Program, one of the objectives of the policy statement, provide for the submission of proposals for financial assistance by each State in the context of that State’s total program of works in the water field covering the next five to ten years. The assessment of projects is undertaken within the framework of an Interdepartmental committee and in collaboration with the relevant State authorities. The Victorian submission will be assessed as part of the Victorian program. The submission has also been referred to the Salinity Committee of the River Murray Working Party for detailed evaluation.

Anti-Smoking Campaign (Question No. 2984)

Mr Lloyd:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) How was the $500,000 per year anti-smoking money spent in each of the 3 years of the campaign.
  2. Why has the amount been reduced to $100,000 for 1975-76, and how will it be spent.
  3. Has there been any evaluation of the expenditure to date; if so, what lessons have been learnt, and results achieved.
Dr Everingham:
ALP

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

  1. (a) In each of the three years of the campaign, Australian Government projects were funded in conjunction with State Government activities in anti-smoking education. The funds involved were:

    1. The allocation of these funds was rationalised by the Advisory Committee on Smoking Education to co-ordinate projects and avoid duplication. Amongst the projects funded were:

An intensive advertising campaign using the broadcast media, the press and notices in public transport to warn people of the health hazards of smoking.

Wide coverage in the printed media aimed at the late thirties to early fifties age group and persons in parental situations.

A Children’s Anti-Smoking Advertisement Contest aimed at the 9-14 year olds was intended to dissuade children from smoking, by the use of discovery-learning techniques.

  1. The National Warning Against Smoking was funded for the triennium concluding on 30th June, 1975 and the Australian Government decided not to fund it in 1975-76, apart from commitments already made. $25,000 has been made available for distribution to State Governments and $75,000 is required to meet commitments on the Children’s Anti-Smoking Advertisement Contest.
  2. Surveys have been conducted during the course of the campaign and it is intended that there should be a thorough evaluation of the overall campaign before commiting to further policies in this area. The surveys show an increasing percentage of non-smokers; 60.5% in August, 1972, 61.0% in January, 1974 and 61.6% in July, 1974. However, within this general increasing percentage of non-smokers, discontinuing smokers in the older age groups are offset by large numbers ‘of schoolchildren smokers and women smokers who are acquiring the habit.

Immigrants from Chile: Limitation on Political Activities (Question No. 3010)

Mr Hunt:

asked the Minister for Labor and Immigration, upon notice:

Has any limitation been placed on political activities of immigrants from Chile who supported the Allende Government, similar to those imposed on immigrants who supported the former South Vietnamese Government; if not, why not.

Mr Riordan:
ALP

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

The requirement for a few members of the South Vietnamese regime who sought political asylum in Australia to undertake not to engage in political activity or to allow themselves to be exploited in political activity arose because there are people both within the Parliament and outside who would try to exacerbate division in the community in the light of the situation that developed in Vietnam. Similar circumstances do not apply in respect of persons from Chile.

Health Centre: Hindmarsh (Question No. 3017)

Mr Lloyd:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

  1. Has his attention been drawn to the difficulties faced by the Adelaide Women’s Health Collective in setting up a health centre at Hindmarsh, South Australia.
  2. How much finance was approved for the Adelaide Women’s Health Collective by his Department and the South Australian Department of Health in November 1974.
  3. How much of this money had actually been allocated as at 30 August 1975.
  4. Has his attention been drawn to any difficulties encountered by the Collective because of delays in receiving finance.
Dr Everingham:
ALP

-The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: (1)1 understand that there have been difficulties involved in the establishment of the Adelaide Women’s Health Collective Centre in a permanent building in Hindmarsh.

The Centre is currently operating on a limited basis from temporary premises. The proposal involves establishing a permanent centre in a rented two-storey building.

I am informed that the delays in establishing the permanent centre have been largely related to the Collective’s organisation and the necessity for compliance with State regulations concerning the expenditure of, and accounting for, public monies. In this regard, the honourable member will be aware that the centre is being funded through the relevant State health authority, namely, the South Australian Hospitals Department.

Other factors contributing to the lack of progress in the establishment of the permanent centre were difficulties in locating adequate available accommodation, the protracted negotiations with the owner of the property and difficulties experienced by the Collective in arranging for renovations and additions to the proposed permanent centre.

  1. In respect of 1974-75, approved allocations to this centre were as follows:

Australian South Australian

Government Government Total

$ $ $

43,215 7,880 51,095

  1. To 3 1 August 1 975, payments advanced to this centre, and expended, totalled $ 1 5,786.
  2. As indicated above, I am informed that some difficulties were encountered by the Collective arising out of the necessity for compliance with State Government regulations before payments could be made to the Collective for this project. However, I am informed that renovations of the proposed permanent centre are now in progress and that, following a recent meeting between representatives of the Collective and the Hospitals Department, a monthly advance payment and recoup system of funding has been introduced. I understand that this system is acceptable to the Collective.

I should add that my Department has been active in seeking to resolve problems associated with the flow of funds to this project. In May 1975, it initiated discussions involving representatives of the Collective and officers of the South Australian Hospitals Department, the Hospitals and Health Services Commission and my Department. It also arranged for contact to be made with the Collective by an officer of the women ‘s affairs section of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, as well as many direct contacts between officers of my Department and the South Australian Hospitals Department. ‘ Department of Minerals and Energy: Expenditure (Question No. 3027)

Mr Wentworth:

worth asked the Minister for Minerals and Energy, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) What amount was expended by his Department under the Petroleum and Minerals Authority Act in each calendar month during 1974-75.
  2. On what objects or projects was expenditure incurred under the Petroleum and Minerals Authority Act during 1 974-75, and how much was expended on each of them.
Mr Connor:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) The amount expended under the Petroleum and Minerals Authority Act 1973 during 1974-75. was $6,372,213. The further breakdown of this amount by each calendar month during 1974-75 is a matter of financial detail upon which the former Petroleum and Minerals Authority was neither required nor expected to report
  2. This question relates to matters of detail in the management of the Authority’s operations upon which the

Petroleum and Minerals Authority was neither required nor expected to report

Health Transport Working Party (Question No. 3037)

Mr Lloyd:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

When will the report of the Health Transport Working Party be made public.

Dr Everingham:
ALP

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

The Hospitals and Health Services Commission set up by this Government established a Working Party to examine patient transport and mobile health services. The Working Party has an Advisory Committee representing the N.S.W. Ambulance Board, the Victorian Civil Ambulance Service, the Australian Council for the Rehabilitation of the Disabled and the Australian Departments of Transport and Social Security.

A discussion document entitled “Health Transport Policies for the 1970 ‘s and 1980 ‘s” has been distributed by the Working Party for comment by interested authorities, organisations and individuals. The Working Party will analyse the comments and draft a report for the Commission. I anticipate tabling the report later during the Budget session.

Artificial Kidney Machine (Question No: 3038)

Mr Lloyd:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

  1. Has the Department investigated a new type of artificial kidney machine developed in Japan.
  2. If so, is it smaller, cheaper and more efficient than those presently available in Australia.
  3. 3 ) What plans are there for its use in Australia.
Dr Everingham:
ALP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: ( 1 )-(3) Enquiries have been made following press reports about a new type of artificial kidney machine developed in Japan. It would appear that the reports were not referring to an artificial kidney machine as a whole (which includes a blood pump, various gauges and other ancillary equipment) but only to the dialyser ( artificial kidney).

A dialyser has been produced by ASAHI Medical Company in Japan but it is neither smaller nor more suitable than those available in Australia. Its cost at $70 is considerably higher than that of disposable dialysers currently marketed in Australia.

I am unaware of any plans to market the Japanese product in Australia.

Coronary Heart Disease (Question No. 3039)

Mr Lloyd:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Have he and the Department studied a report on coronary hean disease just completed by a Berkley team headed by Dr Michael Marmot.
  2. If so, does this research team, by studying the lifestyles of Japanese-Americans, indicate that lifestyle is more important than diet in the incidence of coronary heart diease
  3. Do he and the Department consider this report significant; if not, why not.
Dr Everingham:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) No. I have asked my Department to obtain a copy of the report for detailed examination.
  2. and (3) See (1).

Reply to Letter (Question No. 3054)

Mr Bourchier:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

Would he please answer my letter dated 25 June 1 975.

Dr Everingham:
ALP

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

The honourable member’s letter has been answered.

Development of Uranium Enrichment Plant (Question No. 3078)

Mr Snedden:
BRUCE, VICTORIA

asked the Minister for Minerals and Energy, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Further to Question No. 2 1 5 concerning the feasibility studies into the development of a uranium enrichment plant in Australia, which Departments of the Australian Government are involved in studying this development.
  2. What are the terms of reference of the study in which Japan and Australia are co-operating.
  3. What is the expected date of completion of this study.
Mr Connor:
ALP

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

  1. The Australian Atomic Energy Commission and the Department of Minerals and Energy.
  2. See answer to Question No. 215.
  3. Our aim is to have a report completed within six months.

Department of Repatriation and Compensation (Question No. 2041)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Repatriation and Compensation, upon notice:

When will the Minister answer my question No. 1560 which first appeared on the Notice Paper on 13 November 1974.

Mr Stewart:
ALP

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

I refer the right honourable member to my answer to question No. 1560 which appeared in Hansard on 30 September 1975, pages 1482-3.

Department of Repatriation and Compensation: Publications (Question No. 2042)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Repatriation and Compensation, upon notice:

When will the Minister answer my question No. 1589 which first appeared on the Notice Paper on 13 November 1974.

Mr Stewart:
ALP

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

I refer the right honourable member to my answer to question No. 1589 which appeared in Hansard on 30 September 1975, page 1455.

Ministerial Travel Overseas (Question No. 2512)

Mr Hunt:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. Did he state in answer to Question No. 2180 that expenditure is brought to account for overseas travel by Ministers and personal staff in Appropriation Bill (No. 1 ).
  2. If so, is it a fact that detailed costs of these visits were not provided in Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1974-75.
  3. Will he provide the detailed costs for his own visits shown as $137,939 in Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1974-75.
  4. Will he also provide the detailed costs of all other overseas visits as shown in the schedule in Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1974-75.
Mr Whitlam:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) Yes. (Hansard, 4 March 1975, page 103 1 ).
  2. Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1974-75 showed expenditure brought to account in 1973-74 for overseas travel by each Minister and his personal staff in each of the calendar years 1971, 1972, 1973 and 1974.
  3. and (4) The answers provided to Question No. 2180 and related questions are similar to those provided when the honourable member’s party shared government (e.g. Hansard, 23 May 1972, page 2938).

Australian Airlines: Non-smoking Seating (Question No. 2894)

Mr Lloyd:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

  1. Are the new non-smoking seating arrangements on Australian internal air services satisfactory; if not, what action does he propose.
  2. Is the percentage of non-smoking seats on Australian internal air services still lower than in other countries.
  3. Is it a fact that the first class non-smoking section on DC9 ‘s and 727 ‘s is now less satisfactory than before because the first row has reverted to smoking and the non-smoking passenger is surrounded by smoke ‘.
Dr Everingham:
ALP

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

  1. In my view, the only satisfactory situation would be one where no passenger on Australian domestic aircraft wished to smoke and no seating provision need be made for smokers. We have not yet attained that goal, but I regard the new non-smoking seating arrangements as a significant improvement on the previous arrangements. The airline companies have been most co-operative in increasing the area of non-smoking seating and have agreed to review and adjust the seating arrangements in the light of experience.
  2. 1 understand that the percentage of non-smoking seats on Australian internal aircraft, currently about 30 per cent, is comparable with general airline practice throughout the world.
  3. The smoking and non-smoking seating arrangements differ according to the type of aircraft and the airline concerned. For example, one company provides non-smoking seats on the left hand side of the aircraft only and the other major airline has these seats allocated on both sides of the aisle. In some instances the first row is allocated to smokers, but in other aircraft the non-smoking area includes the first row on the left hand side.

As I have already indicated the only arrangement which would, in my opinion, be completely satisfactory, is one where there are no seats at all in which smoking is permitted.

I note that a similar question has been directed to my colleague the Minister for Transport.

Medibank (Question No. 3077)

Mr O’Keefe:
PATERSON, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) What sessional fee is being paid to doctors in Canberra for hospital service under Medibank.
  2. What sessional fee was offered to doctors in New South Wales under Medibank.
  3. What is the total cost of National Health Insurance, and how much of this is the cost of administration.
  4. What is the cost of dispensing in Government Health Centres.
  5. Is it a fact that one was closed because of excessive costs, and that the other is, or was, costing at least SO per cent more per prescription to operate than is being paid to chemists for the same service.
Dr Everingham:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) The sessional fees being paid to doctors in Canberra are those provided in the determination handed down by Mr C. J. Bannon, Q.C., on 6 June 1975.
  2. and (3) The information required for these parts will be made available by my colleague the Minister for Social Security.
  3. This information is presently being taken out by the Capital Territory Health Commission.
  4. It is not a fact that any have been closed in the Australian Capital Territory and the details of comparative costs are currently being investigated. I will be pleased to make the results available as soon as the investigations are complete.

CSIRO Computer Network (Question No. 3094)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Science and Consumer Affairs, upon notice:

  1. Further to question No. 2836 and part (4) of his answer to the question concerning the CSIRO ‘s computer network, which State Government departments and intrumentalities use the CSIRO, and which commercial users have used the CSIRO computer network.
  2. On what basis were the facilities made available to such organisations in each instance.
Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

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

I am advised that:

The following State Government departments and municipalities are current users of the CSIRO computing network:

The N.S. W. Department of Agriculture The Health Commission of N.S.W. The Australian Museum The N.S.W. State Fisheries Department The Queensland Irrigation and Water Supply Commission

The Queensland Department of Local Government The Queensland Department of Primary Industries The Queensland Department of Forestry The Tasmanian Department of Agriculture The Tasmanian Department of Public Works The Tasmanian Lands Department The Victorian Ministry for Conservation The Melbourne Metropolitan Board of Works The Forests Commission of Victoria The Soil Conservation Authority of Victoria The Victorian Department of Agriculture The Water Conservation and Irrigation Commission of Victoria.

Commercial users since August 1973, when the existing central computer was commissioned, are as follows:

Australian Newsprint Mills Ltd Coffey and Hollingsworth Pty Ltd Datacard Australia Pty Ltd Merck Sharp Dohme Pty Ltd

Union Miniere Development and Mining Corporation Ltd Control Data Australia Ltd.

  1. The CSIRO network may be used by any State Government department of instrumentality for scientific computing; such users pay a surcharge of SO per cent relative to Australian Government departments and authorities.

In the case of commercial organizations, the network is available only if (i) special purpose programs not otherwise available are in use or (ii) the required computing cannot reasonably be carried out on other equipment within Australia, either through lack of computing capacity or special purpose equipment.

Commercial organizations pay three times the charges applicable to Australian Government departments and it is believed that such charges are equivalent to those that would be charged commercially if a service existed.

Safety (Question No. 3123)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Repatriation and Compensation, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Which sections of the Department of Repatriation and Compensation are concerned with aspects of safety.
  2. What is the nature of the involvement in this area, and how many officers are involved.
Mr Stewart:
ALP

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

I refer the right honourable member to the Prime Minister’s answer to Question No. 3110 which appeared in Hansard 1 October 1975, page 1598.

Safety (Question No. 3134)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice:

  1. Which sections of his Department are concerned with aspects of safety.
  2. What is the nature of the involvement in this area, and how many officers are involved.
Mr Morrison:
ALP

– The answer to the right honourable member’s question is as follows: ( 1 and 2)1 refer the right honourable member to the Prime Minister’s reply to Question No. 3110 (Hansard, page 1598 of 1 October 1975).

Delmont Private Hospital (Question No. 3154)

Mr Bourchier:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

  1. Does the Medical Services Adviser, Dr L. H. R. Drew of the Drugs of Dependence Section of the Australian Department of Health, also operate, in partnership with 2 other doctors in Melbourne, a private hospital known as the Delmont Private Hospital.
  2. If so, does this private hospital deal in alcohol and drug related cases, and is it a fact that Dr Drew’s special function with the Department of Health also relates to these matters.
  3. What money does this hospital receive either directly or indirectly from the Australian Government.
  4. Is the Delmont Private Hospital a registered private hospital or nursing home.
  5. ) Can he say whether it is a commercial concern.
  6. What are the terms of Dr Drew’s appointment with the Department of Health, what is his salary, and what is his history and current status with the Delmont Private Hospital.
  7. How does Dr Drew’s advertised private practice relate to Public Service Regulations.
  8. Can he say whether Dr J. R. Moon, who is listed in partnership with Dr Drew, is the President of the Australian Foundation for Alcoholism and Drug Dependence (AFADD)
  9. What moneys does AFADD receive from the Australian Government, and what honoraria, fees expenses, or other payments does Dr Moon receive by reason of his AFADD position.
Dr Everingham:
ALP

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

  1. No.
  2. The hospital specified does deal, in large pan, with alcohol and other drug related cases. Dr Drew ‘s special function with the Department of Health also relates to these matters.
  3. The hospital is operated along the same lines, and with the same financial arrangements, as any other private acute medical hospital. It operates within Medibank.
  4. The Delmont Private Hospital is registered in Victoria as an acute medical hospital.
  5. 5 ) It is a commercial concern.
  6. Dr Drew is a Medical Services Adviser with the Department of Health, his salary is $21,681, and he was previously a psychiatrist, in private practice in Melbourne, who used the facilities of Delmont Hospital for the treatment of some of his patients. He had, at no time, any financial interest in Delmont Hospital.
  7. Dr Drew left private practice to enter the Public Service and is not engaged in any private practice.
  8. Dr J. R. Moon, with whom Dr Drew was in partnership, is the President of the Australian Foundation for Alcoholism and Drug Dependence (AFADD)
  9. AFADD has this year, in 1975-76, been allocated $154,350 for its operations as a national body responsible to encourage and co-ordinate the development of voluntary agency activity related to alcohol and drugs throughout Australia. Dr Moon receives a quarterly presidential expenses allowance of $125 plus travelling and accommodation expenses, and $ 10 per day personal allowance, for attendance at Board meetings and other official functions.

Research on Federal Financial Relations: Australian National University (Question No. 2826)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Can he say what is the membership of the Centre for Research on Federal Financial Relations at the Australian National University.
  2. What is the membership of the Research Advisory Committee.
  3. What reports have been produced and on what topics.
  4. When were they produced.
  5. How many copies of each report have been distributed.
  6. Who decides the distribution of each report
  7. To whom have they been distributed to date.
  8. What is the total working budget for the Centre.
  9. From whom does it receive its working funds.
Mr Whitlam:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) Yes- the membership of the Centre for Research on Federal Financial Relations is as follows:

Director- Professor R. L. Mathews, B.Com. (Melb.). Deputy Director-Mr W. R. C. Jay, B.A., B.Com. (Qld ). Research Fellow- Vacant- new appointment under consideration. Research Assistant- Vacant. Secretary- Mrs V. J. Murray.

In addition the Centre has a number of Visiting Fellows in residence for varying periods during the year. In 1975 these - included:

Emeritus Professor W. Prest- University of Melbourne. Professor D. G. Davies- Duke University. Professor R. H. Leach-Duke University . Professor R. M. Burns- Queen’s University at Kingston. Professor C. P. Harris- James Cook University of North Queensland.

Mr J. Shannon. Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations, Washington, D.C.

  1. The membership of the Research Advisory Committee is as follows:

Professor Sir John Crawford, C.B.E. (Chairman)Emeritus Professor, The Australian National University.

Professor B. R. Williams (Deputy Chairman)ViceChancellor and Principal, The University of Sydney.

Sir Charles Barton, O.B.E., E.D.- CoordinatorGeneral, Queensland .

Mr K. J. Binns, C.M.G. Under Treasurer, Tasmanian Treasury.

Sir Ernest Coates, C.M.G. Director of Finance, Victorian Treasury.

Hon. Mr Justice R. Else Mitchell Chairman, Grants Commission.

Professor R. C. Gates- Professor of Economics, University of Queensland.

Professor R. F. Henderson- Director, Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, University of Melbourne.

Professor R. L. Mathews- Director, Centre for Research on Federal Financial Relations, The Australian National University.

Sir Leslie Melville, K.B.E.- Honorary Fellow, The Australian National University.

Professor R. S. Parker, M.B.E. -Professor of Political Science, The Australian National University.

Mr A. R. G. Prowse- First Assistant Secretary, Revenue, Loans and Investment Division, Australian Treasury.

Mr A. M. Ramsay, C.B.E.- General Manager, South Australian Housing Trust.

Sir Richard Randall- Honorary Fellow, The Australian National University.

Professor G. Sawer- Professor of Law, The Australian National University.

Professor R. D. Terrell- Dean, Faculty of Economics, The Australian National University.

Mr A. N. Walls. Commissioner, Grants Commission. Note: Mr K. J. Townsing, C.M.G., I.S.O., Under Treasurer, Western Australian Treasury until 30 June 1975, subsequently resigned from the Committee following his retirement.

  1. and (4) The publications which have been produced by the Centre are especially concerned with intergovernmental financial relations- including the problems of local government. Local government was specifically included in the Centre’s field of research at my urging (Hansard, 7 March 1972, page 587).

A complete list of books, reports, research monographs and reprints to end-August 1975 showing the year of publication is as follows:

page 1809

BOOKS

page 1809

ANNUAL REPORT

1973 Report, Centre for Research on Federal Financial Relations, Canberra, 1974, pp. 1-12. 1974 Report and Review of Fiscal Federalism in Australia, Centre for Research on Federal Financial Relations, Canberra, 1975, pp. 1-47.

page 1809

RESEARCH MONOGRAPHS

No. 1 J. E. RICHARDSON, Patterns of Australian Federalism, Distributed by ANU Press, Canberra, 1973, pp. x+ 142 ($4.00).

No. 2 J. S. H. HUNTER, Revenue Sharing in the Federal Republic of Germany, Distributed by ANU Press, Canberra, 1973,pp.xi+116($3.00).

No. 3 B. S. GREWAL Fiscal Federalism in India, Distributed by ANU Press, Canberra, 1974, pp. xi+116 ($3.50).

No. 4 R. L. MATHEWS (ed.), Fiscal Equalisation in a Federal System, Distributed by ANU Press, Canberra, 1 974, pp.xiii+ 142 ($4.00).

No. 5 R. L. MATHEWS and W. R. C. JAY, Measures of Fiscal Effort and Fiscal Capacity in Relation to Australian State Road Finance, Distributed by ANU Press, Canberra, 1974, pp. xii+ 79 ($4.00).

No. 6 R. S. GILBERT, The Future of the Australian Loan Council with an Annotation of the Financial Agreement 1927-1966, Distributed by ANU Press, Canberra, 1974 pp. xi+218($6.50).

No. 7 R. L. MATHEWS (ed.), Fiscal Federalism: Retrospect and Prospect, Distributed by ANU Press, Canberra, 1974,pp.xxiii+228($5.00).

No. 8 R. L. MATHEWS (ed.), Responsibility Sharing in a Federal System, Distributed by ANU Press, Canberra, 1 975, pp.xiv+214($5.00)

No. 9 C. P. HARRIS, The Classification of Australian Local Authorities, Distributed by ANU Press, Canberra, 1 975, pp. xiii + 127 ($4.00).

No. 10 B. P. HERBER Fiscal Federalism in the United States of America, Distributed by ANU Press, Canberra, 1975,pp.xiii+ 121 ($5.00).

No. 1 1 M. H. SPROULE-JONES Public Choice and Federalism in Australia and Canada, Distributed by ANU Press, Canberra, 1975, pp. x+ 103 ($5.00).

page 1809

REPRINT SERIES

No. 1 R. L. MATHEWS, ‘The Future of Government Finance’, Public Administration (Sydney), Vol. XXXII, No. 2 June, 1973.

No. 2 R. L. MATHEWS, ‘Patterns of Educational Finance’, Australian Economic Papers, Vol. 12, No. 21, December, 1973.

No. 3 C. P. HARRIS, ‘Social Planning and Regionalism in Australia’, Proceedings of the Royal Australian Planning Institute (Queensland Division) 1974 Country Seminar, Cairns, July, 1974.

No. 4 J. S. H. HUNTER, ‘Vertical Intergovernmental Financial Imbalance: A Framework of Evaluation’, Finanzarchiv, Vol. 32,No. 3, 1974.

No. 5 R. L. MATHEWS, ‘Fiscal Equalization for Local Government’, The Economic Record, Vol. 50, No. 131, September 1974.

Members of Research Advisory Committee. Members of Australian National University Working Group.

Members of interest groups in Melbourne, Brisbane, Hobart and Adelaide.

Staff at Australian universities and colleges of advanced education.

Parliament- Members of Federal Parliament, including the Opposition’s Committee on the Economy, as requested and all Federal Cabinet Ministers; Members of

State Parliaments and State Cabinet Ministers as requested; Libraries and officials.

All Australian Government departments.

State Government departments.

Local government.

Constitutional Convention.

Press.

Libraries- Universities and colleges; Other. Overseas.

In addition, copies of the Centre’s research monographs are sold through the Australian National University Press. , Sales to end- July 1975 total 4045 copies. (Any net income accruing to the Centre from the sale of publications is used to offset printing and publication costs.)

Under the agreement the Australian Government accepts full responsibility for funding the Centre on the basis of a proposed budget of $66,000 (in terms of 1 972 cost levels).

The agreement also provides for a review of the grant according to agreed movements in costs and the adjustment to allow for these cost movements can only be made after the end of the financial year.

The 1975-76 Budget which was brought down on 19 .August by the Australian Government, provides for an appropriation of $128,700 for the Australian National University Centre for Research on Federal Financial Relations in 1975-76.

Department of Aboriginal Affairs: Grants (Question No. 1569)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice:

  1. What programs does his Department or statutory authorities under his control administer which enable individual groups or people in the community to apply for grants- from the Australian Government for a specific purpose.
  2. ) What is the name of each program.
  3. What is the purpose of each program.
  4. What are the conditions surrounding eligibility for a grant under each program.
  5. When did each program commence.
  6. What is the legal authority for the existence of each program.
  7. How is the community informed of the existence of each program and its entitlement to apply for a grant.
  8. How many applications for grants under each program have been received in each of the last 3 years or for the period of operation of the program if it has been in operation less than 3 years.
  9. Who decides which applications for grants should be accepted.
  10. What percentage of applications for grants under each program have been successful in each of the last 3 years or in each of the years in which the program has been operating if it has been in operation for less than 3 years.
  11. What proportion of total funds allocated under each program in each of the last 3 years, or in each year the program has been operating where it has been in operation for less than 3 years, have been allocated to individuals as against groups.
  12. 12) Are any attempts made to assess the extent to which the widest cross-section of the community is aware of the existence of the program, and the means by which applications can be submitted; if so, what attempts.
  13. What checks are made once applications are received for each program to determine if the attempts to widen access to the funds have been successful. ‘ (14) Is he confident that the widest cross-section of the community is aware of the existence of the programs, and is aware of the application process.
  14. What procedures exist to assess the use to which the grants are being put and to attempt some accountability for the money granted.
  15. What is the total amount that has been paid out under each program in each of the last 3 years or in each year of the operation of the program if it has been operating for less than 3 years. , ( 17) What is the total amount of money paid out for all such programs administered by his Department or authorities under his control.
  16. What attempts are made to ensure that the same individual organisations or persons do not receive several grants under different programs which he or other Ministers are responsible for and which, when added together, may be unwarranted.
Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– The answer to the right honourable member’s question is as follows: (1), (2), (3) and (5) The programs of assistance to Aboriginals administered by my Department were set out in the answer to Parliamentary Question No. 1757. They comprise grants through State governments under an annual States Grants (Aboriginal Assistance) Act, direct grants to Aboriginal organisations and communities under the Aboriginal Advancement Trust Account and other Departmental appropriations”, loans to both individuals and groups under the Aboriginal Loans Commission Act (previously the Aboriginal Enterprises Assistance Act 1968) and grants under the Aboriginal Land Fund Act.

Particulars of these programs of assistance are contained in the annual Second Reading Speech on the States Grants (Aboriginal Advancement) Bill as well as in the Annual Reports of the Capital Fund for Aboriginal Enterprises which were tabled in Parliament.

  1. Grants and loans under these programs are provided only where they are of direct benefit to Aboriginals.
  2. The legal authority for loans to Aboriginals is the Aboriginal Loans Commission Act; the authority for grants to Aboriginal communities for the purchase of land is the Aboriginal Land Fund Act. Direct grants to Aboriginal communities or groups for other purposes are authorised by the Appropriation Acts (No. 1 ) each year.
  3. Communities are informed of the existence of these programs by Regional and Area Officers of my Department and through publications of the Department.
  4. and (10) During the year 1974-75 approximately 1500 applications for grants were received from communities throughout Australia. 985 were approved, 16 were declined and the balance were under consideration at the close of the financial year.
  5. Until recently all decisions on applications for grants were made by the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. I have now delegated authority to senior departmental officers to determine applications for grants coming within the scope of programs previously approved by me.
  6. Grants are made available to communities or groups only; individuals are only eligible for loans from the Aboriginal Loans Commission.
  7. (13) and (14) Frequent contacts between departmental officers and Aboriginal communities ensure their awareness of the existence of these programs. I am satisfied that the programs of the Department are receiving adequate publicity among the Aboriginal communities.
  8. Following the re-organisation of the Department in 1974, procedures have been established for program management and project control which are intended to ensure that grants are being utilised for the purposes for which they are provided and that organisations receiving such grants account for them periodically.
  9. and (17) See answer to Parliamentary Question 1757.
  10. Applications are investigated, where necessary in consultation with other Australian Government Departments, to ensure that there is no overlap between assistance available from the Department of Aboriginal Affairs and from other Departments.

Aborigines: Grants (Question No. 1757)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice:

  1. Will he provide a list of all schemes under which grants for loans or any form of assistance is provided to Aborigines or Aboriginal groups.
  2. What is the purpose of each scheme.
  3. When did each scheme commence.
  4. What sum has been allocated under each scheme in each year of its operation.
  5. Who is responsible for deciding allocation of money under each scheme.
Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

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

  1. 1 ) Grants are available to Aboriginal communities and groups from funds voted to the Department of Aboriginal Affairs by the Parliament for a variety of purposes, including Welfare, Housing, Education, Health, Community Amenities, Aboriginal Land Fund Commission, Loans Commission and Legal Aid. Loans are available for Aboriginals in accordance with the provisions of the Aboriginal Loans Commission Act 1974; prior to 28 November 1974 loans were available in accordance with the Aboriginal Enterprises (Assistance) Act 1968.
  2. The purpose of grants made from each allocation is to provide funds for Aboriginal groups and communities to improve their capacity to manage their own affairs within the field envisaged by the allocation.

The purpose of loans provided by the Aboriginal Loans Commission is to enable Aborigines to engage in business enterprises that are likely to become, or continue to be, successful or in the case of housing and personal loans to assist Aborigines and their spouses to obtain a house, housing land and various essential personal items, such as basic furniture.

  1. and (4)-

Notes

  1. Grants under the headings of Welfare, Housing, Education, Health and Legal Aid commenced in 1968-69. Loans were available from 1968 under the Aboriginal Enterprises (Assistance) Act of that year and later through the Aboriginal Loans Commission established 1974.
  2. The Aboriginal Land Fund Act 1974 which established the Aboriginal Land Fund Commission was assented to on 17 December 1974 and the appointment of Commissioners received Executive Council approval on 25 May 1975. Prior to the setting up of the Commission, land acquisition was funded in 1973-74 and 1974-75 from the Aboriginal Advancement Trust Account.
  3. Allocations only.

  4. Figures prior to 1975-76 relate to the Aboriginal Enterprises Fund. This Fund has been allocated $500,000 for 1975-76. $ 10m is expected to be utilised under the Aboriginal Housing and Personal Loan Fund during 1975-76.

    1. 5 ) Until recently virtually all approvals were made by the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. I have, however, delegated authority to Senior Departmental officers to approve the payment of grants within certain programmed items. Approval of loans from the Aboriginal Loans Commission is the responsibility of the Commission.

Judges: Rank and Status (Question No. 2407)

Mr Enderby:
ALP

– The following information is supplementary to that contained in my answer on 19 August 1975 (Hansard page 229) to Mr Hodges and follows the granting of Royal Assent to the Grants Commission Act 1975 on 19 June 1975:

Pursuant to section 6A of the Grants Commission Act 1973-1975 the Chairman of the Australian Grants Commission, Mr Justice R. Else-Mitchell has the rank and status of a Judge of the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory. Prior to his appointment, Mr Justice Else-Mitchell was a Judge of the New South Wales Supreme Court.

Legal Aid (Question No. 2495)

Mr Ruddock:

asked the Attorney-General, upon notice:

  1. What was inadequate about the service of the Postmaster-General’s Department that required a quantity of Legal Aid Office advertisements, i.e., Women’s Weekly lift-out items, to be delivered to my office at Parramatta by Kwikasair Pty Ltd.
  2. What fee was paid to Kwikasair Pty Ltd.
  3. 3 ) What would be the comparative parcel post charge.
  4. In what manner were similar parcels dispatched to all other Members, and at what cost.
Mr Enderby:
ALP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: ( 1 ), (2) and (3) The use of Kwikasair Pty Ltd as the delivery medium for the Women’s Weekly lift-out ‘Legal Aid’ booklets about the Australian Legal Aid Office was determined by the contractor, Conpress Pty Ltd, with whom a contract for production and distribution of the booklets was arranged. The fee paid to Kwikasair Pty Ltd is a matter between the major contractor, Conpress Pty Ltd, and its subcontractor. The amount involved is not known to my Department.

  1. Parcels were dispatched to all other Members in the same manner.

Departmental Reports (Question No. 2591)

Mr Kerin:

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

  1. What reports, excluding annual reports, have been produced by the Department of Foreign Affairs, 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 1 972.
  2. Which of these reports have not been published, and when does the Minister expect them to be published.
Mr Whitlam:
ALP

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

In answer to the honourable member’s question I draw his attention to the reply by the Prime Minister to question 2586 (Hansard, 5 June, page 3545).

The Department of Foreign Affairs’ annual report, which was discontinued by an earlier Minister (Hansard, 28

October 1970, page 2927), was reintroduced by me (Senate Hansard, 28 May 1975, page 1909).

Department of the Media: Grants (Question No. 2683)

Mr Lamb:
LA TROBE, VICTORIA

asked the Minister for the Media, 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.
Dr Cass:
Minister for the Media · MARIBYRNONG, VICTORIA · ALP

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

  1. Nil.
  2. Does not apply.
  3. Does not apply.

Department of the Media: Grants (Question No. 2768)

Mr Ruddock:

asked the Minister for the Media, upon notice:

  1. With reference to question No. 2683 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.
Dr Cass:
ALP

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

  1. Nil.
  2. Does not apply.

Attorney General’s Department: Grants (Question 2781)

Mr Ruddock:

asked the Attorney-General, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) With reference to question No. 2696 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 Enderby:
ALP

– The honourable member is referred to my answer to question No. 2696.

Public Service: Growth in employment and cost of accommodation and furniture (Question No. 2822)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister representing the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister in matters relating to the Public Service, upon notice:

  1. What is the estimated cost of providing office accommodation and furniture for every new public servant appointed to the Public Service.
  2. What was the growth in employment in the Public Service in the last 12 months.
  3. What was the growth in terms of cost of office accommodation and furniture that accompanied this growth in employment.
  4. What was the growth in the costs of salary, office accommodation and general costs associated with a new employee that accompanied this growth in employment.
Mr Riordan:
ALP

– The Minister Assisting the Prime Minister in matters relating to the Public Service has provided the following information for answer to the right honourable member’s question:

  1. 1 ) I am informed that it is not feasible to attempt to calculate the estimated cost of providing office accommodation and furniture for all new public servants appointed to the Australian Public Service because of the many variables involved.

In respect of office accommodation these include the differences in space allocation between the various levels in the Service; the significant differences in rental charges for leased accommodation in different areas; and the difficulty in devising a formula which could be applied to the acquisition or construction of new Australian Government buildings to calculate an estimate of cost applicable to new public servants.

Similarly, differences in price, quality and freight costs associated with the purchase of office furniture; the different furniture entitlements for the various levels in the Service; and also the usage of items of furniture on hand for new public servants preclude any meaningful estimation of cost per new public servant employed.

  1. The total number of staff employed under the Public Service Act, other than in the Departments of the Parliament, increased from 266 752 to 277 455 during the financial year 1974-75.
  2. The total cost of furniture and fittings, rent and the acquisition of sites and buildings for the Australian Government (excluding amounts spent under the Defence appropriation) increased from $64,324,807 in 1973-74 to $89,851,141 in 1974-75.
  3. The total wages bill for staff employed under the Public Service Act, other than in the Departments of the Parliament, increased from $1,700,805,000 in the 1973-74 financial year to $2,193,456,000 in the 1974-75 financial year. These figures include salaries and payments in the nature of salaries, e.g. overtime.

The major causes of the increase in the total wages bill were:

  1. application of National Wage Case increases occurring during the financial year,
  2. other pay increases awarded to Public Service Act staff, and
  3. growth in staff numbers.

It is not possible to identify more clearly the actual additional salary cost of every new employee appointed during the period.

Because of the many variables involved (see (1)) it is not possible accurately to equate the growth in costs of office accommodation and general costs associated with a new employee with the growth in employment.

The Right honourable member will be aware that the Government has imposed restraints on staff growth and administrative expenditure including the non-replacement of existing office furniture and fittings, during this financial year.

Welfare Education Consultant (Question No. 2839)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Education, upon notice:

  1. Is it a fact that the Minister for Social Security has appointed Ms Eva Learner to the Social Welfare Commission as a Welfare Education Consultant to provide advice on curriculum in the context of educational programs developed within institutes such as universities, colleges of advanced education and technical colleges, concerning training for social work.
  2. If so, is this the kind of activity that is being pursued by the Curriculum Development Committee also, and will he ensure that there is no doubling up of activities.
Mr Beazley:
ALP

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

  1. The Minister for Social Security has informed me that Ms Learner was appointed on 27 May 1975 as a consultant to the Social Welfare Commission. Her appointment is for a period of two years to establish whether there is a need for a body such as a National Council for Social Welfare Education in Australia to co-ordinate welfare education. If the need for such a body is established, Ms Learner will be asked to make recommendations concerning the structure, composition and functions of the body. Ms Learner has not been engaged to provide advice on the course content of education programs. I have written to the Minister for Social Security to request that Ms Learner consult with the appropriate education authorities.
  2. The kind of activity referred to in the question is not being pursued by the Curriculum Development Centre. The Centre’s chief concern is the development of curriculum and educational materials for use in schools.

Department of the Special Minister of State: Advertising Budget (Question No. 2863)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister representing the Special Minister of State, upon notice:

  1. What is the advertising budget of the Department of the Special Minister of State for 1 975-76.
  2. What types of advertising are entitled in expenditure of this amount.
  3. What were the corresponding figures for each of the last 5 years.
Mr Lionel Bowen:
ALP

– The Special Minister of State has provided me with the following information in answer to the right honourable member’s question:

  1. $298,800.

(2)

  1. staff recruitment
  2. advertising of hearings of Royal Commissions and Committees of Inquiry;

  3. public relations and information programs.

    1. the Department of the Special Minister of State was established on 19 December 1972 and expenditure since that date has been:

1972- 73-510,613;

1973- 74-$57,008;

1974- 75-$394,943.

Nursing Homes: Physiotherapy Services (Question No. 2890)

Mr Lloyd:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice:

  1. Has the Department of Social Security appointed a physiotherapist to advise on physiotherapy services in nursing homes.
  2. If so, who is the person and how is he carrying out his duties.
  3. What physiotherapy services are available at the present time, under what Australian Government programs and for what groups of people.
Mr Stewart:
ALP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. Ms Adrienne Mocatta. She is carrying out her duties satisfactorily.

  3. The Australian Government provides physiotherapy services free of charge to:

    1. Persons approved for assistance under the Australian Government Rehabilitation Service;
    2. Persons who qualify for such services under the provisions of the Repatriation Act.

Other areas in which the Australian Government is involved directly in the provision of physiotherapy services are:

Australian Capital Territory Health Services

A.C.T. public hospitals and certain health centres. There is also a mobile physiotherapy unit based at the Woden Hospital which provides a domiciliary physiotherapy service in the A.C.T. These services are provided free of charge.

Northern Territory

Larger Northern Territory public hospitals as a normal hospital service.

States Grants Para-Medical Services Act

This Act, administered by the Australian Department of Health, provides for a subsidy to the States on a $1 for $1 basis towards the cost of providing para-medical services wholly or mainly for aged persons in their own homes. The operation of this scheme which includes physiotherapy services is dependent upon State Government participation and at this stage only South Australia, Tasmania and Victoria have participated in the scheme.

Although in a less direct manner, the following areas of Australian Government involvement also promote the provision of physiotherapy services in the community.

Community Health Program

This program which is planned, co-ordinated and evaluated at the national level by the Department of Health and the Hospitals and Health Services Commission provides Australian Government assistance of up to 75 per cent of the capital cost and 90 per cent of operating costs of community based health projects which are endorsed by State Governments. While the nature of the approved projects vary some do include the provision of physiotherapy services. In a few cases 100 per cent funding is provided direct to community organisations in the States without State financial commitment.

Medibank Hospital Arrangements

Under the Medibank hospital arrangements public hospitals may at their own discretion provide a physiotherapy service to patients. Where such services are provided in participating States they must be free of charge to public ward patients. For private patients such services are covered by an all inclusive hospital fee without additional charge.

Expenditure on such services is included under the costsharing arrangements between the Australian Government and public hospitals. Hospitals may also provide a domiciliary physiotherapy service and, while the hospital is free to raise a charge for such a service any net operating costs may be included under the cost-sharing agreement of Medibank in participating States.

Nursing Homes Assistance Act

The Nursing Homes Assistance Act empowers the Australian Government to meet the net operating deficits of nursing homes conducted by religious and charitable organisations which have been approved for that purpose and which enter into an agreement with the Australian Government under the Act.

The deficit financing arrangements may extend to certain approved additional services carried on in association with the provision of nursing home care. These additional services may be likened to an outpatients service designed to enable people who otherwise would need to become inpatients, to continue living in their own homes.

In ensuring the financial security of religious and charitable nursing homes, the deficit financing arrangements act to encourage such nursing homes to improve and expand their services including such services as physiotherapy for elderly people.

Aborigines: Reserves and Leases (Question No. 2905)

Mr Hunt:

asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) What is the total area of the Northern Territory.
  2. What is the total area of Aboriginal Reserves in the Northern Territory.
  3. What is the area of pastoral leases that have been purchased by the Government for the Aborigines, and what area is now being negotiated.
  4. What area of the Northern Territory is now the subject of land claims by the Aboriginal tribes and clans outside the Reserves, and where are these claims situated.
Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

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

  1. 1 346 200 square km.
  2. 243 970 square km.

  3. (a) The area of pastoral leases that have been pur chased by the Government is 10 960 square km.

    1. The area of pastoral leases now being negotiated is 929 1 square km.

  4. (a) The area of the Northern Territory subject to land claims by Aboriginal groups at 9 September 1975 was approximately 36 468 square km.

    1. These claims are situated in the following locations:

Northern area of the Northern Territory

Bagot, Knuckey ‘s Lagoon, Tree Point, 2 urban hostel sites (Darwin), Adelaide River, (Catherine, Mataranka, Elliott, Pine Creek, Woolner, Alligator River System, Endyalgout Island (near Murganella), Roper River Mouth (Maria Island), Limmen River, Booroloola, Sir Edward Pellew Island, Nicholson River, Humpty Doo, Bamyili, St Vidgeon Station, Victoria River Downs Station ( Yarralin).

Southern Area of the Northern Territory

Charles River Border, camps around Alice Springs (Mt Nancy, Artists, Hume’s Pipes, Ilparpa), Tempe Downs and Middleton Ponds, Amaroo Station (Honeymoon Bore), Napperby Station, Rockhampton Downs, Supplejack Downs, Rabbit Flat, road from Hermannsburg to Areyonga, vacant block east side of Alice Springs, Vaughan Springs Station.

Attorney-General’s Department: Grants (Question 2696)

Mr Lamb:

asked the Attorney-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 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 Enderby:
ALP

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

  1. and (2) Non-repayable grants have been made available through the Attorney-General’s Department as follows: (a) Legal Aid-

These legal aid schemes and the State Governments have been made aware of the availability of the funds by letters from the Attorney-General of the time.

  1. Marriage Guidance-

In 1973-74 grants were distributed to State Governments on a per capita basis to supplement existing legal aid schemes. The majority of the money was in turn paid to law societies’ schemes although in some States a portion was applied to Governments’ schemes.

In 1974-75 $1,100,000 was similarly distributed on a per capita basis and a total of $381 ,000 was paid to the States of Victoria, South Australia, Western Australia and Tasmania to provide further assistance. A special grant of $36,000 was paid to the Law Society of Tasmania. A grant of $10,000 was paid to the Council for Civil Liberties of New South Wales and a grant of $23,000 was paid to the Fitzroy Legal Service in Victoria.

This financial assistance is made available to an applicant or his solicitor upon authorisation by the Attorney-General under the provisions of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904-1974.

  1. d) Australian Crime Prevention Council

1971-72 1972-73 1973-74 1974-75 2,500 2,500 2,500 28,000

This financial assistance is made available upon application by the Council. In 1974-75 the grant was increased to assist the Council in establishing a permanent Secretariat.

  1. I refer the honourable member to Part (3) of the reply by the Minister for Urban and Regional Development to Question No. 2691.

Alcohol Consumption (Question No. 2982)

Mr Lloyd:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Is it considered that there is any relationship between the cost of alcohol and its consumption beyond a certain point as a percentage of average weekly earnings.
  2. If so, what evidence from Australia or other countries is available to justify this relationship.
  3. 3 ) What is considered to be the best way to reduce excessive alcohol consumption.
Dr Everingham:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) Yes. There seems to be a rel ationship between the consumption of alcohol and its cost as related to average weekly earnings, e.g. as relative cost decreases so per capita consumption of alcohol increases, as also do alcohol-related problems.
  2. There is considerable evidence from Australia and other countries to substantiate these relationships. This evidence has recently been reviewed by Popham Schmidt and de Lint, of the Addiction Research Foundation, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

Evidence contained in the recently published ‘Report of the Standing Committee on the Health Problems of Alcohol of the National Health and Medical Research Council, April 1975’, and in a paper ‘Statistics of Alcohol’, prepared by the Central Statistical Unit, of my Department, 22 July 1974, gives further support to these conclusions so far as Australia is concerned. I will arrange for copies of these publications to be provided to the honourable member if he so wishes.

  1. The best way to reduce excessive alcohol consumption in Australia today is by using the following methods:

    1. Encouraging early recognition of the problem drinker and, having identified him, the approach should be therapeutic and not punitive. Attention should for instance be focused on the young drunken driver, people who present for medical treatment of alcohol-associated problems, and people who have problems at work because of their drinking.
    2. Changing the law so that all persons committing alcohol-related offences would be required to have counselling.
    3. Introducing a program in industry to identify the alcoholic and encourage him to accept treatment.
    4. Developing special education workshops in schools and the community which would outline the dangers and problems associated with the use of alcohol in the course of discussing those social customs, interhuman relationships and other problems which determine sensible or unwise use of alcohol, as well as the related problems of use of other drugs, sexual adjustment, academic, vocational and other matters of concern to youth, in a non-judgmental, non-directive atmosphere conducive to national group consensus on responsible group behaviour, with teachers and parents invited.
    5. Introducing other measures such as altering the impact of advertising, the use of high levels of excise to discourage consumption, and encouraging the work and activities of such organisations as the Australian Foundation for Alcoholism and Drug Dependency and Alcoholics Anonymous.

Appointments of Former Parliamentarians (Question No. 2993)

Mr Morris:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. How many former members of the (a) Liberal, (b) National Country Party or (c) Democratic Labor Party were appointed to an office of profit by the Australian Government between 1949 and 2 December 1972.
  2. What were their names.
  3. What was the nature of the benefits and payments.
  4. What was the amount of payment and benefit received by each person.
  5. For how long did each of them hold the office which entitled them to the benefits and payments.
  6. What are the names of those who still hold office and are in receipt of benefits from the Australian Government.
  7. Of those who were members of the Parliament, on what date did each of them cease to be a member.
Mr Whitlam:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) to (7) The Government does not know in each case the political affiliations of persons appointed to offices of profit by the Australian Government between 1949 and 2 December 1972.

I would, however, draw the honourable member’s attention to the answer I gave to a similar question on 9 April 1974 (Hansard, pages 1304-S), as it may provide some of the information he seeks.

Aborigines: Purchase of Properties (Question No. 3003)

Mr Hunt:

asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice:

  1. What provision is being made to provide funds for purchase of properties by Aborigines during the financial year 1975-76.
  2. What properties is it proposed to purchase with the funds sought.
Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

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

  1. The Government is making $2. 18m available to the Aboriginal Land Fund in the 1975-76 financial year. In addition, an amount of $2m is being provided in the Aboriginal Advancement Trust Account to complement the operations of the Land Fund for the purchase of stock, plant etc. and to provide operational funds.
  2. The Aboriginal Land Fund Commission is not empowered to acquire land or properties compulsorily and will need to rely on the availability of properties in the first instance and successful negotiations before it is able to acquire properties. It is not possible therefore to say which properties will be purchased during 1975-76.

Council for Aboriginal Affairs (Question No. 3004)

Mr Hunt:

asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice:

  1. What are the details of all expenditure by and in respect of the Council for Aboriginal Affairs, including remuneration of the Chairman and members and travelling expenses, during 1974-75.
  2. How many meetings did the Council hold during that period.
  3. How many times did the Council present advice to him during that period.
Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

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

  1. In 1974-75 the direct expenses paid by my Department were:

    1. Fares and travelling allowance …. 985.40
    2. Salary of Professor Stanner….. 14,037.53

In regard to the salaries of Dr Coombs and Mr Dexter see the reply to Question No. 2192.

There is not, and has never been, any expenditure by the Council as such.

  1. Thirteen meetings of a more or less formal nature, but the Council also held many informal meetings as well as developing numerous documents on the basis of drafts circulated between members.
  2. It would be impossible to give a precise figure, as the process was a relatively constant one involving not only the presentation of written advice but also discussions in informal circumstances, e.g. over a meal. Numbers of the Council’s recommendations were approved by Senator Cavanagh and myself for implementation. Some of the Council’s advice is published, for instance the Report on Yuendumu and Hooker Creek arising out of a visit in March 1974, which was tabled in Parliament on 15 August 1974. The Council has also recently presented me with a report on visits to Arnhem Land during the first half of 1975, and I have approved the recommendations in the report which is being published and will be shortly tabled in Parliament.

Aborigines: Housing (Question No. 3005)

Mr Hunt:

asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice.

What provision is being made to provide financial assistance to the Wreck Bay Aboriginal Housing Company by way of (a) grant and (b) loan during 1975-76.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

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

An amount of $300,000 has been programmed for assistance to the Wreck Bay Housing Company by way of grant in 1975-76. No provision has been made for a loan. A final determination of the grant to be provided will be made on the basis of firm proposals from the Company.

Aborigines: Ecological Projects Support (Question No. 3006)

Mr Hunt:

asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice:

What provision is being made to provide financial assistance to Aboriginal Islands Products Pty Ltd and Applied Ecology Pry Ltd by way of (a) grant and (b) loan during 1975-76.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

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

Provision has been made for ‘support for ecological projects’ in a sum of $900,000 in the 1975-76 Appropriation Bill. Grants will be made to Applied Ecology Pty Ltd out of this provision to meet its needs. Aboriginal and Islander Products Pty Ltd is being wound up. There is no provision for loans to Applied Ecology Pty Ltd during 1 975-76.

Aborigines: Ecological Projects Support (Question No. 3009)

Mr Hunt:

asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice:

Will he supply details of all payments from the vote ‘Other Services-Support for Ecological Projcts’ during 1974-75.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

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

The payments from the item ‘Other Services and Support for Ecological Projects’ in 1974-75 totalled $798,375.46. Payments of $160 and $125 were made in connection with the winding-up of the company, Aboriginal and Islander Products Pty Ltd. The remaining amount of $798,090.46 was released to Applied Ecology Pty Ltd in progress payments made in November 1974, February 1975 and June 1975 in accordance with the company’s approved budget and the level of actual expenditure from time to time.

VIP Cars (Question No. 3068)

Mr Garland:
CURTIN, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Is it the intention of the Government to have all the VIP cars painted white; if not, what exactly is the intention.
  2. Are 2 cars painted black to be retained at the request of the Department of Foreign Affairs; if not, what is the position..
  3. How many can are located at various places in Australia.
  4. What types are they.
  5. ) What colours are they painted.
Mr Daly:
Minister for Administrative Services · GRAYNDLER, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

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

The Department of Services and Property is responsible for Australian Government car transport in all States but not the A.C.T. or the Northern Territory.

1 ) With certain exceptions, it is intended that all VIP cars will be white in colour. This has been implemented progressively with the new Ford LTD sedans which came into service in 1974-75. The exceptions are some Rolls Royce, Daimler and Bentley cars which have been in the fleet for a number of years and also 2 Mercedes Benz saloons used by the Gc vernor-General and the Chief Justice of the High Court.

No.

3 ) There are 99 VIP cars under the control of this Department and they are located as follows:

Queensland 11; New South Wales 38; Victoria 26; South Australia 9; Western Australia 11; Tasmania 4. Total 99.

  1. Vehicle types are: Ford LTD- 81 Rolls Royce- 11 Bentley- 1 Daimler- 4 Mercedes Benz- 2
  2. Ford LTD-81 White

RoIIs-Royce-7 Black, 2 Royal Maroon, 2 Royal Claret

Bentley- 1 Black Daimler- 4 Black

Mercedes Benz- 1 Olive Green, 1 Astor Grey

River Murray Commission (Question No. 2977)

Mr Lloyd:

asked the Minister for Environment, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) What is the present position of the various working parties of the River Murray Commission.
  2. ) When will the reports be presented.
  3. What action has been taken to implement the recommendations of any reports already presented.
Mr Berinson:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) The River Murray Commission as such has not set up working parties to review its functions and scope but the Governments concerned agreed in March 1973 to establish a ‘River Murray Working Party’ to examine and recommend measures to improve the quality of the River Murray Waters in respect of long term salinity control and other forms of polution. It will also recommend changes to the River Murray Waters Agreement to enable the River Murray Commission to undertake these measures. To these ends, the Working Party has set up four Committees. Of these, the Salinity Committee, Irrigation Farm Practices Committee and Water Quality Committee have all presented reports to the Working Parry. The Biological Conservation Committee is yet to respond to the matters referred to it by the Working Party.
  2. The Working Party is currently drafting its report and is expected to submit this together with the reports referred to above to Ministers in the near future.

  3. Action along the following lines has been taken in regard to the first report of the River Murray Working Party (Interim Report River Murray Working Party- September 1973).

    1. Construction of Stage 1 of the Lake Victoria- -Brilka Creek Salinity Control Scheme has been programmed but has been delayed by high river flows.
    2. Victorian investigations in the Mildura Weir area have been completed and a proposal for works in that area are contained in the Salinity Committee’s report.
    3. The proposal for the Curlwaa Irrigation Area has been implemented.
    4. Discussions have been held between the Victorian Authority and the River Murray Commission on the operation of the Ban Creek works to optimise salinity mitigation benefits.
    5. The posssibility of complementary works to increase the effectiveness of the existing salt disposal works at Barr Creek is comprehended in the recent report of the Victorian State Rivers and Water Supply Commission- Salinity Control and Drainage- a strategy for Northern Victorian Irrigation and River Murray Water Quality.
    6. Additional investigations in the Lake Hawthorn area have been made and are comprehended in the Salinity Committee’s report.

Nature Conservation (Question No. 3062)

Mr Hunt:

asked the Minister for Environment, upon notice:

  1. What are the details of the program submitted by the South Australian Government for approval under the terms of the States Grants (Nature Conservation) Act, 1 974 to enable that State Government to acquire land for nature conservation.
  2. What specific proposals will the Australian Government finance under the Act
  3. What is the estimated cost of each proposal.
  4. What proposals were approved in principle by his predecessor, the Hon. Moss Cass.
Mr Berinson:
ALP

– The answers to the honourable member’s questions are as follows:

  1. The details of the proposals submitted by South Australia for assistance under the States Grants (Nature Conservation) Act 1 974 generally must remain confidential. This is to maintain the accepted principle of confidentiality between prospective vendor and purchaser and to prevent land speculation.

However in May 1975 the South Australian Minister of Environment and Conservation, Mr Broomhill, and the former Minister for Environment, Dr Cass, agreed to issue a joint statement setting out details of those proposals for which Dr Cass had agreed in principle to provide financial assistance under the States Grants (Nature Conservation) Act 1974. This statement listed four adjoining properties, Canopus, Morganvale Hypurna and Postmark- situated adjacent to the South Australia-New South Wales border comprising 253 000 hectares and an area of about 28 000 hectares at Coffin Bay as being due for acquisition by the State Government with funds to be made available by the State Government.

This statement also disclosed that the South Australian Government has sought financial assistance for the purchase of wetlands areas in the Pike River Basin and around Gurra Gurra Lakes, both along the Murray.

Financial assistance was sought by the South Australian Government for the above proposals during the 1974-75 financial year. Funds were previously sought during the 1973-74 financial year for the acquisition of a number of areas including 2672 hectares at Murrays Lagoon on Kangaroo Island. This land has since been acquired by the South Australian Government and as such I am free to disclose its description without prejudicing any negotiations.

Insofar as I am not able to publicly disclose details of the proposals put forward by South Australia for assistance under the Act I will be pleased to provide details to the honourable member on a confidential basis.

  1. Due to the limited funds appropriated this financial year for the purposes of the States Grants (Nature Conservation) Act it has been necessary to limit the number of areas for which agreements can be concluded and consequent legal and financial liability incurred this financial year. An additional amount has been offered to the State on the basis that agreements to be finalised this year will specify payment by the Australian Government in 1 976-77.

I have written to the South Australian Minister of Environment and Conservation advising him of my desire to conclude agreements this financial year for the Murrays Lagoon program, a program at Pike River-Gurra Gurra Lakes and in respect of certain other lands for which no agreement to make a public statement has been made. I will be pleased to advise the honourable member of those areas not listed above for which it is intended to provide funds this financial year.

  1. The Government is not able to provide detailed costs of proposed acquisitions in advance of acquisitions; nor is it prepared to provide publicly details of estimated cost as this could prejudice the negotiating ability of the State Authority seeking the land. However, in the case of Murrays Lagoon this was acquired by the South Australian Government at a cost of $1 15,000 (Crown valuation) and this amount will be reimbursed to the State when an agreement is finalised.
  2. As with part ( 1 ) of this question I am only able to disclose details of areas approved in principle by the former Minister for Environment Dr Cass with the agreement of appropriate State Ministers.

Accordingly I can only reiterate that the lands at Murrays Lagoon, Pike River and Gurra Gurra Lakes, Canopus, Morganvale, Hypurna and Postmark stations and lands at Coffin Bay were all approved in principle by Dr Cass subject to conditions. These conditions, to be a part of the formal agreement for each area, were stated as including the provision of Crown valuations, assurances that the purposes of nature conservation implicit in the proposals would be achieved and the conclusion of agreements under the Act. There is one other South Australian area for which Dr Cass gave approval in principle but in respect of which no joint public statement has been made by Ministers.

I am prepared to identify on a confidential basis to the honourable member the proposal not listed above that has been approved in principle by Dr Cass.

Nature Conservation (Question No. 3064)

Mr Hunt:

asked the Minister for Environment, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) What are the details of the program submitted by the Victorian Government for approval under the terms of the States Grants (Nature Conservation) Act 1974 to enable that State Government to acquire land for nature conservation.
  2. What specific proposals will the Australian Government finance under the Act.
  3. ) What is the estimated cost of each proposal.
  4. What proposals were approved in principle by his predecessor, the Honourable Moss Cass.
Mr Berinson:
ALP

– The answers to the honourable member’s questions are as follows:

  1. 1 ) The details of the proposals submitted by Victoria for assistance under the States Grants (Nature Conservation) Act 1974 generally must remain confidential. This is to maintain the accepted principle of confidentiality between prospective vendor and purchaser and to prevent land speculation.

However I will be pleased to provide details to the Honourable Member on a confidential basis.

  1. Due to the limited funds appropriated this financial year for the purposes of the States Grants (Nature Conservation) Act is has been necessary to limit the number of areas for which agreements can be concluded and consequent legal and financial liability incurred.

I have written to the Victorian Minister for Conservation advising him of my desire to conclude agreements this financial year for certain of the proposals and will be pleased to provide details to the Honourable Member on a confidential basis.

An additional amount has been offered to the State on the basis that agreements to be finalised this year will specify payment by the Australian Government in 1976-77.

  1. The Government is not able to provide detailed costs of proposed acquisitions in advance of acquisitions; nor is it prepared to provide publicly details of estimated cost as this would prejudice the negotiating ability of the State Authority seeking the land.

The Government’s policy is that sufficient funds be made available in respect of specified portions of land as to enable a fair and just settlement. To this end agreements negotiated under the States Grants (Nature Conservation) Act 1974 usually provide for the provision of funds up to Crown valuation.

  1. As with part ( 1 ) of this question I am only able to disclose details of areas approved in principle by the former

Minister for Environment Dr Cass with the agreement of appropriate State Ministers.

Nature Conservation (Question No. 3065)

Mr Hunt:

asked the Minister for Environment, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) What are the details of the program submitted by the Western Australian Government for approval under the terms of the States Grants (Nature Conservation) Act 1974 to enable that State Government to acquire land for nature conservation.
  2. What specific proposals will the Australian Government finance under the Act.
  3. What is the estimated cost of each proposal.
  4. What proposals were approved in principle by his predecessor, the Honourable Moss Cass.
Mr Berinson:
ALP

– The answers to the honourable member’s questions are as follows:

  1. The details of the proposals submitted by Western Australia for assistance under the States Grants (Nature Conservation) Act 1974 generally must remain confidential. This is to maintain the accepted principle of confidentiality between prospective vendor and purchaser and to prevent land speculation.

However I will be pleased to provide details to thehonourable member on a confidential basis.

  1. Due to the limited funds appropriated this financial year for the purposes of the States Grants (Nature Conservation) Act it has been necessary to limit the number of areas for which agreements can be concluded and consequent legal and financial liability incurred.

I have written to the Western Australian Minister for Conservation and Environment advising him of my desire to conclude agreements this financial year for certain of the proposals and will be pleased to provide details to the honourable member on a confidential basis. An additional amount has been offered to the State on the basis that agreements to be finalised this year will specify payment by the Australian Government in 1976-77.

  1. The Government is not able to provide detailed costs of proposed acquisitions in advance of acquisition; nor is it prepared to provide publicly details of estimated cost as this could prejudice the negotiating ability of the State Authority seeking the land.

The Government’s policy is that sufficient funds be made available in respect of specified portions of land as to enable a fair and just settlement. To this end agreements negotiated under the States Grants (Nature Conservation) Act 1974 usually provide for the provision of funds up to Crown valuation.

  1. As with Part ( 1) of this question I am only able to disclose details of areas approved in principle by the former Minister for Environment Dr Cass with the agreement of appropriate State Ministers.

Nature Conservation (Question No. 3063)

Mr Hunt:

asked the Minister for Environment, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) What are the details of the program submitted by the Tasmanian Government for approval under the terms of the States Grants (Nature Conservation) Act 1974 to enable that State Government to acquire land for nature conservation.
  2. What specific proposals will the Australian Government finance under the Act.
  3. ) What is the estimated cost of each proposal.
  4. What proposals were approved in principle by his predecessor, the Hon. Moss Cass.
Mr Berinson:
ALP

– The answers to the honourable member’s questions are as follows:

  1. The details of the proposals submitted by Tasmania for assistance under the States Grants (Nature Conservation) Act 1974 generally must remain confidential. This is to maintain the accepted principle of confidentiality between prospective vendor and purchaser and to prevent land speculation.

However on 25 September 1974 the Minister for Urban and- Regional Development issued a public statement in response to criticism by the Tamar Regional Master Planning Authority which stated inter alia that Australian Government finance would be provided to assist in the acquisition of land at Asbestos Range. This proposal is for a coastal national park and is one for which the Tasmanian Government has sought financial assistance under the States Grants (Nature Conservation) Act 1974.

Insofar as I am not able to publicly disclose details of the proposals put forward by Tasmania for assistance under the Act I will be pleased to provide details to the honourable member on a confidential basis.

  1. Due to the limited funds appropriated this financial year for the purposes of the States Grants (Nature Conservation) Act it has been necessary to limit the number of areas for which agreements can be concluded and consequent legal and financial liability incurred this financial year.

I have written to the Tasmanian Minister for National Parks and Wildlife advising him of my desire to conclude agreements this financial year for certain of the proposals submitted and will be pleased to provide details to the honourable member on a confidential basis. The honourable member will no doubt be aware that the first agreement concluded under the States Grants (Nature Conservation) Act 1974 in respect of Badger Island, Tasmania was tabled and appeared in the ‘Votes and Proceedings’ on Tuesday, 2 September 1975.

  1. The Government is not able to provide detailed costs of proposed acquisitions in advance of acquisitions; nor is it prepared to provide publicly details of estimated cost as this would prejudice the negotiating ability of the State Authority seeking the land.

The Government’s policy is that sufficient funds be made available in respect of specified portions of land as to enable a fair and just settlement. To this end agreements negotiated under the States Grants (Nature Conservation) Act 1974 usually provide for the provision of funds up to Crown valuation. Any decision to provide funds over and above Crown valuation is made after consideration of the merits of the situation by the Australian Government Minister for Environment.

  1. As with part ( 1 ) of this question I am only able to disclose details of areas approved in principle by the former Minister for Environment, Dr Cass, with the agreement of appropriate State Ministers.

Both Badger Island and Asbestos Range were approved in principle by the former Minister for Environment, Dr Cass, and 1 will be pleased to provide details of further such proposals to the honourable member on a confidential basis.

Nature Conservation (Question No. 3067)

Mr Hunt:

asked the Minister for Environment, upon notice:

  1. What are the details of the program submitted by the Queensland Government for approval under the terms of the States Grants (Nature Conservation) Act 1974 to enable that State Government to acquire land for nature conservation.
  2. What specific proposals will the Australian Government finance under the Act.
  3. What is the estimated cost of each proposal.
  4. What proposals were approved in principle by his predecessor, the Honourable Moss Cass.
Mr Berinson:
ALP

– The answers to the honourable member’s questions are as follows:

  1. 1 ) The details of the proposals submitted by Queensland for assistance under the States Grants (Nature Conservation) Act 1974 generally must remain confidential. This is to maintain the accepted principle of confidentiality between prospective vendor and purchaser and to prevent land speculation. However I will be pleased to provide details to the honourable member on a confidential basis.
  2. Due to the limited funds appropriated this financial year for the purposes of the States Grants (Nature Conservation) Act it has been necessary to limit the number of areas for which agreements can be concluded and consequent legal and financial liability incurred.

I have written to the Queensland Minister for National Parks and Wildlife advising him of my desire to conclude agreements this financial year for certain of the proposals and will be pleased to provide details to the honourable member on a confidential basis.

An additional amount has been offered to the State on the basis that agreements to be finalised this year will specify payment by the Australian Government in 1976.

  1. The Government is not able to provide detailed costs of proposed acquisitions in advance of acquisitions; nor is it prepared to provide publicly details of estimated cost as this would prejudice the negotiating ability of the State Authority seeking the land.

The Government’s policy is that sufficient funds be made available in respect of specified portions of land as to enable a fair and just settlement. To this end agreements negotiated under the States Grants (Nature Conservation) Act 1974 usually provide for the provision of funds up to Crown valuation.

  1. As with part ( 1 ) of this question I am only able to disclose details of areas approved in principle by the former Minister for Environment, Dr Cass, with the agreement of appropriate State Ministers.

Nature Conservation (Question No. 3066)

Mr Hunt:

asked the Minister for Environment, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) What are the details of the program submitted by the New South Wales Government for approval under the terms of the States Grants (Nature Conservation) Act 1974 to enable that State Government to acquire land for nature conservation.
  2. What specific proposals will the Australian Government finance under the Act.
  3. What is the estimated cost of each proposal.
  4. What proposals were approved in principle by his predecessor, the Honourable Moss Cass.
Mr Berinson:
ALP

– The answers to the honourable member’s questions are as follows:

  1. The details of the proposals submitted by New South Wales for assistance under the States Grants (Nature Conservation) Act 1974 generally must remain confidential. This is to maintain the accepted principle of confidentiality between prospective vendor and purchaser and to prevent land speculation.

However I will be pleased to provide details to the Honourable Member on a confidential basis.

  1. Due to the limited funds appropriated this financial year for the purposes of the States Grants (Nature Conservation) Act it has been necessary to limit the number of areas for which agreements can be concluded and consequent legal and financial liability incurred.

I have written to the New South Wales Minister for Lands and Forests advising him of my desire to conclude agreements this financial year for certain of the proposals and will be pleased to provide details to the Honourable Member on a confidential basis.

An additional amount has been offered to the State on the basis that agreements to be finalised this year will specify payment by the Australian Government in 1 976-77.

  1. The Government is not able to provide detailed costs of proposed acquisitions in advance of acquisitions; nor is it prepared to provide publicly details of estimated cost as this would prejudice the negotiating ability of the State Authority seeking the land.

The Government’s policy is that sufficient funds be made available in respect of specified portions of land as to enable a fair and just settlement. To this end agreements negotiated under the States Grants (Nature Conservation) Act 1974 usually provide for the provision of funds up to Crown valuation.

  1. As with part ( 1) of this question I am only able to disclose details of areas approved in principle by the former Minister for Environment, Dr Cass, with the agreement of appropriate State Ministers.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 7 October 1975, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1975/19751007_reps_29_hor97/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant