House of Representatives
23 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 10 a.m., and read prayers.

page 2443

PETITIONS

The Clerk:

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

Cadet Corps

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:

Their great dismay at the decision of the Australian Government to abolish the Army Corps of Cadets from our Secondary Schools.

The enthusiastic acceptance by leading educators, those nearest to the secondary educational scene (our Headmasters), the approval and encouragement of thinking and caring parents and the dedicated support of those teachers involved (the Officers of Cadets) bear certain witness to the reliability of this activity as a character builder for our youth.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that: Why, after a century of proven usefulness, would you destroy so well established an institution for good in our community?

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Bonnett, Mr Kevin Cairns, Mr Donald Cameron, Mr Drury, Mr Hodges, Mr Killen and Mr Eric Robinson.

Petitions 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 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 Mrs Child, Mr Clayton, Mr Jarman, Mr McKenzie, Mr Mathews, Mr Morris and Mr O’Keefe.

Petitions received.

Australian Government Insurance Corporation

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

That Parliament should reject the Bill currently before it to establish an Australian Government Insurance Office.

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.

That a plan for such a Fund was submitted to the Treasury in October 1974.

That no sound reasons for the establishment of an Australian Government Insurance Office (other than the desire/ to provide non-commercial disaster insurance and Australian Government competition with private enterprise) has been given by the Government.

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.

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.

That as taxpayers your petitioners are greatly concerned at the huge costs ( far more than the $2m initial capital and loan funds which it is proposed will be allocated) of establishing an Australian Government Insurance Office.

That as employees and agents of existing insurance offices your petitioners fear for their jobs and their future prospects if the Parliament proceeds with the legislation.

Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House will reject the Bill.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray, by Mr Enderby and Mr Jarman. Petitions received.

Australian Government Insurance Corporation

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

  1. 1 ) That Parliament should reject the Bill currently before it to establish an Australian Government Insurance Office.
  2. That while there is a need to establish in Australia a Natural Disaster Fund to provide compensation for property damage and other losses resulting from disasters such as earthquakes, floods and cyclones, such a Fund can be established, as in other countries, using the medium of the existing private enterprise insurance offices.
  3. That 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.

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

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

Petition received.

Australian Government Insurance Corporation

To the Honourable the speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that the establishment of an Australian Government Insurance Office will:

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

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

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

Petition received.

Australian Government Insurance Corporation

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that the establishment of an Australian Government Insurance Office will:

  1. 1 ) Further shrink the flow of funds available for finance for private enterprise in Australia.
  2. Will 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.

Metric System

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

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 distance, 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 Enderby and Mr Jarman.

Petitions 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 showeth:

That we wish to protest most vigorously at the increase 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 Mr Dawkins and Mr Kelly.

Petitions received.

Australian Council of Social Service

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

That we, the Staff and Students from the School of Social Work at the University of New South Wales express concern about the effects of the 1975-76 Budget on the Australian Council of Social Service. The Council has had its Government allocation cut from $175,000 last year to $90,000 this year.

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

That the Government restore to ACOSS its present grant of $470,000 for 1975-76 as the amount agreed to before the Budget.

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

Petition received.

Uranium

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 we, citizens of Australia, see our country as a responsible nation that does not encourage nuclear warfare.
  2. that nuclear energy presents the possibility of environmental and genetic catastrophe. Technology has not eliminated that damage.

Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray:

  1. that the Government will immediately suspend sales of uranium to any country engaged in violent conflict or where common sense tells us that the manufacture of nuclear weapons could be the ultimate purpose to which our uranium is put. It should be a matter of inflexible policy not to consider such sales in the future.
  2. that until technology can prove that the hazards of nuclear energy have been overcome, no Australian uranium should be mined except for medical purposes.
  3. that the Government should actively and immediately encourage the search for safer energy sources by making grants to appropriate institutes for the research and feasibility studies into solar and other alternative sources of energy.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. byMrEnderby.

Petition received.

Solar Energy Research

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 world’s current major sources of energy are finite and will probably be depleted during the next century.
  2. That atomic energy is currently an unacceptable alternative energy source as it presents problems including radioactive waste, military implications and thermal pollution.
  3. That solar energy is the only acceptable alternative energy source as it is inexhaustible and non-polluting.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Australian Government will immediately increase the expenditure on solar energy research to an amount comparable with the current expenditure on atomic energy research and will give assurances to maintain solar energy research expenditure at this level, at least, until the year 2000 A.D. and maintain CSIRO control of and responsibility for solar energy research, until an appropriate commission can be established.

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

Petition received.

Increased Postal and Telephone Charges

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

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 Enderby.

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 petitions 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.

Subsidy on 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 showeth:

That we strongly oppose the severe increase in postal charges particularly related to registered publications.

This new rate will threaten the continued existence of those publications used to disseminate information from religious and charitable service bodies, and indirectly strike a blow at the free flow of information.

Additional charges will seriously affect the employment prospects of those printers, artists and journalists employed by the 45-member publications of the Australian Religious Press Association.

For the sake of the free flow of information, the jobs of staff and the viability of this important service industry, we call on the Postmaster General to increase the subsidy to the religious, charitable and trade union press, so that these publications which rely heavily on personal subscription by mail can continue to provide a valuable community service.

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

Petition received.

Carinya Home for the Aged

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the Atherton, Eacham and Herberton Shires in Queensland, Australia, respectfully showeth:

That we strongly oppose the delay in the funding of government subsidies for aged persons homes under the Aged or Disabled Persons Homes Act. The delay is causing extreme hardship to those who are urgently requiring residence in such homes.

Failure of the government to immediately honour the spirit of its approval in principle of the Carinya Home for the Aged, Atherton, will place the building of such a home in Atherton in jeopardy.

For the sake of the integrity of the Australian Government, the benefit of those who are the future residents of Carinya and the savings in cost to both the Australian Government and the citizens of our own district who have already given to their utmost, we call upon the Minister of Social Security, and the Treasurer to immediately make funds available for the erection of Carinya.

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

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 need.

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 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 Hodges.

Petition received.

Kennedy Electoral Division: Television Service

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

  1. We have been without a television service since the introducton of television into Australia in 1 956,
  2. We have been seeking such a service for many years without success, and
  3. We are one of the few remaining areas of Australia not enjoying what is now considered a normal facet of Australian life.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House will take action which will require the Australian Broadcasting Control Board to take immediate steps to provide the electorate of Kennedy with a television service, where it is not now provided.

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

Petition received.

Income Tax

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 if a system of personal income tax was introduced allowing State Governments the powers to vary personal income tax rates, this would lead to State Governments raising personal income taxes rather than lowering them;

That since the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory are Territories, and not States, laws allowing State Governments to vary personal income taxes would not apply in the Australian Capital Territory or the Northern Territory.

That this would lead to Australian citizens living in the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory paying lower levels of personal income tax than would be paid by Australian Citizens living in any of the six States;

That this would also lead to Members of the House of Representatives and Senators paying lower levels of personal income tax than would be paid by Australian citizens living in any of the six States since Members of the House of Representatives and Senators pay personal income taxes as though they were living in the Australian Capital Territory;

Your petitioners therefor humbly pray that the present system of personal income taxation which ensures geographical uniformity of treatment of citizens throughout Australia will be retained and that a system of double taxation will not be imposed on incomes.

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

Petition received.

Income Tax

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

That if existing income tax laws were amended so that the State Governments had the power to vary the total amount of personal income tax there would be various undesirable consequences, including:

  1. It would become difficult to ever introduce a successful program of personal tax indexation since a commitment by the Australian Government to tax indexation would mean little if various State Governments themselves had the ability to increase income tax rates;
  2. It would open the way for State Governments to steadily increase income taxes and would therefore tend to increase the proportion of overall taxation in Australia raised through income taxes: since Australia is already heavily dependent on personal income taxes for revenue by international standards, any further move to increase dependency on personal income taxes should be examined carefully;
  3. It would mean that the Australian Government would lose the complete control that it has at present over the pattern of marginal income tax rates: this would further complicate the already difficult task faced by the Australian Government of formulating a wages and industrial relations policy which will meet with wide community acceptance;
  4. It would complicate the overall task of economic management for the Australian Government if State Governments had the discretion to move income taxes in an opposite direction to that judged desirable on economic grounds.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that powers to vary income tax will not be given to State Governments and that a system of double taxation will not be imposed on incomes.

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

Petition received.

Appropriation Bills

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. Governments are elected for a three year term of office, and have a right to govern so long as they command a majority of the House of Representatives.
  2. Governments are made and unmade in the House of Representatives, which is the People’s House, and not in the Senate, where there are as many members for 500 000 citizens of Tasmania as there are for 5 million citizens of New South Wales.
  3. The Parliament should adopt the 1975-76 Budget by passing the Appropriation Bill N umber One 1975 and the Appropriation Bill Number Two 1975.

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

Petition received.

Australian Labor Party

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

  1. That certain members of your House have signed a pledge as a condition of their endorsement by the Labor Party at the Election at which they were elected to your House.
  2. That this pledge may constrain them to vote in this House in a way which could be at variance with the national interest.

Your petitioners therefore pray that your House will express the opinion that, if in such case the national interest is in conflict with the pledge, members of your House will consider that the national interest takes precedence.

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

Petition received.

page 2447

WHITLAM GOVERNMENT

Notice of Motion

Mr WENTWORTH:
Mackellar

-Mr Speaker, I give notice that at the next day of sitting I shall move:

That this House noting-

That this Government has consistently violated the promises of low interest, stable prices and full employment on which it was elected to office in May 1974;

That it is evident that at the time the Governmet made these promises it was fully aware that it was not going to keep them and therefore obtained office on false pretences;

That the Government has been responsible already for widespread unemployment and loss throughout Australia;

That there is no prospect of economic recovery unless the Government is removed from office;

That the administration of this Government has been shot through with scandal and corruption;

That the Prime Minister by his evasions, bluster and refusal to answer proper questions in this House has so far managed to prevent the full revelations of the misdoings within his Ministry;

That the Prime Minister, like a little Nixon in a Canberra Watergate, has so far managed to find scapegoats who have been willing to take the full blame for misdoings in which he himself has participated;

That in these circumstances the House should fulfill its traditional duty in accordance with the fundamental unwritten convention and carry a vote against the Government, thus bringing about the early election which is so much desired by the great majority of the citizens of Australia;

That some members of the Government Party in this House have expressed their disquiet outside it but feel themselves precluded from voting inside it in accordance with their consciences because they signed a certain pledge as a condition of obtaining Labor endorsement as candidates;

That if members of this House-

Mr Cope:

– I rise on a point of order, Mr Speaker. Has this notice of motion been certified?

Mr SPEAKER:

-There is no point of order. Judgment is not passed on notices until they have been moved.

Mr WENTWORTH:
  1. That if members of this House refuse to do their-
Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I suggest the honourable gentleman might remain silent when I am speaking to the House. There is no point of order. Notices are not before the House for it to decide whether they are in order or otherwise until such time as they have been moved.

Mr McLeay:

– What was clause 4, Bill?

Mr WENTWORTH:

– I will not start again, Mr Speaker. I continue:

  1. That if members of this House refuse to do their manifest duty under present circumstances the Senate should consider what steps it may take to bring about an early election;
  2. That the Prime Minister has indicated that in his desperate efforts to avoid an election he is prepared to plunge Australia into chaos rather than follow the established convention and tender his resignation when he has no funds available;
  3. That the Prime Minister has already done so much harm to Australia that there can be no assurance that he will not do further harm in his spite and pride and -
Mr Morris:

– I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I draw your attention to standing order 136 which states:

If any notice of motion is given which contains matters not relevant to each other, the Speaker may instruct the Clerk to divide such notice into two or more notices.

Mr Speaker, can you rule that this notice be divided into several separate notices as the matters contained in it are not relevant to each other?

Mr SPEAKER:

– I would have to look at the motion when notice of it has been given and I have had a chance to study it.

Mr WENTWORTH:

– Thank you, Mr Speaker. I go on: and the House, believing that an early election is the best way to restore decency to the Government and prosperity to Australia, is now of the opinion that where members of this House know in their hearts that the Government is no longer worthy of their confidence and that in the real interests of Australia there should be an election as soon as possible they should follow their consciences and vote accordingly even though by so doing they may contravene the pledge which they may have signed without realising its implications.

page 2448

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

page 2448

QUESTION

TELEVISION DEBATE

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
WANNON, VICTORIA

-Has the Prime Minister received an invitation, as I have, to engage in a nation-wide television debate on current issues? Will he accept that invitation as I have?

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

-As far as I know no such invitation has come to me. I think perhaps the honourable gentleman might come along to any of my public meetings and try to take them over as I took over his on Tuesday. (Honourable members interjecting)

Mr SPEAKER:

-If honourable members want to shorten question time, that is their business.

page 2448

APPROPRIATION BILLS

Mr HURFORD:
ADELAIDE, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question is addressed to the Treasurer. Has his attention been drawn to reports to the effect that information on the economic effects of delaying the passage of the Budget he gave the House yesterday was inaccurate? Will he give the House an assurance that the information was correct?

Mr HAYDEN:
Treasurer · OXLEY, QUEENSLAND · ALP

-The information I have been giving the House is indeed correct, and it is given with some restraint when one considers the full extent of the adverse effects which will flow from the continued blocking of Appropriation Bills (Nos 1 and 2) in the Senate as I see the situation. I think it rather remarkable, though, to have heard and then to have obtained the transcript of the interview with the Deputy Leader of the Opposition on AM this morning and to find him now saying that stopping the Appropriation Bills has little effect on economic activity and on economic management in the community. If this is in fact so, one wonders why members of the Opposition argue that the Government cannot continue governing the country. There seems to be a substantial and fundamental defect in the thinking of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition.

I remind honourable members of what I pointed out to the House yesterday. So long as the Appropriation Bills (Nos. 1 and 2) are not passed there will be a short-fall in Budget outlays of $700m to $800m a month. It will be more in

December because of a bunching of planned outlays in that month. Gross domestic product in Australia is currently running at less than $6,000m a month; so we are talking about cutting off a flow of funds equivalent to around oneeighth of gross domestic product each month. I fail to understand how any responsible economic spokesman, a genuine economic spokesman, could assert that there would be little effect on the level of economic activity with that sort of sudden cutback in the flow of funds going into the economy.

The evidence is already showing itself up from the sorts of reports I am receiving from business contacts and people in the community. First of all, the service sector of the economy has been subjected to a quite sudden and extremely severe contraction in activity. Restaurants, motels and hotels constitute one area where this is clearly showing up, and I would expect that in the entertainment area, with its wide diversity, there would also be some contraction. Businessmen have been hesitating for several weeks in their investment decisions because they could see the impending crisis building up as a result of the recurrent statements, the recurrent threats, the intimidation of the Opposition in terms of what was going to happen to the Appropriation Bills. Consumers are hesitating to invest in purchases of consumer durables such as refrigerators, motor cars and so on. This will have a fairly early effect on the level of economic activity, but it will have a much more severe one in the early new year.

Members of the Opposition have expressed from time to time some concern about the level of seasonal unemployment, which always peaks in January or February, for the 1976 calendar year. I can assure them that as a result of their irresponsible behaviour, even if they retreat now from the position they have taken, there will be serious aggravation to the seasonal contraction of economic activity in the early part of 1976. It will be much worse if they fail to act responsibly and to withdraw from this foolish line of action they have taken in impeding the passage of Government legislation in this Parliament by using their hostile majority in the Senate to block the Appropriation Bills. I ask them to declare exactly what is their intention. Is it their intention to vote against these Bills? Why do they continually evade this issue? Why do they resort to devices and fictions such as deferring the Bills when they know the effect is exactly the same?

page 2449

QUESTION

PRE-BUDGET DISCUSSIONS

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

-Did the Treasurer have discussions with the President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions on 16 July before the Budget? Was Mr Souter also involved in those discussions? Is he aware that Mr Hawke and Mr Souter are both directors of ACTU-Solo Enterprises Limited?

Mr HAYDEN:
ALP

– I would not be sure on what date members of the Cabinet had discussions with the Australian Council of Trade Unions. Several members of the Cabinet were present and several members of the ACTU were present. This was part of the exercise which was introduced in the early 1960s and which has been continuing since whereby certain groups in the community have access to the Cabinet for pre-Budget discussions. Business groups also have discussions with the Cabinet. Perhaps if I put a few words on the record we may kill the awfully nasty speculation of the Leader of the Opposition which is based on comments by a Mr David Woodhouse, an expelled member of the Australian Labor Party, who claimed that he had information 3 weeks before the Budget was announced in the Parliament- about late July, he said in another part of the article in the Melbourne Herald of 2 nights ago- about the levy on crude oil production at the wellhead. The fact is that it was not until 27 June that the notion of a tax on crude oil production was raised with Ministers. Many proposals about revenue collections were suggested. On 23 July a series of optionsnot decisions- was finally set out for consideration by Ministers. The Ministers made a decision on the crude oil levy on 30 July. As against that, ACTU-Solo had been granted an option by Allied Petrochemicals Pty Ltd on 16 May and exercised the option on 23 May.

page 2449

QUESTION

EAST TIMOR

Dr J F Cairns:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– Will the Prime Minister inform the Government of Indonesia that the Australian Government is strongly opposed to any military action by it in East Timor and that any such military action would endanger the good relations between Indonesia and Australia?

Mr WHITLAM:
ALP

– I have nothing to add, Mr Speaker, to what I have already said on that matter for months past.

page 2449

QUESTION

ACTU-SOLO ENTERPRISES PTY LTD

Mr ANTHONY:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Is the Treasurer aware that by concluding the contract with Allied Petrochemicals Pty Ltd before the introduction of the Budget, ACTU-Solo Enterprises Pty Ltd was able to profit by $850,000 by not having to pay the S2 a barrel which was imposed by the Budget?

Mr HAYDEN:
ALP

– I repeat what I said previously: ACTU-Solo Enterprises Pty Ltd had been granted an option by Allied Petrochemical Pty Ltd on 16 May and the option was exercised by 23 May- long before there was any consideration of a levy on crude oil. I suggest to honourable members of the Opposition “that instead of muddying the political waters further-if that is possible in view of their behaviour so far- they go before the royal commission. The royal commission is sitting. They should produce evidence. Its members should not hide like cowards behind the cloak of parliamentary privilege impugning other people’s characters with security, but step outside and say it publicily if they wish. I know that Mr Hawke suggested to Mr Anthony on a television program that he ought to do that. That was one of the few occasions in his life that Mr Anthony ceased being articulate, although he consistently -

Mr Whitlam:

– He is often inarticulate; he is always raucous.

Mr HAYDEN:

– As the Prime Minister points out, Mr Anthony is often inarticulate but he is always raucous. I repeat that Opposition members have the opportunity to appear before the royal commission. They ought to do so. In the meantime they ought to face up to the real issue that is confronting this country- the constitutional crisis for which they are responsible. They will be responsible for the breakdown in economic activity and the severe social stress. They will aggravate the economic recession from which we seem to be moving out. They will cause a regression into a deeper and more extensive form of economic recession. They will be responsible for the worst form of social and economic dislocation if they continue to pursue this line of action that they set themselves upon. Why do not they face up to this responsibility?

Mr Nixon:

– Why do you not face the people? Face the people.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I warn the honourable member for Gippsland

page 2449

QUESTION

MEMBERS’ FACILITIES

Mr THORBURN:
COOK, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Will the Minister for Administrative Services state what action, if any, is proposed regarding restriction of members’ facilities in view of the present financial crisis caused by the unprincipled action of the LiberalNational Country Party Opposition in delaying the passing of the Budget?

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

-This is an important matter. I thought I might be asked a question on it so I am in a position to provide the honourable member with the information. Due to the unprecedented and unprincipled actions of Opposition senators in refusing to pass the Budget it has been necessary for me critically to review the allocation of available funds provided for the conveyance of members of the Australian Parliament which are administered by my Department. The following restrictions will come into force forthwith and will apply for the duration of the present constitutional crisis. Overseas travel financed from the members’ travel vote will not be authorised. Travel by wives and children of members and senators will be suspended. Official car transport in Canberra will be limited to transport to and from the airport, to the Parliament and from the Parliament to home. All travel facilities now available to retired life gold pass holders and other retired members who have travel privileges have been suspended. The use of charter aircraft will be suspended. The payment of car allowance paid when members use their private vehicle on parliamentary business, other than travel to Canberra, will be suspended.

In addition to these restrictions I have decided to curtail certain other facilities which will assist in conserving funds. The purchase of newspapers for all senators and members will be discontinued.

Opposition members- Ha, ha.

Mr Whitlam:

– Newspaper proprietors will have to make reverse charge calls to the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr DALY:

– I am reminded that newspaper proprietors will have to put in reverse charge calls , to the Leader of the Opposition from here on. Honourable members may laugh, but newspapers are costing in the vicinity of $35,000 to $40,000 per annum. The reimbursement of private telephone services will be suspended. Interstate travel by relief electorate secretaries has been discontinued. The employment of any additional electorate assistants has been suspended. Furthermore, if Opposition senators see fit to continue their stand and not grant Supply it will be necessary to review these restrictions. Ultimately- I ask honourable members to listen to this- and maybe as early as next week it may be necessary to withdraw travel facilities completely.

Mr Whitlam:

– Fraser is laughing. Look at him. Look at the $50,000 smile.

Mr DALY:

– I notice the Leader of the Opposition is smiling his $50,000 smile. I ask honourable members to listen because this is very important to them. If Opposition senators see fit to continue their stand and not grant Supply it will be necessary to review these restrictions. Ultimately and maybe as early as next week it could be necessary to withdraw travel facilities completely and to give senators and members a return airline ticket to enable them to come to Canberra for the period that Parliament is in session.

Honourable members- Hear, hear!

Mr DALY:

– A lot of the Liberal and National Country Party members cannot get here when we are paying for them. How will they go in that event? This course of action I propose is forced upon me by the circumstances imposed by the Opposition. Honourable members will agree that it would be unthinkable to perpetuate a privileged group in these precincts while the country as a whole is .suffering as a result of the unprincipled actions of Opposition senators.

page 2450

QUESTION

APPRENTICES: LIVING AWAY ALLOWANCE

Mr O’KEEFE:
PATERSON, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Labor and Immigration in another place. I ask: Has the living away allowance for apprentices been of great assistance in helping these important industry employees? Has this allowance been eliminated? If not, is it the Government’s intention to do away with this assistance? Would the Minister please inform the House and industry so as to clarify the position on this matter?

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

– I shall gain full details for the honourable member and let him have them without delay. But I should say to him that not only are allowances for apprentices, students and others in serious doubt, but there is a grave danger that they will be eliminated completely within the next couple of weeks. For example, the Regional Employment Development scheme will not be able to meet its commitments for the month of October; it will be some $8m short in being able to meet its commitments, as a result of the blockage of Supply in the Senate. I suggest that if the honourable gentleman is seriously concerned about this matter he should direct his question more to his colleagues in another place and see what they can do about getting the Supply Bill through- that is, if he is seriously concerned about the plight of people undergoing training and retraining and who are receiving allowances from the Government. It is little use the honourable member standing in this place asking me questions about this matter because my hands are tied. The Minister whom I represent is in no position to make funds available until the honourable member’s colleagues take off the strangle hold that they have on the Australian economy.

page 2451

QUESTION

NORTHERN TERRITORY: FINANCE FOR REBUILDING

Mr CROSS:
BRISBANE. QLD

-Is the Minister for Northern Australia able to inform the House as to the position in the Northern Territory when the money runs out?

Mr KEATING:
Minister for Northern Australia · BLAXLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Last Christmas Darwin and the Northern Territory were subjected to the ravages of cyclone Tracy. This coming Christmas, the city, and indeed the whole of the Northern Territory are faced with another major disaster as a result of the grab for power by the Liberal and National Country Parties. The economy of the Northern Territory and the reconstruction of Darwin are heavily dependent upon government expenditure; indeed, they are more heavily dependent than any other part of Australia. The course on which the Opposition is set will deny the Territory funds that are crucial to its economy and to its social fabric. The denial of Supply will seriously affect every part of the Northern Territory community. These effects will become more evident over the next 4 weeks. All government construction work, including the vital reconstruction of Darwin, will come to a halt. Contractors and sub-contractors are faced with financial difficulties and possible bankruptcy. Thousands of workers will become unemployed. Suppliers of building materials will find that they are carrying large debts that in many cases may be irrecoverable. Salary payments to public servants will commence to cease by the end of November. It is estimated that from this date nearly half of the Northern Territory work force will be without income. A large part of the construction work force which is vital to the reconstruction will be lost to the Territory for years to come. The consequences of this for the Territory’s commercial life are obvious to anyone. Loans for private housing reconstruction and the rehabilitation of small businesses in Darwin following in the wake of cyclone Tracy will also dry up within the next few weeks. The appropriations for assistance to primary producers and rural reconstruction are already under strain. This will cause further hardship to the already hard pressed beef industry.

In brief, the outlook for the Northern Territory, if the Opposition continues with its present course, is one of disaster. I heard an interjection earlier from the honourable member for Kennedy. Perhaps the people of the Northern Territory including the people of Darwin would be interested to know that as late as last night the Opposition spokesman for the Northern Territory, the honourable member for Kennedy, and the honourable member for the Northern Territory. Mr Calder. voted in this House against the Appropriation Bills. They voted against payments to people in the Northern Territory and against the continued development of the Northern Territory. The have voted against every representation proposal of this Government affecting the Northern Territory as they have voted against the supply of money to carry on the life of the Northern Territory. They have voted against the continued development of the Northern Territory.

Mr Sinclair:

– I rise to take a point of order. If the honourable gentleman looks at the Standing Orders he will see that policy statements are normally not a matter for presentation at question time.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! That is not the basis for a point of order. The honourable gentleman is well aware of that. I would suggest that the Minister might shorten his answer.

Mr KEATING:

– No matter in which area one seeks to scrutinise the Opposition ‘s performance in relation to the Northern Territory, one finds that at all times Opposition members have attempted to block representation for the people of the Northern Territory. Now they intend to deny the people of the Northern Territory the life blood of their existence, that is, money from the Government of Australia.

page 2451

QUESTION

OVERSEAS LOAN RAISINGS

Mr LYNCH:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA

– I ask the Prime Minister the following question: Does the honourable gentleman recall his repeated assurances to this House that all relevant documents relating to overseas loan funds have been tabled? Is the honourable gentleman- and are Government members who are trying to interject- aware that this file, which I now hold in my hand, contains more than 100 telexes and letters between his Government and loan raising intermediaries, which documents have never been tabled in this House? I ask the honourable gentleman: Is he prepared to have four of these documents, which I now extract, tabled in this House? I ask the Prime Minister further: For how much longer is this House to be required to submit to the misleading nature of the Prime Minister’s assurances in relation to the documents which have not been tabled?

Mr WHITLAM:
ALP

– In view of the honourable gentleman’s despicable conduct at question time last Tuesday, I propose to answer no questions in any way relating to this matter without notice. (Opposition members interjecting)-

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The Prime Minister will resume his seat until honourable members are prepared to listen. (Honourable members interjecting)-

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I am waiting for the House to come to order. This is question time. If honourable members want to waste time in question, time, they need not complain about not being able to ask enough questions. I call the Prime Minister.

Mr WHITLAM:

-Mr Speaker, questions without notice should not contain statements of fact unless they can be authenticated. Last Tuesday, the honourable gentleman asked me a question based’ on newspaper reports. If he had been asked to authenticate those reports, he would, in frankness and candour, have had to indicate that there was a denial of the same reports in the same newspapers.

Mr Lynch:

– I take a point of order. My point of order is that the Prime Minister is reflecting on the Chair in making that statement.

Mr SPEAKER:

– It would take a good imagination to uphold that point of order. No such request for authentication was made. It has nothing to do with the Chair.

Mr Lynch:

– Why did the Government walk away from it?

Mr SPEAKER:

-I suggest that the honourable member remain silent and not argue with me.

Mr WHITLAM:

– I have no doubt that, if I had asked that the honourable gentleman authenticate the report, he would readily have authenticated it, but he could not have done so honestly. The honourable gentleman with the least research- that is, if he had checked with the person named in the report, an Adelaide solicitor, the solicitor who had appeared beside a witness summoned to the Senate inquisition last July- would have learned that the report had been denied. In some newspapers, the report upon which the honourable gentleman based his question appeared at the same time, side by side, with another report denying it. In those circumstances, I do not believe that I can risk answering questions from the honourable gentleman who will not check facts, who cannot authenticate facts, but who will mislead the House.

page 2452

QUESTION

PRIMARY INDUSTRY

Mr ARMITAGE:
CHIFLEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

-My question is addressed to the Minister for Agriculture. Can he tell the House what will be the consequences of delaying the passage of the Budget so far as the primary industry policies of this Government are concerned?

Dr PATTERSON:
Minister for Agriculture · DAWSON, QUEENSLAND · ALP

– Although a major portion of the funds allocated to the Department of Agriculture is provided under special appropriationsand these are not affected by deferral or rejection of the Appropriation Bills- the successful operation of all of the administration of the Department depends on public servants or human resources, and without them it is possible that the complete fabric of assistance to primary industry in Australia could collapse. I will give one instance alone. It is quite clear that neither the Leader of the Country Party nor his Deputy has even looked at the seriousness of this matter. By the middle of next month practically all the money available for meat inspection and veterinary surgeon services in Australia will have been expended. As anybody will know, it is illegal under Federal law to export meat from Australia . unless it is authorised by the inspection services. What the Leader of the Country Party and the Country Party are going to do is deliberately to close down the export meatworks throughout Australia. That is what they are going to do because it is impossible to operate meatworks without meat inspectors and veterinary surgeons. Yet the Country Party is the Party which protects primary industries! Let it be known, let it be rammed home to the Country Party and its supporters throughout Australia, that this is what could happen. It is all right to say that meat inspectors may work voluntarily. They may, but they are in a different category from public servants, for example, in Canberra, because they are scattered throughout the length and breadth of Australia away from their homes and they are dependent on Federal finance.

Mr Anthony:

– Face the people of Dawson. Be game.

Dr PATTERSON:

-You will be going up to Dawson and you will be facing the meat workers in Dawson. You will be facing the meat workers in Rockhampton, the meat workers in Bowen, the meat workers in Townsville, the meat workers in Brisbane and in Cairns who are, as you well know, a very viable force within those communities. Meat exports are the life blood of many of those towns like Rockhampton. This illustrates the irresponsibility of the Country

Party. This does not relate just to meat inspections. Other primary industries such as the dairy industry and the fruit industry will also be affected. In fact, the whole of the inspection services in Australia could collapse due to the unprincipled, unprecedented and irresponsible action of the Liberal and National Country Parties in this Parliament.

page 2453

QUESTION

PRIME MINISTER

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

– I ask the Prime Minister: For how long will he say that no allegations have been made against him, as he repeated on television this week, and/or his Government when allegation after allegation of attempted fraud, of deception, of dishonesty, of conspiracy to evade the Constitution, of disreputable conduct has been made in this House and outside it? For how long will he continue to repeat that falsehood? For how long will he continue to evade and refuse to answer questions? For how long will he continue to refuse to allow relevant documents to be tabled and brought to the notice of this House and all honourable members? For how long will this Prime Minister continue to cover up the greatest scandal in Australia’s history?

Mr WHITLAM:
ALP

– The honourable gentleman has certainly made allegations in the last day or so. So has his Deputy and so too, I am shocked to notice, has my learned friend the honourable member for Moreton, and these allegations have been based upon a television show last Monday night involving Mr Khemlani in which he mentioned that an Adelaide solicitor had gone out of the room and made a call to my office. The Adelaide solicitor, when asked, denied the story completely. There have been allegations but they are without foundation. I will not answer questions without notice from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in this Parliament because I cannot trust him nor can anyone else - (Opposition members interjecting)-

Mr WHITLAM:

– And I will not answer questions without notice from the Leader of the Opposition on this matter because I cannot trust him either. Mr Speaker, the Leader - (Opposition members interjecting)-

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I warn the honourable member for Chisholm. He makes a practice in this House of seeking to bring this House into disrepute and I will not stand for it. I warn other members of the Opposition that if they want question time to be conducted in this House they will behave like members of this House. They are carrying on in a manner unbefitting to this chamber. I suggest that if members of the Opposition wish to ask questions which are deliberately provocative and extensive they cannot complain about the answers they receive.

Mr WHITLAM:

– Nor will I answer questions without notice of this character from the Leader of the Opposition because after his performance, the allegations he made a week ago, I would not trust him either. It will be recalled, Mr Speaker, that a week ago the Leader of the Opposition had this to say:

Would it be reprehensible if that document came to us from a Treasury official or from somebody sitting beside him on the front bench?

Mr Howard:

– Crean gave him the wrong document.

Mr Whitlam:

– I will come to that in a moment. He continued:

If it were somebody sitting beside him on the front bench would he believe that that person ought to resign? Would he want to know whether it was somebody from the Treasury or somebody from his front bench? Let me tell him that it is somebody who is sitting on the front bench at this moment. The person who made the document available did so because he believes that in the national interest the Opposition ought to have that information. He did it because he is a worthy person. But the Prime Minister needs to know whether he can feel confidence in the activities of all of his Ministers. Would he believe that that matter would enable trust between himself and his colleagues?

It transpires that the document in question upon which the Leader of the Opposition, with his synthetic smile for which his Party has just paid $50,000, was making this vile allegation as a result of a transaction between my Deputy and his Deputy. My Deputy had quoted from Treasury documents and after he had spoken the Deputy Leader of the Opposition asked him for the document. My Deputy gave it to him. On the basis of this courteous act the Leader of the Opposition has my Deputy branded as a spy, a leak and a traitor. In these circumstances can I be expected to answer a question without notice, an allegation, by the Leader of the Opposition? Last Thursday his allegations were contemptible and were rapidly exposed as such.

Mr Lynch:

– You tabled the wrong document.

Mr WHITLAM:

– The honourable gentleman interjects and says that it was the wrong document. It is true that yesterday I had incorporated in Hansard the original version that the Treasury gave in dissecting the Fraser Budget, the original document. Later the Leader of the Opposition asked to have incorporated, and we gave him leave to have incorporated, a refined version of it. Both versions make nonsense of the Fraser Budget. No wonder that last Wednesday he said it was inoperative. But the significance of the second document to which the Leader of the Opposition refers is that the original document, the one I had incorporated yesterday, took the Leader of the Opposition apart. It exposed the fallacies of his speech on the Budget. He was very intent to see that the refined document was also incorporated because the refined document also took apart the speech, the handout, that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition made in explanation of his leader’s falsities and gaffes on the Budget- that is, the Leader of the Opposition was very intent that the public should also know what the Treasury thinks of the shadow Treasurer.

page 2454

QUESTION

SENATE REPRESENTATION

Mr FULTON:
LEICHHARDT, QUEENSLAND

-Can the Prime Minister give the House any information about changes in Senate representation?

Mr WHITLAM:
ALP

– The honourable gentleman comes from Queensland and I suppose he may have in mind the latest utterances by the Premier of Queensland who had the gall to say- and I will quote from the Brisbane Telegraph which usually fully, loyally and enthusiastically reports the Premier of Queensland:

The Queensland Government would propose Senator Albert Patrick Field for the Senate again if the High Court decided he was ineligible to sit, the Premier Mr BjelkePetersen said today.

That was 2 days ago. Then the Premier relieved himself of some comments about the High Court in general, and I need not regale the House with those. It is useful to note that all the resolutions the Senate passed last week and this week -

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– I take a point of order. As the matter that the Prime Minister is referring to is presently before the court, is it in order for the Prime Minister to discuss this matter?

The SPEAKER:

-Order! Matters are not ruled to be sub judice unless they are actually being heard and debate in the Parliament would in fact be likely to affect a decision. I doubt very much that High Court judges would be influenced by any comments in this Parliament in respect of matters related to politics.

Mr WHITLAM:

-The votes which the Senate has carried in respect to the Budget last week and this week have been carried only because of Mr Bjelke-Petersen’s actions. It was Mr BjelkePetersen who nominated an anti-Labor senator to succeed the late Labor senator, Bert Milliner. The motions which have been carried have been carried by one vote. If Senator Milliner had still been alive the motions would have been tied. To use the constitutional phrase, they would have passed in the negative. If Mr Bjelke-Petersen had done what every Premier, except Mr Lewis, had previously done in the quarter of a century since we have had proportional representation in the Senate, all of the Opposition’s delaying tactics in the Senate would have come to naught. The Opposition would then have had to face up to the questions: Will they in fact vote against the Budget Bills? Will they reject the Budget? Will they be the first Opposition in our three-quarters of a century of national history to reject a Budget?

The Opposition has adopted the dodge of moving a motion to defer debate. It has been able to carry those motions because Senator Milliner died and the Premier of Queensland put an anti-Labor senator in his place. To use Senator Steele Hall’s immortal words, the motions were carried over a dead man’s corpse. In view of the presence in the gallery of the Deputy Premier of Queensland, I want to make it plain, as I have done previously in the House, that it is not the Government of Queensland as a whole; it is the perversity of the Premier because the Deputy Premier of Queensland and the Liberal Ministers in the Queensland coalition Government voted for a Labor man to succeed a Labor man. I do not want anybody to be in any doubt that when I criticise the action of the Queensland Premier I am not criticising all his colleagues, only the Country Party colleagues. It is astonishing that in these circumstances the Premier of Queensland is going to compound his error, his sin, by advising the Governor of Queenslandnot apparently that he would need much advice- to break another convention.

On 24 occasions writs have been issued by State Governors for an election of half the Senate. On every one of those 24 occasions the State Governors, with the advice or acquiescence of their Premiers, have fixed the date of the election as that proposed by the Governor-General. One now finds that the Premier blatantly is saying that he will advise the Governor- there can be no doubt that the Governor would accept the advice- that any request that the GovernorGeneral sends for a half Senate date should be rejected or deferred. It is appalling that it is the conservatives in our present society who are destroying the conventions. It is the conservatives who have replaced senators by their opponents, for the first time for 25 years since proportional representation was introduced. It is the conservatives who for the first time in 75 years are deferring a Budget. It is the conservatives, or some of them, who are proposing to rebuff the GovernorGeneral if he makes a request as to the Senate election date.

Let me conclude on a light note.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I suggest the Prime Minister might conclude.

Mr WHITLAM:

– I would not want it to be thought that the Premier of Queensland is alone in this respect. I think that you will enjoy it. Mr Speaker. The Premier of New South Wales apparently also has in mind to do something to advise his Governor, who as we know is of stauncher stuff, to disregard the GovernorGeneral’s request- or I think that is what he meant when a week ago he said at his Press conference:

If the half-Senate election was denied, and I’m not saying it’s going to be, if the half-Senate election, indeed it has not even been called you know, then of course it would mean if an election was held that the replacement half-Senate election was replaced, the replacements for Senator Bunton and Senator Field would immediately take their place in the Senate.

Now we know.

page 2455

QUESTION

OVERSEAS LOAN RAISINGS

Mr SINCLAIR:

-Why is the Prime Minister now prepared to deny the evidence of the man with whom overseas loan negotiations were conducted by his former Minister for Minerals and Energy when it was on the basis of that evidence that the former Minister was dismissed?

Mr WHITLAM:
ALP

– I ask the honourable gentleman who asked this question, and for whom I have the same high regard as I have for his senior colleagues, to place it on notice.

page 2455

QUESTION

EDUCATION

Mr REYNOLDS:
BARTON, NEW SOUTH WALES

-Can the Minister for Education inform the House of the effect, if any, on funds for education purposes if the Senate continues its obstruction of the passage of the Budget? Can he also say what the effect might be on the availability of places in tertiary education in 1976?

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

-So far as I know, the Senate has not accepted, rejected or requested anything in relation to the Budget. What it has claimed is the right to dissolve the House of Representatives. But having regard to the question asked by the honourable gentleman, I would say that by about the middle of next month all pay of teachers in the Northern Territory, all expenses to move teachers in the Northern Territory from their schools to their homes, the allowances of 1 3 000 Aboriginal children, the expenses to move Aboriginal children in the Northern Territory to their homes or to feed them if they are not sent to their homes, a double allowance in the middle of November for 73 000 tertiary students. 2000 post-graduate students and quite a number of isolated children will not be paid. The position in relation to certain Catholicschools in the Territories is that capital funds that were to be granted will not be able to be granted until the Budget is through. I do not know what attitude the Senate will take to the Schools Commission recommended funds of S465m. It will be remembered that when the Karmel recommended funds were before the Senate they were rejected by the Senate. The Country Party changed its attitude and so they got through the Senate, but at all stages the Liberal Party voted against $700m for schools, so it might be assumed that it will vote against $465m for schools. But that remains to be seen.

page 2455

QUESTION

ADJOURNMENT DEBATE

Mr CORBETT:
MARANOA, QUEENSLAND

– I ask the Prime Minister: Is the curtailment of the adjournment debate a retaliation against the Opposition for its legitimate use of the forms of the House, including the calling of quorums, which the Government itself used when in Opposition? Does this action and the Prime Minister’s refusal to answer questions wipe away the last vestige of open government promised by the Prime Minister in his election campaign? Does the Prime Minister realise that the promise of open government was one of the main reasons why this Government was mistakenly elected to office by the Australian people- a mistake that they are anxiously waiting to rectify?

Mr WHITLAM:
ALP

– I can understand the honourable gentleman asking this question because he has just arrived back in this country. He will be shocked to know that during his absence his colleagues in the Opposition, for the first time in our nation’s history, have conspired to reject a Budget- something that has not been done in any nation’s Government for the last 60 years or more. As the honourable gentleman will know, from his recent and also his former travels, there is no other country in the world where this could now happen. This, the rejection of a Budget, is clearly the most critical thing to have arisen in this Parliament in its 75 years or in any British national parliament for 65 years. In those circumstances the Government is resolved to make the Opposition here and in the Senate face up to the issue; not continually to defer debate in the Senate on the Budget but to debate the Budget and to come to a decision on the Budget, to declare itself on the Budget. Similarly the honourable gentleman should realise that it is the Government’s determination to see that matters of priority or relevance are debated in this

House. We are not going to have question time, we are not going to have urgency motions, we are not going to have adjournment debates all setting up side issues. The great issue fronting this country is: Is the government with a majority in the House of Representatives to be allowed to govern? Is government of the people, for the people, by the people’s House to survive in this country? It is on this issue that the honourable gentleman has been brought back to vote in this House. I hope that his good sense over his years in this House and the respect which he enjoys on both sides of it will enable him to bring sanity to his colleagues and relevance to the proceedings of the chamber.

page 2456

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY: EFFECT OF CUT IN FUNDS

Mr FRY:

– Will the Minister for the Capital Territory please advise the House what the implications for the Australian Capital Territory would be if there were to be a further 1 2 per cent cut in the Budget allocation for the A.C.T. as proposed in the Opposition’s alternative budget?

Mr Anthony:

– All these things will happen if you do not face the people.

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

-The right honourable gentleman would never come back here if he faced the people on decent electoral boundaries. The facts are of course that the alternative Budget proposals for the A.C.T. by honourable members opposite would cause great reductions in all areas of government in this city. To reduce expenditure by the 12 per cent proposed would save about $9m. That cut in Canberra would mean not only a reduction of the ordinary services but also an attack upon the very fundamentals upon which the society is built. For instance, we would probably have to reduce loans for housing by about $3. 5m which would mean a reduction of 220 houses. It would mean 220 couples without homes. It would mean the employment of perhaps hundreds of people being prejudiced. We would have to reduce our orders for motor vehicles, of which this year we expected to order some 840. Of course this would go right back through the system and affect every motor car industry in the country. We would have to stop buying the buses we have ordered. We have ordered 86 buses involving another $3. 5m. Of course this affects the Commonwealth Aircraft Corporation which is building them for us. Honourable members opposite want these industries to prosper. They propose to take every possible step to prevent them from doing so. In the general arrangements we will probably have to dismiss some 60 industrial workers and reduce standards right round the city. In respect of the other areas of health, education, development and so on I can get my colleagues to answer. The facts are that honourable members opposite are proposing a Budget allocation which is totally irresponsible. In fact it is a piece of continuing economic and social vandalism.

page 2456

QUESTION

RESTRICTED SERVICES FOR MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT

Mr MACPHEE:
BALACLAVA, VICTORIA

– I ask my question of the Prime Minister. Do all of the proposed restrictions on travel and facilities for members and their staff apply equally to all Ministers and their staff? Do these restrictions also apply to the Prime Minister and his staff?

Mr WHITLAM:
ALP

-The position of office holders is under consideration. Office holders, of course, sit on both sides of the House. As to my own position, I shall continue to accept the advice that I and my predecessors have accepted- that in the interests of security we should travel by Royal Australian Air Force aircraft. In this context I want to assure honourable gentlemen that the bodyguards they see accompanying the Leader of the Opposition are not to prevent other people from shooting him but to prevent him from shooting himself. I shall travel by RAAF aircraft and the armed forces will stay at their posts. They will man them and will carry out their duties. I am certain that the people who supply and man our armed forces will be able to get supplies and incomes because of the credit of the country.

page 2456

QUESTION

CONSUMER PRICE INDEX

Mr DAVIES:
BRADDON, TASMANIA

– Can the Prime Minister give the House any information about the latest movements in the consumer price index?

Mr WHITLAM:
ALP

– In fact I am able to do so because, owing to my generosity, question time has continued to 1 1 a.m., and the embargo on the latest consumer price index figures was lifted at that time. The consumer price index is published today. I do not want to raise any false hopes. If I were the shadow Treasurer I would be expected to quadruple the figure for the quarter and give it as the annual figure. If I were to do that it would appear that Australia’s annual inflation rate is the lowest in the Western world.

Mr Anthony:

– Only Whitlam can reduce it by a third.

Mr WHITLAM:

-In my memory, that is the first true word the right honourable gentleman has interjected. Honourable gentlemen know, and it is even sinking in on some right honourable gentlemen, that inflation is currently a phenomenon in every country which resembles Australia, every country which is principally a manufacturing or service industry country as regards its employment or which is a trading country as regards its international money movements. Accordingly, in every country in the Western world- throughout Europe, in North America, in Japan, in Australia, in New Zealand- there has been a record rate of inflation at the one time. Some countries have had at some periods higher rates of inflation but never since the Industrial Revolution has there been the degree of simultaneous inflation around the world that there is at the moment. I am happy to say that Australia’s rate of inflation, whether in this quarter or on an annual basis derived from quadrupling this quarter’s figure, is the lowest in the world. 1 said that I do not want honourable gentlemen to get extravagant hopes from this matter, because unquestionably the December quarter figures are bound to rise because of the effects of increased indirect taxation both State and Federal. I would, however, make the point that the figures for this quarter benefit from decreases in the health services section of the index associated with the introduction of Medibank for medical services in all cities and for hospital services in all cities except Sydney and Brisbane. Honourable members opposite will never forgive us for persuading even the most recalcitrant State governments to accept hospital Medibank.

As a result of the latest figures, employees will learn the important lesson that wages constitute only part of their income. In the September quarter they will, via wages, be compensated for price increases, and they will reap the benefits of cheaper health care through Medibank. That is, taken together, this increased compensation flowing from national wage cases will more than adjust for inflation. As regards employers, the new figures should have a beneficial effect on business profitability because of wage indexation, which not only is being supported by the Australian Government but also, because of the good relations in this respect between the Australian Government and all the State governments, is being given a fair trial by the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. Wage indexation, supported by the 7 governments in Australia, is likely to be seen to be still more successful as a result of these figures which were released 8 minutes ago. 1 should have said that the annual rate of inflation for Australia, on the shadow Treasurer’s method of calculating these matters, is 3.2 per cent. For the September quarter it is 0.8 per cent.

Mr Speaker. I think that is a good note on which to go to the barricades and ask thai further questions be placed on notice.

page 2457

ROAD ACCIDENT REPORT

Mr CHARLES JONES:
Minister for Transport · Newcastle · ALP

– For the information of honourable members I present a report entitled The Road Accident Situation in Australia in 197 Owing to the limited number available at this time, reference copies of this report have been placed in the Parliamentary Library.

page 2457

PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS

Dr PATTERSON:
Minister for Agriculture · Dawson · ALP

- Mr Speaker. I wish to make a personal explanation. I claim to have been misrepresented. My attention was drawn last night to an article in a Queensland newspaper, the Sunday Sun. The article was a vitriolic attack on the Government but in it appeared these words:

Rex Patterson says the government is gone.

Mr Speaker. I made no such statement. It is a malicious untruth. What is more, it reveals the depths to which newspaper proprietors will sink because it is written under the nom de plume of ‘The Drum from Eureka in Canberra’. Later on. using inverted commas this time, the article says:

Patterson said’ It’s about time we had a light again. I don’t mind losing one as long as it’s a fight.’

Can honourable members ever imagine any parliamentarian saying anything more stupid? Again it is deliberately false. I will end on this note: I think these types of nom de plume indicate the depths of despair reached by some newspaper proprietors.

Mr ANTHONY:

-Mr Speaker, I claim to have been misrepresented.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I call the right honourable Leader of the National Country Party.

Mr ANTHONY:

– In today’s Australian there is a headline which states:

Anthony agent for oil firms, says PM.

The Prime Minister made that scurrilous accusation yesterday in the House. I did not protest and make him withdraw it merely because of the weight of accusations which are made by all these desperate members of the Governmentdishonest accusations against me and members of my Party. If I were to object each time wc would be on our feet every 5 minutes and I am disappointed that the Australian found fit to report the wild accusations made by the Prime Minister in this House. I want to deny them completely. I am no agent for anyone in this country. I serve every interest in this country. No matter who is persecuted, whether it be a pensioner or a multi-national, I will stand and speak up for that person or company. This is a deliberate lie. It is an indication of how desperate this Government is to try to discredit people who are prepared to stand up and challenge it on its points of view. I have exposed its policies on oil exploration and I now laugh at the way in which they have -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The right honourable gentleman is now debating the question and not making a personal explanation. The right honourable gentleman will not do that.

Mr ANTHONY:

– I do not wish to debate it but I want to make the point why they have made these allegations, particularly -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! That is not part of a personal explanation.

Mr ANTHONY:

- Mr Speaker, this is a deliberate lie. Let the Prime Minister prove it if he wants to make the accusation. The Prime Minister repeatedly has said that he will have nothing to do with multi-nationals. It is very strange that at the last election -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The right honourable gentleman will resume his seat.

page 2458

BILLS RETURNED FROM THE SENATE

The following Bills were returned from the Senate without amendment:

Social Services Bill ( No. 3 ) 1 975.

Repatriation Acts Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1975.

page 2458

PUBLICATIONS COMMITTEE

Mr McKenzie:
Diamond Valley · ALP

-I present the tenth report of the Publications Committee.

Report- by leave- adopted.

page 2458

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS

Mr CROSS:
Brisbane

-On behalf of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs I bring up the report of the Committee on Aboriginal health and related matters in the south-west of Western Australia, together with the minutes of proceedings.

Ordered that the report be printed.

page 2458

QUESTION

HOURS OF MEETING

Mr DALY:
Leader of the House · Grayndler · ALP

– I move:

In moving this motion let me say that it is proposed to sit at 1 1 a.m. until 6 p.m. on Tuesday, and on Wednesday and Thursday from 10 a.m. to 6 p.m. There will be a break for lunch between 1 p.m. and 2 p.m. The duration of the sittings is unknown at present and rests on the Opposition’s attitude in the Senate to the Government’s Budget. So I do not think we will have a very long siege. The change will bring about savings in costs relating to salaries of officers of the Parliament, to departments and to transport. It is one measure which is needed because of the unprincipled, unprecedented and unwarranted action by the leadership of the Opposition, who have made a grab for power, and of course by the change of events in Australian constitutional history.

As the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) said at question time this morning, the primary obligation of this Parliament is to pass the Budget and to see that people are not inconvenienced and caused suffering and hardship because of any actions of this Parliament, particularly by a government which has the confidence of this House and of the Australian people, and because of actions of those in the Senate who are stopping the passing of the Budget without the courage to reject it- just deferring it. The waverers there are not prepared to reject it because they know that they will be setting in train events which will completely destroy democracy in this country. These changes are necessary because of that action. They may continue indefinitely. I advise members at this stage- I repeat the advice- that in the very near future they will get probably one ticket to this Parliament and will stay here until it ends. That will apply to all members, no matter what their position.

Mr Sinclair:

– What about the Prime Minister?

Mr DALY:

– I say to the honourable member opposite that the office holders of this Parliament who waste the most money are the honourable member who has just interjected, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Malcolm Fraser) and others who use VIP aircraft and charter aircraft and whose car accounts are amongst the highest in the country. The only thing that stops me -

Mr Sinclair:

– Because it is completely untrue.

Mr DALY:

– The honourable member has not paid his Avis account yet on which he owes $ 1 , 500 for the last 1 8 months. If that money were paid it would help us keep a couple of workers in jobs at this stage. It is all right honourable members growling about what is done in respect of privileges on this side of the House. The greatest and most extravagant spenders are the office holders of the Opposition. We can look at their car accounts, their VIP accounts, their charter accounts and everything else. The only thing that stops us from bringing in effectively a full curtailment of office holders’ facilities is the inconvenience which would be caused to members of the Opposition because we want them to have every opportunity to put their infamous case to the Australian people. I do not want to be challenged from the Opposition on facilities and expenditure because if there are challenges I will put on the record the files I have in my Department and we will see precisely who is doing all the -

Mr Sinclair:

– Why do you not do so? Put it on the record.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I suggest that the honourable Deputy Leader of the Country Party remain silent.

Mr DALY:

– He has a guilty conscience.

Mr Sinclair:

– He is making false accusations against me.

Mr DALY:

– I know that Opposition members are sensitive on the sitting hours. I know that there is very great stress opposite. I know that they are living on their nerves and that they have to convert waverers and others. I do not want to go on at any further length on this matter other than to say that they are the sitting hours until further notice.

Mr Chipp:

– Will the Ministers get all their perks?

Mr DALY:

– Perks and lurks, my heavens. Let us have a look at them. I will read out a few of the Opposition’s at any time it likes to ask me.

Mr Sinclair:

– You would be afraid to read out those of the Government.

Mr DALY:

– I suggest to the honourable member who interjected that he pay his Avis account. He owes $ 1 , 500 and will not meet his debts. All they were for was to run himself and his family around and he thought he could put it over because he has not realised yet that he is not in government.

Mr Sinclair:

– It would be a good idea if the Government met its debts.

Mr DALY:

– The honourable member ought to pay his debts. He is not a Minister but he thinks he is. That is their problem over there. They do not know that they are in Opposition. They are advising the Governor-General now, they tell me. I do not want to upset those opposite with the great stress that they are under. These are the sitting hours. I like Parliament. I do not mind how long we are here. But I do not like to see those opposite, who are so inconvenienced by attending even at irregular intervals, having to go through this process. I have formally moved the motion in the interests of democracy in this country and as a gesture that this Government will stay here until the Budget is passed. It is no good deferring it. It is no good sidestepping it. Stand up and be counted in another place. In that way we will see where members of the Opposition stand on the great issues and whether they believe the Australian people should have the Government of their choice or should suffer hardship because those members opposite do not realise that this Government has faced the people twice in 18 months. Mr Speaker - (Quorum formed).

Mr SINCLAIR:
New England

-Mr Speaker -

Motion (by Mr Daly) put:

That the question be now put.

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

AYES: 61

NOES: 57

Majority……. 4

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

page 2460

QUESTION

EFFECT OF INFLATION ON LOW INCOME EARNERS

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

-I move:

On 9 July 1974, which is some 15 months ago, I saw fit to put that motion on notice. I can only say that in that time the situation has continued to deteriorate. Regrettably today it is not only the superannuitants and the aged who are reliant upon government payments who are in difficulty, but the entire nation which is facing grave problems. My motion refers to 2 particular groups in the area to which I shall direct my comments today. All members on this side of the House fully support my moving this motion today. I might say that I do not have only the support of members on this side of the House. I should like to refer to one of Professor Henderson’s recent reports- the first main report on poverty in Australiawhich was presented in April 1975.I refer to some of his comments which serve to back up the claims that I am making in the House today. In referring to inflation, which is the curse of the nation regardless of what the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) might have said in the House this morning when he made a claim that it is on the downturn- it is a particularly Australian curse produced by the present Government- Professor Henderson says: . . inflation favours the active and the powerful; the position of poor people deteriorates. Those who own real assets such as houses, land and some shares gain from inflation, as these assets rise in value. The poor renters -

And so many people on fixed incomes, superannuation and aged pensions are in this category- are faced either with increases in rents they cannot afford to pay or with eviction to make way for more profitable commercial development. Those who own assets gain because they can borrow against them and make profits: they repay their debts later in depreciated currency; and the rate of interest lags behind the rate of increase in prices, as it did in Australia in 1973 -

I add, also in 1974- when prices rose 13 percent but rates of interest were around 9 per cent . . . Professional men and strong trade unions adjust their incomes upwards just as fast as or faster than prices.

Those who suffer most severely are small savers with deposits in savings banks which are rapidly losing their real value. Rich people no longer hold their wealth in fixed interest securities, but poorer people have not the knowledge or opportunity to hold it in ways that provide protection against inflation. Those who have retired on a pension fixed in terms of money suffer the full loss of purchasing power as consumer prices rise and they get no compensation.

In fact, under the present Government they have suffered a further attack because of this Government’s policies. In this concluding paragraph of that segment Professor Henderson says:

In our judgment. no country with a continuing inflation rate of over 10 per cent has been able to prevent this causing grave hardship to important groups of poor people. We do not believe that Australia can escape this consequence. We therefore recommend that one element essential in any program to reduce poverty in Australia is that the rate of inflation be brought under control and that the reduction be at least to a rate of less than 10 per cent a year.

In contrast are the remarks of our Prime Minister who postulates and goes from one end of the country to the other telling us that we have never been better off. I believe that in a discussion of the problems confronting those people who are superannuitants and those who are dependent upon government pensions we must understand the full impact of inflation on this country. It has been said time and again that regrettably since the Government came to power it has simply sought to hide behind a world situation. It has done nothing about the situation which exists in this country. In the last year nearly every Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development country has had a downturn in the rate of inflation. But inflation in Australia has continued to climb. When we look at some of the other countries where inflation has continued to climb, we are in good company. Iceland has an inflation rate of 47.4 per cent. I must confess that I have not been to Iceland lately and I do not know what is making its inflation rate spiral. But

I do not believe that the Prime Minister or any other member on the Government side could make a comparison between Iceland and Australia. The country with the second worst inflation rate is a Labour dominated country with a socialist government- Great Britain. It has an inflation rate of 26 per cent, slightly greater than ours. The present British Government has the same system as our present Government has: it is motivated by the same philosophical approach of socialism. Look what is happening in that country. Up goes the inflation rate. The inflation rate is still high in Ireland. Turkey has an inflation rate which is a little higher than ours, but that rate has fallen in the last year. In Finland the inflation rate is comparable with our own. Australia comes next. Inflation in all other countries has gone down but our inflation continues to go up. This Government, by doing nothing about it, is continuing to erode the position of those persons who have either spent their life putting money away for their retirement, those persons who are dependent upon some company superannuation scheme and those persons who are dependent upon the Government for increases in pensions. I intend to set the proof of that in the next few minutes.

I do not think that anybody needs to be toldand even Government supporters will acknowledge this privately- that those persons who have ceased to work and who have lived in such a way that they were frugal and put money away for their retirement years, are simply seeing the purchasing power of their money disappear. The current rate of inflation in this country has the effect of reducing $ 100 placed in a bank to a purchasing power of $83 or $84 in 12 months. That point cannot be contested.

Let us look at the situation with regard to superannuitants- the people who all their lives have made a contribution from their salaries to some private superannuation scheme. Over 75 per cent of Australians are employed in the private sector. So superannuitants comprise a significant group of Australians. Three-quarters of our population could rely upon superannuation schemes introduced by their employers. There have been a host of articles in recent times on inflation, wage rises etc. in various national newspapers. But a very high percentage of companies today do provide their employees with an opportunity to subscribe to a superannuation scheme. Those persons who have retired have in many instances seen their former employers virtually disappear off the map. We have had not only a downturn in business; we have had the disappearance of many companies. So many people who are retired would have faced a dismal future if the company that employed them had not placed its superannuation scheme with some other big organisation such as an insurance company. Many people who belonged to superannuation schemes and were nearing retirement now face the problem that their employing company has folded. These people have been laid off. They have been given a lump sum payment. They must stand by and watch inflation ripping at the heart of that lump sum payment. They know that their future is as uncertain as the future would have been in 1929. 1930. 1931 and 1932.

The third group of persons consists of those who are dependent upon the Government. It does not matter what Government speakers may say in defending the Government against these charges and accusations: there is no getting away from the fact that persons who are in receipt of pensions suffer greatly as a result of the rate of inflation which has gripped this country since the present Government came to power. Before 1 refer further to that aspect, let me say here and now that I believe that if a Liberal-Country Party Government had been in power between 1972 and 1975, Australia would have had a higher rate of inflation than it suffered in the previous ten or twenty years when the Liberal-Country Party was in office. We could not have avoided the effects of the world situation: there is no argument about that.

Mr Young:

– Well said.

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

-I beg your pardon?

Mr Young:

– You should be on the front bench.

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

-But-and the message comes after the ‘but’- the facts of life are that the inflation rate that Australia would have suffered under a Liberal-Country Party Government would have been much less than the rate of inflation under this Government, which is excessive. What do honourable members on the Government side say to that? They are very silent, very silent indeed. Australia would not have been able to avoid a rate of inflation of perhaps 8 per cent or 9 per cent. The level of inflation above that rate has been the fault of the present Government. It has been absolutely its fault because the present Government has done everything to encourage inflation for it sees inflation as a means of implementing some of those cherished socialist policies which it waited so long to introduce as its members wandered about on this side of the House for 23 years.

Mr Clayton:

– What about unemployment?

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

-That is another factor which will help to sweep the Labor Party from power. I say to the honourable member for Isaacs who has just interjected and who holds his seat by a slender majority that that is what will happen to the Government when it finally bows to the will of the people and presents itself to them. ‘ “ Let’ me. deal further with those people who are age pensioners, invalid pensioners or who have large families and who rely to a degree on such social.service benefits as child endowment. Let us look at the situation of these people. No matter how the various pension rates which these people receive may be increased from time to time, the fact of life is that the increase in the rate of inflation is so great that, in the interim, these people continue to suffer. A decision was announced last August to grant increased pensions. But it takes weeks and weeks to introduce the -necessary legislation and for the proposals to become reality. The decision is based on factors existing- months before it is taken. The rate of inflation continues. Pensions reach a certain level but.in the interim, because of the effects of inflation the value of such pensions has declined.

If honourable members opposite do not know already, I can assure them that today pensioners pray, that nothing will go wrong in their homes which will require them to call on the services of a handyman or a tradesman. The stage has been reached where, as a result of the high rates of taxation that the Government continues to impose on incomes, pensioners who call a plumber, an electrician, a television serviceman or a- person to do any other jobs or to fix other items around a house must pay between onethird and one-half of their week’s pension for the provision of those simple services. The Government is very much to blame for pensioners being required to fork out such large payments. A number of pensioners have contacted me to complain that servicemen have called to carry out work which takes three-quarters of an hour and have charged $16 for that call. This is money which they simply cannot afford. Because of the cost, they will not in future be able to afford to have such things as broken drains fixed. People such as plumbers are living at a time when as working persons they have the opportunity to shield themselves against the effects of inflation. These people may charge $16 but half of that amount would be paid as income tax to the present Government so that it may continue to finance its extraordinary policies that we have seen contribute to the ruination of this nation in the last2’/6 to 3 years.

In conclusion, I repeat what I said at the outset: The cost of living is becoming a real problem to those who are retired and those who are dependent upon pensions. These people have attained a certain standard of living in this country. They now see that standard being eroded. I might add that half of the trouble with the Ministers in the present Government and the reason why they are opposed to going to the polls is to be found in their standard of living. On the whole, they are motivated by selfishness. No Minister has yet been in office for 3 years. They know that once they have held ministerial office for 3 years they are on the gravy train for life. They will have no worries because certain perks will come their way. They are desperate to get their hands on those perks by completing 3 years service as Ministers. That is why they are so upset at the prospect of an election.

Mr Kelly:

– All they get now is a state funeral.

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

-As the honourable member for Wakefield interjects- and as you know, Mr Deputy Speaker, interjections are out of order- all that the Ministers are entitled to now is a state funeral. As one can understand the desire of Ministers to attain a certain standard of living, surely one can argue that the retired workers of Australia have every right to seek to retain the standard of living for which they worked. The actions of the Government have resulted in the savings of these people being eroded. The Government’s actions have rendered useless superannuation benefits that retired people receive. Only very fortunate people belong to superannuation schemes in which the companies subscribing to those schemes increase payments to keep pace with the effects of inflation. Many superannuation schemes are incapable of keeping up with the rate of inflation. People who retired on what was considered a fair superannuation payment 4 years or 5 years ago are now floundering because of the incapacity and inability of their former employers to meet the effects of the rate of inflation. Regrettably, as I said before, many of these employers have ceased to operate.

If the first speaker for the Government in this debate does not believe that superannuation schemes and superannuitants face problems, I draw attention to the National Times of 18-23 August which carries the headline: ‘Inflation and Wage Rises put Pension Funds at risk’. The Australian Financial Review on 3 April had an article headed: ‘How inflation eats into superannuation schemes.’ The Australian Stock Exchange Journal in May 1974 presented an article entitled: ‘Superannuation- Is it still the Pot of

Gold ‘. On 4 November 1 974, an article headed ‘Stagflation’s Price- Super funds Hit’, appeared in the Australian Financial Review. That is the story. It is time the Government did something about this problem.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Martin)Order! The honourable member’s time has expired. Is the motion seconded?

Mr CORBETT:
Maranoa

-Mr Deputy Speaker, I second the motion. In doing so, I express my belief that this is an extremely important motion. I draw attention to the fact that notice was given of this motion on 9 July 1974. However relevant and important it was then, the intervening period has made even more important the discussion of this matter and the need for the attention of the Government to be drawn to the grave importance of it. The attention of the Government should be directed also to its lack of action in endeavouring to do what this motion suggests, that is, that the Government should take urgent action to ensure that those people who are dependent on superannuation and welfare payments are not adversely prejudiced by the economic mismanagement of this Government.

This economic mismanagement has grown in degree during the whole period that this Government has been in office. It is of vital concern to those people in the categories mentioned in the motion, and their position is growing worse. It is of critical importance to ensure that their standards of living, which are already eroded, are not reduced to even lower levels. The Government has not shown any capacity for nor indeed much concern about trying to prevent the results envisaged by the honourable member for Griffith in this motion.

The first requirement in relation to this matter is that the Government should make an honest and sincere attempt to control and reduce inflation. It is all very well to say that inflation is a world wide problem. That is no excuse at all. As the honourable member for Griffith pointed out, that does not excuse the Government from taking no action. Whatever the difficulties may be in relation to inflation, if there is one country that should be able to set an example in being able to control inflation it should be Australia. This Government hides behind the fact that inflation exists in other countries. In a period of 23 years in office, a period which honourable members opposite are so happy to refer to, the LiberalCountry Party governments achieved a great record even though there was inflation, although not to the same extent as in other countries. Our record was to the great benefit of the people in the categories mentioned in the motion- people on pensions and on superannuation. There is no doubt about that. I draw the attention of the Government to the point that people on superannuation paid their contributions over a period of time with money that had real value. I might call that ‘National Country Party government stabilised economy money’. That is the money they used- money that had real purchasing power. They are now being paid money, although in a greater number of dollars to some extent, which has lost so much of its valuemoney that might be called ‘ Labor Government diminishing value money’. I draw that comparison.

This Government should take action to restrict the effects of inflation on people on low incomes, people on superannuation and people receiving welfare payments. Will the Government admit that it is time that it did something worth while in this direction? If it is sincere, if it is to make the effort that is required of it, it must get back to sound economic management which is the real answer to this problem. This would allow the increases that are given to maintain value. People receiving welfare payments are in many instances in an even worse position than those on superannuation. We know that the amounts paid in welfare benefits have increased but it is what those dollars buy that really counts. It is the purchasing power of the money that these people receive that really counts. So it is not a matter of just gradually increasing the actual money value of these payments that are being made to people receiving welfare benefits and superannuation payments.

The honourable member for Griffith quite rightly referred to the first main report on poverty in Australia by Professor Henderson. I will quote from it too because I believe that even Government supporters would hardly have the temerity to suggest that this is some concoction of or scheming by Opposition supporters. On page 9 of the report it says:

From 1945 to 1973 government policies of maintenance of effective demand through fiscal and monetary policy prevented the recurrence of large-scale unemployment, and Australia was particularly successful in this respect.

Large scale unemployment brings about the need for welfare payments to be made. It is directly related to the number of people who are forced into receiving welfare payments. When these people erode their savings, when they use them up, they simply have to go on to welfare benefits. It is important that this be remembered by the Government. There has been an example of how the economy should be managed and ‘, that example was set over that famous period of 23 years which Government supporters are so fond of citing. The report continues:

In 1974-75.it seems that inflation created poverty through unemployment.

That repeats what I have just said.

But rapid inflation has also contributed to poverty even more surely in many other ways. There is very clear evidence from countries such as Brazil, which have suffered a high rate of inflation for many years -

We accept that- that’ the great majority of poor people have made no progress and many have become worse off.

That is the point we are making here; that is the point that the Government is missing. All it is worrying about is trying to placate the left wing union leaders and the people it thinks might help it to preserve it in office, but it will find that so many of those people are so disillusioned with the Government that it will have lost even their support. The report goes on to say:

This has happened although the national income has been rising rapidly. In other South American countries with similar .rapid rates of inflation, but with less national resources and a lower rate of increase in national income, poor people have fared even worse.

It is clear that this problem hits home. I give credit to. the honourable member for Griffith for drawing attention in this motion to this position, and I. emphasise again that however relevant it was .at the time he gave notice of the motion it is now even more important. I commend the honourable member for using, as I am doing, some, of the facts in this report on poverty which cannot be questioned so far as political bias is concerned; so let the Government take notice of what is set out in the report. In the concluding part of that document Professor Henderson says:

The.- relief of poverty should be regarded as one of the most important aims of government.

When we get back, into office it will be one of the most important aims of government. He went on to say:.

This will involve both direct measures to increase the incomes of.poor people and welfare services to prevent poverty, which should be fitted into a long-term policy for the distribution of the growth of national income.

That is the approach that Professor Henderson recommended. That is the approach that will received the sympathetic consideration of the next government which will be a LiberalCountry Party government. He went on to say:

In considering other measures such as restraint of inflation and the level of employment, careful consideration should be given to the effects of alternative policies on poverty in the future.

That goes right to the Government. That is what I want the Government to understand fully because it is important that it should take notice of it. It is so important that I feel it should consider this aspect. If it is anxious to try to reject what has been said this morning because this motion has come from this side of the House, I appeal to the sense of humanity of Government supporters to try to get some consideration for these deserving people. I believe that part of the reason the Labor Government is in office is that it has made promises in relation to what it was going to do for the underprivileged. I quote from the policy speech of the present Prime Minister, Mr Whitlam, in 1972 when he said:

The basic pension rate will no longer be tied to the financial and political considerations of annual Budgets. All pensions will be immediately raised by $ 1 .50 and thereafter until it reaches 25 per cent of average weekly male earnings. It will never be allowed to fall below that level.

He said: ‘It will never be allowed to fall below that level’. What a performance! When is it going to reach that level? It has not even reached it. He said the basic rate will never be allowed to fall below that level. This is one of the things that the Government should have its attention drawn to- that it is not in fact living up to promises it made. If it gets back into office as as result of these sorts of promises surely it is not too much for the Opposition to ask it to honour its promises. I quote now from another article in relation to this matter. It reads:

Those currently receiving fixed pensions are having them eroded at the rate of 16 per cent a year and those receiving lump sums must earn in excess of this rate to merely stay on the same standard of living.

Where do people get 16 per cent for their money? Where do people in the lower income category who have some savings invest their money to return them anything like 16 per cent? These people on low incomes are usually not sophisticated in the matter of investment. Because of the way this Government is acting companies which we regard as very sound companies are going to the wall because they cannot cope with the economic conditions which this Government has forced onto business throughout Australia. Where will these people manage to maintain their equity? How will they maintain the value of those savings? I refer to employees who see a need for regular and frequent cost of living adjustments. That awareness will be accentuated by any cost of living adjustment.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Martin)Order! As it is now 2 hours after the time fixed for the meeting of the House, the debate on the motion is interrupted.

Motion (by Mr Daly) agreed to:

That the time Tor the discussion of notices. General Business, be extended.

Mr CORBETT:

– In considering this situation it is important that we look at the problem entirely, or almost entirely, from the point of view of the people I have been referring to and who are referred to in the motion. There is one thing that could be done by the Government which it has not been prepared to do. During this period of very rapidly rising inflation has the Government even considered trying to restore the purchasing power of the pension by adjusting pensions and welfare payments more regularly? Inflation could very easily accelerate to 20 per cent per annum. Most people think that that will happen. If it does there could be a very serious interim loss over a year. In such circumstances adjustments have to be made more frequently if justice is to be given to these people. But does the Government want to give justice to them? Does it really want to help them? No, I do not think it does. If inflation gets up to around 20 per cent adjustments will have to be more frequent in order to make it possible for recipients to come closer to preserving the real level of income required over a long term for them to have some sort of stability in their welfare and superannuation payments, but particularly welfare payments.

More frequent adjustments would raise administrative costs. I recognise that point. Nevertheless, what is more important, protection for these people or trying to save a little bit of money for the Government? Naturally we want the Government to save money in reasonable ways. However, there should be no real problem in the Australian Government’s obtaining the funds required to finance welfare programs and to meet their high costs due to inflation because in the economy as a whole money incomes tend to rise rapidly in line with the inflation rate. Incomes and most other taxation revenue will rise at least in proportion with the inflation rate. Let those people on welfare payments and superannuation benefits remember that point. Where is the answer? I invite honourable members who will follow me in this debate to tell us. I spoke early in this debate because I wanted to be sure of being able to speak in it. That is the only reason I am speaking now. Let honourable members opposite answer that question.

There is another angle to which I should draw attention in regard to inflation and the problems it causes. I agree with the honourable member for Griffith that inflation is the greatest domestic problem facing this country. Institutions such as nursing homes, for example, have to charge for their services in order to meet running costs. Those costs ultimately will increase and there will be greater dependence on State-financed programs because these people just will not be able to carry on under those circumstances. There is a very grave need for the Government to take note of these things. This Government pretends that it is interested in the welfare of the people. It talks about superannuation schemes and what it is going to do regardless of the cost because it thinks that this will win it a few votes. 1 appeal to the Government to give consideration to those people to whom the honourable member for Griffith so eloquently drew attention. Let it adopt a real workmanlike basis in an endeavour to provide assistance and not have these people waiting, although they might not have to wait too long until they get a government from this side of the House which will consider their problems with sympathetic interest.

Dr GUN:
Kingston

– I move the following amendment:

That all words after ‘That’ be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: ‘this House congratulates the Government on its continuing action to restrict inflation and its effects on people with low incomes receiving superannuation or receiving welfare payments and condemns the Opposition for placing in jeopardy the improvement in living standards of all Australians since 2 December 1972 by its action to defer the passage of the Budget.’.

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– I take a point of order. Mr Deputy Speaker, would you rule that the motion cannot be changed as dramatically as suggested in the amendment? My motion suggests that the Government is incompetent but the amendment moved by the honourable member for Kingston suggests that it is competent. The amendment proposes a complete reversal of the substantive motion. I ask you to rule that the amendment is out of order.

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

-I am afraid that I cannot uphold the point of order. The amendment is an alternative proposition to the motion he moved.

Dr GUN:

– I can understand the honourable member for Griffith (Mr Donald Cameron) not wanting me to put this amendment. I felt a bit sorry for him when he was making his speech this morning. I suppose he did not anticipate the circumstances under which finally he would be moving his motion because he put it on the notice paper some time ago. Let us look at the motion that the honourable member for Griffith put before the House. I think it can be said that the timing of his motion is absolutely exquisite; it could not be more unfavourable to the cause he is trying to plead. The honourable member for

Griffith wants the House to accept the view that we are concerned about ‘the failure of the Government to take action to restrict the effect of inflation’. The most important thing any government can do to restrict the effects of inflation on people is to reduce the rate of inflation. It is hard to believe that the honourable member was not aware of what took place during question time this morning. I do not know whether he was in the House when the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) announced the quarterly increase in the consumer price index. If he was present he certainly did not change his speech. I suspect that he wrote this speech about a year ago when he put his motion on the notice paper. I remind the honourable member and those people listening to this debate that it was announced this morning that the consumer price index increased at the rate of 0.8 per cent for the quarter. If we were to follow the practice of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Lynch), the precedent he set, we would multiply that figure by four in order to get an annual inflation rate of 3.2 per cent. I do not put the proposition that in fact the inflation rate for the next 12 months will be 3.2 percent but we cannot overlook the fact that there has been a very remarkable reduction in the rate of inflation. Therefore I think it was very timely that the honourable member for Griffith should bring this matter forward.

The honourable member for Griffith has asked the Government to ‘restrict the effect of inflation on people with low incomes receiving superannuation or receiving welfare payments’. Let us consider the level of welfare payments made by the Labor Government. I noticed that neither the honourable member for Griffith nor the seconder of his motion, the honourable member for Maranoa (Mr Corbett), made direct reference to the level of social security payments in this country. They know that they are vulnerable on this point. They know that the Whitlam Government’s performance in the field of social security is without parallel in the history of this country. This Government has provided record and unprecedented increases in all levels of social security. Most of these things were covered yesterday in the debate on pensions but I will mention them later if I have time. I do not think anybody could quarrel seriously with the contention that the level of pensions and payments to all beneficiaries of social security in Australia is far better than it has ever been before.

The honourable member for Griffith finally suggested in his motion that ‘the Government should take urgent action to ensure that these people are not adversely prejudiced by its economic mismanagement’. That is what he said at a time when the Opposition parties, having a quite fortuitous majority in the other place, are trying completely to disrupt the economy of this country. The Opposition is trying to create a situation in which the very people who are dependent on payments from the Government will not be able to receive their payments, not because pensions have been cut off with the Budget but because the administrative mechanism whereby pensions are paid- I refer to the payment of wages to the people who prepare the pension cheques and to other administrative costs- will be blocked by the obstruction of this Budget.

The economic management record of this Government- and this is well reflected in the consumer price index figure given this morning -is one of which we can be proud. We believe that we have a long way to go. There are many things to do. As the Treasurer (Mr Hayden) said this morning, there are indications of improvement all round in the economy. But we do not wish to assert that we are completely out of the recession with which all countries in the Western world have been beset in the last year or two. However, I believe that the advance that has been shown by the consumer price index increase of 0.8 per cent released this morning is an extremely significant parameter. It will be the Opposition which will be responsible for any economic ills in this country which might flow from the obstruction of the Budget. I believe that this is something that the Opposition must squarely and responsibly face in the near future if it is not to cause not only problems affecting welfare payment recipients but also problems which will cause the widespread unemployment of people who are employed by government or who are dependent on government purchases and contracts for their incomes.

We are told at the present time that the people of Australia want this Government thrown out. In those circumstances one would expect that the Opposition Parties would have a better welfare policy to put in the place of our policy. I think that the record and achievements of the Labor Government in this field, which are the result of our policies, will continue to be very much greater than anything that could be achieved by the Opposition Parties. I am not speaking here just in terms of the simple payment of social security benefits but of the provision of a wide range of services which have been introduced under Federal programs or Australian Government financed programs since 1972.

I think it is quite clear from some of the statements of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Malcolm Fraser) that many of these programs would be in serious jeopardy if a LiberalCountry Party government were returned to office. I think it is quite clear if we examine the alternative philosophies and programs of the Government and the Opposition and above all the relative performance of the Parties when in government, that the performance and the policies of the Labor government are quite superior to those which the alternative government of this country wants the people to accept.

I would briefly like to cover some ground in respect of the relative performances in the field of welfare payments. The basic pension has increased by 80 per cent since the December quarter of 1972. It is absolutely futile and wrong to say that this has been offset by the rate of inflation. This is clearly not so. The rate of increase in average weekly earnings in that time has been 56 per cent. The increase in the consumer price index is 4 1 per cent. Therefore clearly the basic pension has been very greatly increased. One has only to ask the pensioner associations anywhere in Australia and they will readily acknowledge that fact. The same thing is obvious when one looks at what has happened in terms of after tax income. Since the December quarter of 1 972 the increase in the take home pay of a typical family man on average weekly earnings has increased by 50 per cent. As I have said the increase is 56 per cent pre-tax. So in terms of after tax income the pensioner is even better off still.

In other welfare areas the increases have been even greater than 80 per cent. For example, the special benefit paid to single people has increased by over 100 per cent. There has been an increase of more than 100 per cent in respect of class B and C widows’ pensions and unemployment benefits. This is not to mention the increase in the supporting mothers’ benefit which did not exist before the election of the Whitlam Government. I think that if we have a look at relative performance it is quite obvious that Labor’s record is superior.

The policy statement that was recently issued by the honourable member for Hotham (Mr Chipp) could only at best be said to be a rather vacuous document. There is scarcely anything in it that is a specific criticism of anything which the Australian Labor Party Government has done. Certainly there is no undertaking to improve the rate of social security payments which have been provided by this Government and of which we are very proud.

I would like to look beyond the specific policies and turn to the question of philosophy. I think that here the Leader of the Opposition has let the cat out of the bag by making repeated statements which clearly show that it is his aim if he ever, God help us, becomes Prime Minister of this country to take government out of the field of providing services and just completely confine any welfare activity to transfer payments. In other words, he wants to replace what he calls Labor’s doctrines of enforced equality with what is apparently his philosophy of enforced inequality. I think it is quite clear that the payment of pensions and other benefits is the most important part of a welfare policy. It is equally clear that those payments must be adequate. I do not think that anyone would quarrel about that. But I do not think it can be said too often that that alone is not sufficient. There are certain basic services which must be provided by government and cannot be left just to market forces because if that happens there will be a gross maldistribution of benefits. When these resources are maldistributed there is no pun intended there- it is the poor who always miss out.

I think there is something to fear in a pernicious doctrine which has now crept into the Liberal Party’s philosophy of the voucher system which has been espoused by the Opposition’s spokesman on education in another place who talks about an education voucher policy and by the honourable member for Hotham who talks about welfare vouchers. As I have said, I think that this is a most pernicious doctrine. It follows apparently from the visit to this country of Professor Milton Friedman, the arch-priest of early 19th century laissez faire so-called liberalism. I think it is quite obvious that Professor Friedman ought to be well satisfied with his visit to Australia because his policies which would take us back into the 19th century have been adopted lock, stock and barrel by the Opposition. I would like to give honourable members an example of what would happen if we were to apply the voucher system to the field of education. The poor people would spend their voucher money on education but the wealthy people would spend their voucher money plus other money of their own. The result would be that the overall cost of resources in the education field would be bid up. Because education would be left to market forces the rich people would get more and the poor people would get less.

The only way in which we can ensure an adequate distribution of resources in any basic field- and again I use education as an example- is for us to ensure that the Government provides the service and that it employs and trains people to provide and work in the service as it proposes to do in respect of education and as it is implementing in respect of the school dental scheme. I think that the practice of fee for service medicine that we have inherited is an example of what would happen if we adopted a voucher system, because the subsidised fee for service system is really a voucher system. Under such a system we have the maldistribution of medical resources to the enrichment of the privileged people who provide those services. The privileged professional classes are the ones who are the ‘prime beneficiaries of any voucher system.

I hope that if we ever see the day when our political opponents are restored to government they will not allow the Leader of the Opposition to proceed with their absolutely reactionary and archaic policies which would result in a retreat into the 19th century and a reliance on market mechanisms to provide welfare services or any other basic services for people. I think it can be clearly shown by any number of empirical examples that such a system will result in gross maldistribution of. resources and no end to the chronic welfare problems that the capitalist system has to face.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Martin:

Order! The honourable member’s time has expired. Is the motion seconded?

Mr HURFORD:
Adelaide

– I second the amendment. 1 am obliged to speak now because 2 Opposition members spoke in succession earlier in the debate and because it has been the policy of the Australian Labor Government to give the back benchers of this Parliament an opportunity to have their resolutions voted on. If we are to reach the stage of voting it will be necessary for me to cut short my time- which I regretbecause the honourable member for Diamond Valley (Mr McKenzie), the honourable member for Isaacs (Mr Clayton) and the honourable member for Henty (Mrs Child), are anxious to take part in the debate, as also is the honourable member for Port Adelaide (Mr Young). The honourable member for Henty was a widow receiving social service benefits under Liberal governments and she had a young family to bring up. We would have liked her to enter into this debate and speak about the humbug of the resolutions which we are now debating.

The resolution seeks to charge the Government with economic mismanagement. Then it has the gall to suggest that the Government has not bent over backwards to protect the needy to the greatest extent possible. On the other hand, the amendment which I am seconding not only points out what the Government’s policies have been but can also, with the announcement today of the movement in the consumer price index, point out the success of those policies. The amendment goes further and charges the Opposition with putting the living standards of the needy in great jeopardy because of the constitutional crisis which it has promoted in this Parliament and in this country today. With the knowledge of what this will mean not only to pensioners but also to the workers of this country we can with great confidence vote on the amendment. No doubt we will see the passage of the amendment rather than the passage of the spurious resolution which is before the House.

I have sympathy with the honourable member for Griffith (Mr Donald Cameron), as the honourable member for Kingston (Dr Gun) has sympathy with him, because only today at question time we heard the splendid news from the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) about the improvement in the consumer price index. The Prime Minister was quick to point out that indeed the battle has not been won, that we are suffering from a world problem in inflation. I have just returned from a 9 weeks tour abroad representing this Parliament at 3 separate conferences. I visited 12 countries, many of them with economies similar to our own. Therefore there is much that I can say with authority about inflation in the rest of the world and how what has happened and is happening here is part of the world scene. My trip abroad culminated in representing this Parliament at a meeting of the Council of Europe at Strasbourg, at which the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Graham), who is in the House, was also a delegate. We both spoke in a debate about the world economic situation. The debate commenced with a report on that situation by Mr Van Lennep, the Secretary-General of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. In that non-political atmosphere and from that distance one could see how a great trading nation like Australia- one of the greatest trading nations per capita- has been sadly affected not only by the inflationary situation but also by the unemployment situation which we are seeking to cure as fast as possible in this country.

It does not matter whether a country is a communist country, behind an iron or bamboo curtain. I draw the attention of my colleagues, even those on this side of the House, to the fact that when they are talking about inflation often they talk about it as affecting only countries similar to our own. It does not. Although it is camouflaged in some communist countries, we should nevertheless realise that it is affecting them as well. Whether it is a communist country or a democratic socialist country like our own, like all the Scandinavian countries, like the Federal Republic of Germany, like Austria where Chancellor Kreisky has just been re-elected: or whether it is a country with a conservative government, like France or Italy, this same problem of inflation- a world problem- has affected them. We are in this turmoil and we are seeking to isolate Australia to the greatest extent possible from this world illness.

To propose a resolution in this House stating that our problems of inflation are due to economic mismanagement is spurious nonsense, as it is nonsense for the Leader of the Opposition ( Mr Malcolm Fraser) to give as one of his main reasons for promoting the constitutional crisis from which we are suffering in this country today, the state of the economy of this country. That is spurious nonsense. He went on to say that anything he could do would take 3 years, yet he is not prepared to give the Australian Labor Government 3 years to achieve its policies, to go on seeking to achieve the sort of good result we have had today with the consumer price index.

There are many causes of inflation. There were the great increases of the world commodity prices in 1972-73; there was the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries hike in oil prices in 1973-74; there were the budget deficits which every country in the world introduced at the same time and which caused the tremendous excess liquidity in the world. I might say that most of it was caused by the policy of the Government of the United States of America of deficit financing in order to finance the war in Vietnam. There have been the inevitable wages chasing increased prices brought about by these other factors which I have already mentioned. All countries have suffered from this- some, admittedly, in little different times and to little different extent from others. But to try to isloate the management of this country as being responsible for this economic situation is merely misleading the country. To suggest that this should cause an election in this country right now, at a time when policies are beginning to work is an outrage- not just an outrage on the Australian Labor Government but an outrage on the people of this country.

Mr McKenzie:
Diamond Valley · ALP

– It is irresponsible.

Mr HURFORD:

-It is irresponsible, as the honourable member for Diamond Valley said. The cures are in the work that is going on in the International Monetary Fund and in the work that is going on with Mr Van Lennep and the OECD. It is in these international areas that the inflation, stagflation and unemployment problems will be overcome. As long as we are a good neighbour to the rest of the world and do not react too quickly to some of these problems but act together with other nations, the economy will improve. But as long as the Opposition turns us into another Portugal, which is the sort of thing that is happening in the crisis which it has created, there will be no cure, there will be no stability, there will be no hope for the Australian people to steadily overcome this world malaise from which we are suffering.

One big area in which there is a difference between the conservative governments in the countries which I visited and the democratic socialist governments in the countries which I visited is in the protection of the needy people from the effects of inflation. There is really a marked contrast. That is why the resolution is even more of a humbug resolution than it might otherwise be. There is no question that the Australian Labor Government stands very firmly in the same court as the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany and the governments of the Scandinavian countries not only in protecting the needy people from inflation but also, at a time when this world problem is overcoming them, in improving their standards of living. As the honourable member for Isaacs would like to have said if he had had the opportunity to enter this debate, social service benefits and pensions have increased from 18 per cent to about 23 per cent of average weekly incomes whilst the Australian Labor Party has been in government at this difficult economic time. Another point that the honourable member for Isaacs wanted to make was that this Opposition-promoted crisis right now is stopping necessary funds reaching the Aboriginal people. Yet we have a resolution before the House coming from an Opposition back bench member suggesting that the actions of this Government are not protecting these needy people. The memories of the Australian people are not so short.

Certainly during a campaign, if we have to have one, they would remember the sort of standards that there were before we came to government on 2 December 1972. They would recognise not only the humbug of this motion but also the humbug of the excuses that have been used to promote this constitutional crisis- this crisis which is putting the living standards of needy people in jeopardy right now. There is no truthful man who can deny that social service benefits have been lifted during the currency of this Australian Labor Government as they have never been lifted before- not just the absolute amounts but the relative amounts. There is no truthful man who could deny that the evil side effects of the inevitable and necessary lifting of interest rates at a time of inflation have been insulated to the greatest extent possible from the lower income groups. So I could go on. However, we want to have a vote on this motion and the proposed amendment and I am obliged to sit down and to curtail my remarks and also to state again that there are others on the Government side who would have liked to have entered this debate.

Mr HODGES:
Petrie

-We have listened to the rantings and ravings of the honourable member for Adelaide (Mr Hurford). I reject out of hand the comments he has made. The fact of the matter is that inflation was at 4.5 per cent a year in 1972 when this Government came to power and unemployment was somewhere in the vicinity of 80 000 to 100 000. To suggest other than that our inflation has been manufactured domestically is completely and utterly ridiculous. The fact is that in Australia we are basically insulated from inflation from overseas countries.

This is a dishonest government. Let us not cloud the issues of the current crisis. There is no constitutional crisis. If anything, it is a political crisis. Any dishonest government should not govern any country at all. We have had 2 Ministers who were Acting Prime Ministers in the past who have both been dismissed by the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam). How he can dissociate himself from the actions of these men who were senior Ministers who were Acting Prime Ministers, I fail to see. We have a deficit coming up for this financial year of $3,500m to $4,000m and the deficit for the last financial year was $2, 500m. And this Government says it is governing well!

I support the motion of the honourable member for Griffith (Mr Donald Cameron). I believe that although it is some 15 months since he gave notice of this motion he showed great foresight in doing so because it is more relevant today than it was when he foreshadowed it then. The honourable member for Adelaide suggested that there are honourable members on the Government side who would like to speak to this motion. There are a number of honourable members on the Opposition side also who would like to speak to it.

I want to deal with these 3 basic groups: Retired people- those who are in receipt of superannuation and those who are living on their investments; pensioners- those on age and invalid pensions; and the unemployed. The main thrust of my argument will be directed at showing that inflation and inadequate increases in welfare benefits are causing intolerable hardships for people in these groupings. It is not sufficient for honourable members on the Government side to point to percentages of increases in the unemployment and pension benefits that we have seen since 1972. Percentages do not mean anything today. The pensioner is basically interested in what he has in his hand and what it will buy for him. People who have retired, people on superannuation and fixed incomes- these are people who have little opportunity to increase their incomes- have their life savings invested in many instances in blocks of flats, houses or shops. Unfortunately they have not been able to withstand the rate of inflation that we see today and the inflation that we have experienced over the past few years.

They have worked and saved all their lives to get together their nest eggs. Take the case of someone who in 1972 had $40,000 saved and had it on fixed deposit at 10 per cent a year interest. That person would be getting something like $4,000 a year or $80 a week return. Maybe that return would be a little higher if the money were invested in flats or in shops. With investments made prior to 1972 the situation would be even worse. These are the people who today can buy only the essential items such as clothing, food and of course pay their local authority rates and for the maintenance of their homes. These are the people who are finding it difficult to meet the increases in the items I mentioned.

I mention specifically age and invalid pensioners. I shall work on the basic rate of $36 a week for a single pensioner and $60 a week for a married couple, bearing in mind of course that there will be increases in the next month or so. These people may be divided into home owner pensioners and those who rent accommodation. I suggest to Government supporters that they ought to move out into their electorates to talk to these people, to the thinking pensioners, to find out whether they are better or worse off today than they were in 1972. Almost without exception one will find that the answer from those people is that they are worse off today because of inflation- much worse off.

As the honourable member for Hotham (Mr Chipp), our shadow Minister for social security so adequately put it yesterday in the debate on the Social Services Bill, the Government has changed its course from aiming to provide as a base for pensions 25 per cent of average weekly male earnings to providing increases tied to percentage increases in the consumer price index. He pointed out- it has yet to be disputed by the Government- that this change will save the Government something like $80m annually. If that is not duplicity, I ask: What is? On the one hand the Goverment is saying that it wants to improve the lot of the pensioner and on the other hand it is saving $80m by changing its policy.

I want to look particularly at the pensioner who pays for rental accommodation. He gets supplementary assistance of $4 a week, which is now to be increased to $5 a week. When this Government took office in 1972 the supplementary assistance was $4. As the honourable member for Hotham put it yesterday, the pensioner should be receiving by way of supplementary assistance an amount close to $8 a week today if he is to maintain the 1972 parity. In my electorate of Petrie, which is basically an average middle class area, I did a little bit of research and found that a pensioner renting a house in 1972 was paying about $25 a week for it. Today he is paying $40 a week- an increase of $15 or 60 per cent. If he was renting a single bedroom flat he was paying about $12 a week for it in 1972. He is now paying $24 a week- an increase of 100 per cent or $12. The fact is that rent has increased by $15 for a house and $12 for a flat. If we look at the increase in pensions we find that the total pension for a single pensioner receiving supplementary assistance has gone from $24 to $40. This is a $16 increase, $12 of which of course is taken up by the increase in rent if he is in a single bedroom flat. So it is quite scandalous for the Government to maintain that these pensioners are better off.

Pensioners today are living on food that in many instances is substantially lacking in nutrition. They are forced to buy cheap foods and to grow their own vegetables. They are forced to buy secondhand clothing. One has only to move through the St Vincent de Paul stores and some of the other similar types of stores and jumble sales to realise that these people are worse off. They rent substandard premises. I ask the Government supporters to move into some of these areas to see the position for themselves. They would be appalled at what they see. In many instances pensioners are compelled to take light work to supplement their pensions.

Mr CLAYTON:
Isaacs

– I am amazed by the hypocrisy of the speakers from the other side on this motion. They purport to be concerned about the state of the lower income categories and the pensioners in our society. Yet it was one of their State colleagues who instituted a challenge in the High Court of Australia to one of the programs which the Australian Government instituted to provide funds to help these people. I am referring, of course, to the Australian Assistance Plan, which only last Friday was upheld by the High Court after a challenge put in by the Victorian” Attorney-General. Under this program the Australian Government has already made nearly $5m available to the community to the poorer groups in the community, the people who need it, and is planning through this year”s Budget to make another $7.4~m available.

We ought also to think about the present attitude of the Opposition to our Appropriation Bill? and compare that with its attitude and supposed concern for the aged people. Let us look at just a few of the things which it is refusing to pass in the other place. In the Department of Social Security they include the Australian Assistance Plan funds, which I have already mentioned: the grants to organisations under the Disabled Persons Homes Act, the Handicapped Persons As:sistance Act and the Aged Persons Hostels Act: and funds for various community welfare organisations such as the Australian Council for Social Service and the Australian Council for Rehabilitation of Disabled. These are just a few of the funds which appear in Appropriation Bill (No. 1 ) under the Department of Social Security to which the Opposition in another place is refusing to agree.

What about another group of disadvantaged people in our community who need very great assistance from government sources both in the way of guidance and in the way of funds who have been neglected in the past by previous Liberal-Country Party governments? I am referring to our Aboriginal community. What is to happen to the funds that were going to be made available to them under the Appropriation Bill? What about the money to fund the special works projects, to provide employment and training for Aboriginal people, so they can go out into the community and find jobs in their own right? What about the money for the support of Aboriginal hostels, the funding of accommodation for Aboriginal people, land acquisition for Aboriginal use, and the Aboriginal housing and personal loans money? The Opposition is refusing to pass all this besides the money to run the Department of Aboriginal Affairs. Yet the Opposition claims to be concerned about the welfare of the disadvantaged groups in our community. I ask honourable members to consider how genuine the Opposition really is in its concern about these people and to look at the amendment which has been moved to the motion and to support that amendment.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Dr Jenkins:
SCULLIN, VICTORIA

-The original question was that the motion be agreed to. To that motion the honourable member for Kingston has moved as an amendment that all words after ‘That’ be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The question is: ‘That the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question.

Question resolved in the negative.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-The question now is: ‘That the words proposed to be inserted be inserted’.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-The question now is: ‘That the motion, as amended, be agreed to’.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-As it is now 15 minutes to 1 o’clock, the time for precedence to general business has expired. (Quorum formed).

page 2472

APPROPRIATION BILLS 1975-76

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– I have received message No. 279 from the Senate in the following terms:

Mr Speaker. the Senate. having considered Message No. 380 of the House of Representatives. has agreed to the following Resolutions in connection therewith. viz.:

) That the Senate, having considered Message No. 380 of the House of Representatives asserts-

a ) That the action of the Senate in delaying the passage of the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1975-76 and the Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 1975-76 for the reasons given in the Senate Resolution as communicated to the House of Representatives in Message No. 276 is a lawful and proper exercise within the terms of the Constitution of the powers of the Senate.

b ) That the powers of the Senate were expressly conferred on the Senate as part of the Federal Compact which created the Commonwealth of Australia.

That the legislative power of the Commonwealth is vested in the Parliament of the Commonwealth which consists of the Queen, the Senate and House of Representatives.

d ) That the Senate has the right and duty to exercise its legislative power and to concur or not to concur as the Senate sees fit, bearing in mind the seriousness and responsibility of its actions, in all proposed laws passed by the House of Representatives.

That there is no convention and never has been any convention that the Senate shall not exercise its constitutional powers.

f ) That the Senate affirms that it has the constitutional right to act as it did and now that there is a disagreement between the Houses of the Parliament and a position may arise where the normal operations of Government cannot continue a remedy is presently available to the Government under section 57 of the Constitution to resolve the deadlock.

2 ) That the Senate reaffirms to the House of Representatives its resolution set out in Senate Message No. 276 in respect of each of the two Appropriation Bills. viz.:

That this Bill be not further proceeded with until the Government agrees to submit itself to the judgment of the people. the Senate being of the opinion that the Prime Minister and his Government no longer have the trust and confidence of the Australian people because of-

a ) the continuing incompetence. evasion, deceit and duplicity of the Prime Minister and his Ministers as exemplified in the overseas loan scandal which was an attempt by the Government to subvert the Constitution, to by-pass Parliament and to evade its responsibilities to the States and the Loan Council:

the Prime Minister’s failure to maintain proper control over the activities of his Ministers and Government to the detriment of the Australian nation and people: and

the continuing mismanagement of the Australian economy by the Prime Minister and this Government with policies which have caused a lack of confidence in this nation’s potential and created inflation and unemployment not experienced for 40 years. ‘.

JustinO ‘Byrne

President

Motion ( by Mr Daly) agreed to:

That the message be taken into consideration at the next sitting.

page 2472

AUSTRALIAN HOUSING CORPORATION BILL (No. 2) 1975

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

Second Reading

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

– I move:

Mr Deputy Speaker, the aim of this amendment is to allow the Australian Housing Corporation to borrow money on capital markets. Economic circumstances and a greater awareness of the problems faced by many people in obtaining housing have prompted a re-assessment of the range of instruments the Government should have available to it in the housing area. The Government has also been encouraged to make this change by the scope of the Housing Corporation for innovation in housing policy.

Briefly, the amendment is devised to provide widened access to funds by the corporation. This will enable it to help people with a housing need which cannot be met under the CommonwealthState Housing Agreement, or by access to traditional sources of housing finance. The welfare housing provisions of the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement now make housing available to those earning up to 85 per cent of average weekly earnings. Use of the provisions of the Home Builders’ Account lifts this threshold a bit higher to those getting up to 95 per cent of average weekly earnings. The private sector provides housing finance for those whose incomes are well above average weekly earnings.

There is this gap between those earning up to 95 per cent of average weekly earnings and those getting 135 per cent or so of average weekly earnings. In broad terms, this is the gap between where the public sector cuts out and where the private sector starts. (Quorum formed). It is this major gap in the provision of housing finance that an important part of the work of the Australian Housing Corporation is designed to fill. In particular, the Government has asked the Housing Corporation to undertake programs for the provision of housing finance on deferred repayment terms. This will be directed to low and middle income groups which miss out under the present structure of the housing market.

A considerable amount of work has been done in the Departments of Urban and Regional Development, Housing and Construction and the Treasury on this scheme. It indicates that through a deferred repayment mortgage a young family man at about average weekly earnings could be helped to buy an average-priced property without committing more than 30 per cent of his income at any one time to mortgage repayments. This could be done using a deferred repayment formula which involves very low risk of default on the part of borrowers. Funds could be made available on second mortgage, which means that in addition to the benefit of the deferred repayment formula, the non-subsidised interest rate would still be lower than that charged by traditional sources of second mortgage finance.

There is also a clear need for the Corporation to make finance available on first mortgage. Many people in the community have not been able to get a first mortgage, and therefore have been unable to benefit from a second mortgage scheme, whatever its attractions. These deferred repayment programs are at an advanced stage of preparation and I will announce them in some detail as soon as possible.

Because of the need to contain the Budget deficit, the funds the Corporation will have available for this scheme in 1975-76 have been limited to only $20m. Because of this constraint on available funds, assistance will be confined in those earning up to 1 10 per cent of average weekly earnings. Eventually, we expect to extend the range of the scheme to those earning up id 135 per cent of average weekly earnings. (Quorum formed). It has also been decided to direct available funds to locations such as growth centres and areas being developed by land commissions and urban land councils. In this way. the policies of the Housing Corporation will be closely linked to other urban and regional policies of the Government.

Apart from the deferred repayments schemes, the Government is devising other policies to be implemented by the Corporation. In 1975-76 ii will have available about $8m for these schemes. It is too early for me to outline these programs in detail. One approach we have in mind is some form of assistance for co-operative housing. I will announce full details of these new programs as soon as possible. It is clear that housing need covers a much wider range of people and locations than the Corporation can reach with its present funds through the Budget allocation.

The borrowing power sought in this legislation provides the Government with the opportunity to increase funds for Corporation programs by recourse to the loan market. The timing and magnitude of Corporation loan raising will be subject to the normal processes of Corporation advice and Government decision. These decisions will be based on considerations of housing need; the condition of the housing industry; loan programs and borrowing prospects; general economic policy; and urban and regional development policies. The Government expects that these considerations would lead to modest additions to the Corporation’s total program in the immediate years ahead. These funds will be augmented soon by a proclamation which will allow the Corporation to retain repayments of capital which come to it from existing Defence Service Homes advances.

Sitting suspended from 1 to 2.15 p.m.

Mr UREN:

- Mr Speaker- (Quorum formed). As I was saying before the suspension of the sitting the funds will be augmented soon by a proclamation which will allow the Housing Corporation to retain repayments of capital which come to it from existing defence service homes advances. In view of the present political confrontation, I want to make it clear that this measure is not related in any way to the Appropriation Bills before the Parliament. This is a long-term measure directed to the future financing of the Corporation’s activities. The funds to be raised by the Corporation on capital markets will be governed by the terms and conditions laid down by the Loan Council. The borrowing programs will be subject to approval by the Loan Council. In using the funds raised from capital markets, the Corporation will be bound by the restraints which are incorporated in its legislation. These include the need for virtually all programs to be subject to regulation, a requirement that its accounts shall be in a form approved by the Treasurer and the liability of the Corporation to inspection and audit by the Auditor-General.

Passage of this amendment will enlarge the ability of the Corporation to meet the needs of thousands of home seekers who have difficulty in obtaining adequate assistance from alternative sources. I stress again that it will benefit low to middle income groups which miss out under existing public and private sector programs. It will also give help to community groups with special needs that can be met by new forms of assistance. The Australian Housing Corporation is already a major financial institution. Its financial assets exceed S 1 billion and it has 200 000 existing mortgage accounts.

The Corporation is destined to become a great creative force in future housing policy. Of course we all know that it has done a remarkable job in the past, but the magnitude of its development in the future will enable greater achievements. This change in legislation will allow it to raise limited funds on carefully controlled terms from the capital markets of Australia. 1 would stress that the amendment has the effect of giving the Corporation borrowing power similar to that available to other Australian Government statutory authorities such as the Australian Telecommunications Commission. It will give the Corporation the muscle to fulfil its potential as a major supplier of the needs of the home seekers of Australia. The Corporation will work in close cooperation with State authorities and with the private sector in carrying out its work in implementing future housing policies. I commend the Bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr Adermann) adjourned.

page 2474

PROPOSED EXTENSIONS TO PODIUM, CANBERRA HOSPITAL

Approval of Work-Public Works Committee Act

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

– I move:

The proposal is for the construction of a 4-level, air conditioned extension which will provide facilities for enlarged casualty, outpatients and day patients departments, consulting suites for use by specialists, a central administration area and new intensive care and coronary care areas. The estimated cost of the proposed work is $8. 17m. The Committee, in recommending the construction of these works, has concluded that there is a need to extend the podium of the Canberra Hospital, that the proposed facilities are necessary and should be provided, that consideration should be given to relocation of the mortuary and providing a small child care facility adjacent to the casualty and outpatients waiting area and that the site selected is suitable.

The Department of Housing and Construction presently is amending the design of the podium extensions with special regard to re-arrangement of the lower ground floor according to the recommendations of the Public Works Committee. Upon the concurrence of the House in this resolution detailed planning can proceed in accordance with the recommendations of the Committee.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 2474

INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT BILL (No. 2) 1975

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 9 October on motion by Mr Hayden:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

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

– May I have the indulgence of the House to raise a point of procedure on this legislation? Before the debate is resumed on this Bill I would like to suggest that it may suit the convenience of the House to have a general debate covering this Bill, the Income Tax Bill and the Income Tax (International Agreements) Bill as they are related measures. Separate questions will, of course, be put on each of the Bills at the conclusion of the debate. I suggest therefore, Mr

Speaker, that you permit the subject matter of the 3 Bills to be discussed in this debate.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Is it the wish of the House to follow that procedure? There being no objection, it is so ordered.

Mr LYNCH:
Flinders

-The Bills before us provide for the changes to the personal and company tax legislation announced by the Treasurer (Mr Hayden) in his Budget Speech on 19 August. This year’s Budget is a dishonest and deceitful document. It is as dishonest and deceitful as the replies or the lack thereof by this Government concerning the whole of the sordid loans affair. There is no better illustration of the Budget’s dishonesty than the proposals it contains for personal income tax. This year income tax receipts are estimated in the Budget to increase by 34 per cent or 45 per cent on a payasyouearn basis. This percentage increase is equal to an amount of $2.6 billion. As a result of this Government’s first 3 Budget’s personal income tax receipts will have increased by an astounding 140 percent.

This Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) is the most rapacious tax gatherer since Herod. His Government has, over a period of almost 3 years, imposed a completely intolerable burden on the Australian taxpayer. It is a burden which has created hardship and it is a burden which has led directly to the present economic crisis. The income tax provisions of the Budget have gone no way towards the curbing of inflationary expectations. They are wholly inconsistent with the policy of overall wage and salary restraint. The Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research put this point quite explicitly in its recent review. It said:

The change to the new tax schedules will (if left unaltered ) increase the fiscal drag of the income tax system and further reduce the after-tax gains to employees from indexation of wages to consumer prices. Wage indexation cannot be expected to function adequately in 1976 with such a system, and an early move to income tax indexation is now imperative.

Inflation will not be controlled until the impact of tax push inflation has been substantially reduced. The 1975-76 Budget, discredited like its predecessor last year, has ignored the impact of increased taxation on the wage bargaining process. The Government has chosen to ignore it because of its overriding commitment to the rapid expansion of the public sector.

This Budget is a direct threat to incomes restraint in general and to the policy of wage indexation in particular. If we had been in government in August an additional $500m would have been made available for taxation relief and a commitment would have been given to introduce tax indexation. When the next Liberal-National Country Party government is elected we will make an immediate move towards the introduction of personal income tax indexation. We will initiate immediate negotiations with the Australian Council of Trade Unions and other major industrial groups towards this end. Subject to these discussions tax indexation will be introduced as a central element of the 3-year program of economic management which we propose. There is no doubt about the widespread acceptance of the need for tax indexation. In this regard I refer to paragraph 26 of the Mathews report which said:

There is overwhelming support, from all sections of the Australian community, for the principle of personal tax indexation. Among those supporting indexation are trade union organisations, industrial associations (representing rural, commercial, manufacturing, mining and service industries), many large and small companies, professional bodies and Australian and State government departments or agencies.

The Mathews report went on to say in paragraph 27:

The view is widely held that failure to adjust the progressive income tax schedule for the effects on inflation will lead to acceleration in the rate of wage increases.

The Prime Minister is on the record as saying that tax indexation would build inflation into the system. The Government has rejected tax indexation out of hand. The Government of course is again out of step with economic opinion and international evidence. I have had personal and detailed discussions with the former Canadian Minister of Finance, Mr John Turner, concerning the overall question of the application of tax indexation. Tax indexation works in Canada; there is no doubt that it will work effectively in Australia under the next LiberalNational Country Party government. Without tax indexation, taxpayers will continue to be forced into higher and higher income brackets because of the manner in which inflation works in relation to the progressive tax system. Tax indexation is the only certain way in which taxpayers can be protected from the use of inflation as a silent taxation. Under this system a taxpayer’s tax liability will increase only in circumstances where the real income increases. Our 3-year commitment to reduce the burden of taxation by a policy of indexation is not only economically essential; it is of fundamental social importance.

The Henderson report emphasised in precise terms the need for poorer groups in the community to be guaranteed sufficient income to spend according to their choice, not at government direction. But this Prime Minister has claimed that this year’s tax legislation is a fundamental reform of greater benefit to the taxpayer than indexation. Let me deal with that lie once and for all. As a matter of simple logic there can be no lasting reform in a system which permits pay as you earn tax receipts to rise at a rate twice that of average earnings. The Prime Minister’s claim on this subject is as self-evidently deceitful as are his many other claims in relation to the operations of the Australian economy. It is all the more deceitful when the new income tax legislation is examined in detail.

I turn first to the lower income earners in the community. Using the Budget’s own assumptions, a single taxpayer now earning $5,000 per annum can expect, on the Budget’s own forecast, to earn $6,100 during this financial year. On this basis his total tax, after allowing for the change to the rebate system, will increase from $550 to $1,055- an increase of over $500 or almost 100 per cent. His average tax rate will rise from 1 1 per cent to 1 7.3 per cent and his marginal tax rate will rise from 26 per cent to 35 per cent. A married taxpayer with a spouse and 2 dependent children- in the same low income group- will pay total tax. of $305 during 1975-76 compared with $2 1 7 last year. This represents an increase in his average tax rate from 4.3 per cent to 5 per cent and in his marginal tax rate from 26 per cent to 35 per cent. Let there be no mistake- even the lower income earner will be seriously disadvantaged by this Government’s unrestrained demands for revenue. How can this Prime Minister, in all conscience, seek to claim a major tax reform on the one hand and disadvantage the low income earner on the other? This is deceitful; this is dishonest; this is a true reflection and measure of this Government’s total incapacity to be honest with the Australian public and be prepared to tell the full truth.

I turn now to the situation which faces the middle income earner. Once again using the Budget’s own forecast, his total tax will increase from $2,300 last year to $3,410 this year. This is an increase of $ 1 , 1 10 or very nearly 50 per cent. His average tax rate will rise from 23 per cent to 28 per cent. Because of the structure of the new system his marginal tax rate will fall from 48 per cent to 45 per cent. The Prime Minister of this country has used this fact, as he has used so many other alleged facts, in a most dishonest manner. By talking about the marginal tax rate he has deliberately given the impression that the average tax rate is similarly reduced. He knows well the falsity of this argument. The married taxpayer on a middle income will pay this year $2,600 in taxation compared with $1,900 last year. His average tax rate will rise from 19 per cent to 2 1.8 per cent- a reflection of the fact that his tax liability will increase by almost $700 in a single year. The circumstances are broadly similar for upper income earners. A married taxpayer who earned $20,000 last year can expect a tax increase in excess of $2,000 this year.

Mr Coates:

– Is that a middle income earner?

Mr LYNCH:

– If the honourable gentleman had listened to the facts which have been presented, he would have realised that I have dealt with the middle income earners. I dare say that with some sense of propriety he would not want to be conjoined with his own Prime Minister in the total story of deceit which that gentleman has sought to perpetrate on the Australian community. For the information of the honourable gentleman who interjects and who would be wise to be silent on matters in which the case of deceit of this Government is so self-evident, I have had detailed statistical tables prepared which illustrate the facts. For the information of Government supporters I seek leave of the House to have the tables incorporated in Hansard.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Drury:
RYAN, QUEENSLAND

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

Mr LYNCH:

– As I emphasised to this House on Tuesday of this week, the Opposition believes that on current evidence average weekly earnings are more likely to increase at a rate of between 17 per cent to 18 per cent. This will, of course, mean lower receipts and, on average, a slightly lower tax take from each taxpayer. The fact still remains that the income tax burden imposed on the public by this Government and by this Budget- this phoney. deceitful. dishonest and inaccurate Budget. as we have made clear-is wholly unacceptable to the Opposition parties.

I turn now to the question of company tax. This legislation seeks to reduce company tax by 2½ percent. The $ 120m cut in company taxation can be seen only in the context of a vastly increased level of business costs which will be . incurred as a result of increased government charges. I refer here to the petroleum and coal levies and the postal and telegraph charges. The business community will also be required to take account of the cutbacks in industry assistance. In short, this legislation will contribute more to increased business costs in 1975-76 than it offers by way of concessions.

As the Leader of the Opposition pointed out in his reply to the Budget Speech, an immediate start should have been made this year to the introduction of the Mathews Committee’s recommendations. The Mathews Committee stock valuation proposal could have been implemented at 50 per cent of its recommended rate. Combined with a company tax rate of 45 per cent the maximum cost of this initiative would amount to $380m during the financial year. Such a decision would not only have been of substantial assistance to the private sector this year but also would have “provided an essential basis for longer term planning and investment spending. There would have been no difficulty in the partial adoption of the Mathews Committee stock valuation proposal. In this regard I refer to paragraph 53 of the Mathews report which stated:

The Committee recommends that the stock sales valuation adjustments and the depreciation allowance adjustments be introduced wholly or partly with respect to the 1974-75 income year.

The Government’s decision not to support the Mathews Committee, a committee which the Government itself established, has no justification. Paragraph 54 of the Mathews report emphasises the fundamental need to alter the present tax structure in these terms:

  1. . Failure to make the proposed changes will have … a seriously depressing effect on the level of business activity.

This Government has flatly ignored the Committee’s warnings and the Committee’s recommendations. I make it perfectly clear during the course of this debate that the next LiberalNational Country Party government will introduce these proposals in the context of a 3-year program. We reject the Government’s attitude and we deplore the manner in which the Treasurer has sought to sabotage and to denigrate the Committee’s report. I refer to the leaked documents which apparently are understood or alleged to have come out of the Taxation Office. This inquiry has recommended the most sweeping reforms of the Australian system of company taxation. The Opposition believes that plant and equipment should be depreciated on the basis of replacement cost rather than on historical cost and that companies should be able to revalue their opening stocks at end of year prices. As does the Mathews Committee, the Opposition believes that the basis of company tax should be indexed to compensate for the effects of taxation on corporate profitability. Under this Government companies are being taxed severely on paper profits and corporate capital is being rapidly diminished. If this process is allowed to continue, as it undoubtedly will under this Government, it is quite clear that the capital base of the private sector will be irreparably damaged.

The next Liberal-National Country Party government is committed to bringing about a return of profitability and a regeneration of investment spending. Under the next government, Australia’s economic growth, its capacity to provide jobs and real resources, to get the wheels of industry in this country moving once again, to breathe life into companies both large and small, will be reactivated once again. But if this Whitlam maladministration is allowed to continue in office, there will be no economic recovery. The so-called commitment to the free enterprise system which has been enunciated by the Prime Minister’s newfound group of socalled economic rationalists is nothing more than short term political expediency. Their rhetoric is not backed by their policy actions. The Treasurer’s campaign against the indexation of company tax is a clear reflection of his unwillingness to support his statements with positive commitment. Why is it that during a debate of such fundamental significance to the Australian community the Federal Treasurer of this country is apparently not even prepared to grace the House with his presence?

The Opposition rejects the arguments of the so-called Taxation Office paper which, as I mentioned before, was leaked, ostensibly by the Treasurer to the Caucus and to selected sections of the Press as part of his shabby campaign to denigrate the recommendations of the Mathews Committee- a committee that his Government itself established. The Mathews Committee was an objective and representative committee. Included in its membership was a former senior official of the Australian Taxation Office as well as very able persons drawn from the business, trade union and academic spheres. Despite the diverse background of the Committee members the report was unanimous in its recommendations. It contained no dissenting voice.

I repeat again that the Government’s principal reason for not introducing the indexation of company tax is the loss of revenue involved. I remind the House that a recent report by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development pointed out that company tax in Australia represents 1 5.6 per cent of total taxation revenue, as compared with the average of 8.5 per cent for the OECD nations. Australia ranks second of all the OECD countries in its reliance on company taxation. The Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research has calculated that the effective rate of company tax during 1973-74 was 66 per cent. This rate was caused by the failure of the taxation system to allow for cost appreciation or for depreciation at replacement cost. It is the view of the Opposition parties that the reduced revenue which would result from company tax indexation is no argument against its introduction. On the contrary, it is an argument for its endorsement.

The Government has argued that an acrosstheboard company tax cut, as is contemplated by the legislation before the House, will act more equitably and more effectively than indexation. But the Opposition believes- this is endorsed by informed opinion - that indexation is immeasurably superior. The Mathews Committee showed, on the basis of 1971-72 income data, that the percentage reduction in income subject to tax would vary from industry to industry. Inflation affects individual companies in different ways according to the nature of their activities and the structure of their asset holdings. It therefore follows that the solution must take into account the differential impact of inflation. The benefits of the across-the-board tax cut contemplated by this Bill will be distributed between firms according to their apparent profitability based on historical cost accounting methods- not according to the effect of inflation on their true profitability. Furthermore, the straight-out tax cut set out in this legislation will not, of itself, encourage an increase in investment spending. In contrast, taxation indexation would encourage firms with an expanding asset base and would also lead to a more efficient allocation of resources because financial decisions would be made on the basis of real after-tax returns. The

Treasurer has endeavoured lamentably to promote the idea that some businesses- for example, labour-intensive firms- would not be equitably treated by indexation. The Opposition parties reject this argument as self-evidently absurd. Labour costs are deducted from taxable income and, as the Treasurer of this country ought to be very well aware, there is a complete deduction available for the cost of labour immediately. Even the present Treasurer would not be so foolish as to suggest that inflation erodes labour as inflation erodes capital.

The Government has suggested that the Mathews Committee’s recommendations on depreciation will lead to a deferment of investment and an extension of plant life. Obviously the treasurer has not bothered to read the detailed rebuttal of this proposition contained in the Mathews report. The Opposition believes that the recommended depreciation system will facilitate plant replacement by improving internal cash flow in direct relation to the increasing prices of fixed capital assets. There would be no absolute tax advantage in refraining from the replacement of old equipment and there would be every advantage from obtaining the benefits of new technology. The Treasurer has questioned the administrative feasibility of the proposed new tax system- for example, that the cost of the sales valuation adjustment would lead to administrative difficulties in preventing tax avoidance. This type of criticism is based on the assessment that the present system is optimal in this regard. As the Treasurer should know, the present system offers similar scope for tax avoidance. A significant proportion of the major business tax frauds is concerned with the valuation of stocks, and the Taxation Office does not, in general, test inventory valuations used in tax returns.

The Mathews Committee consulted with a wide range of accountants in order to test the feasibility of its proposed changes. In addition, it had the benefit of an experienced and able tax administrator as a member of the Committee. Chapter 14 and Appendices B, C and D in the Committee’s report canvassed a wide range of administrative options. The Opposition accepts that the introduction of company tax indexation is now a matter of very real urgency. That view is supported by a large number of major groups in the community. It is supported by both inquiries established by this Government. I quote directly from the Asprey Committee which commented in the following terms:

Further action to bring net income for tax purposes closer to true profits in periods of high inflation is now urgent.

The indexation of company tax has been supported by independent inquiries in other countries. The Sandilands Committee which recently reported on this matter in the United Kingdom is wholly consistent with the recommendations of the Mathews Committee in Australia. The Opposition parties believe that the Government’s denigration of the Mathews Committee is to be deplored in the strongest terms. I challenge the Treasurer to allow Professor Mathews on behalf of his Committee to make public his own views and the Committee’s reaction to the leaked document which apparently found its way through the Treasurer’s office out of the Taxation Office itself.

These Bills before the House and this year’s Budget are but further reflections of the fabric of dishonesty, inaccuracy and deceit which regrettably are perpetrated by this Government in its approach to the affairs of this House. I can recall no shabbier episode than question time this morning when the Prime Minister of this country for the first time in my recollection was prepared to say to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Malcolm Fraser) and to his Deputy and to other front bench spokesmen that he was no longer prepared to answer questions of very significant importance to the Australian community in relation to the loans issue. I ask here, as I have said throughout the whole of the debate on the tax Bills: What is the Government hiding? I ask the Minister for Health (Dr Everingham), who is seated at the table, whether he is prepared to allow the Opposition parties- bearing in mind that on 3 occasions this week I have been gagged on raising a matter of public importance involving the loans scandal in which this Prime Minister is as intimately involved as the senior colleagues whom he sought to dismiss and sack and in so doing wash his hands- to table during the course of this debate the documents which I referred to this morning in this House. I seek leave to incorporate those documents in Hansard.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Drury:

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

WBFB23.14

DALSONCOM LDN

KEY + 7 162680 +

MINMEAA62680

DALSONCOM LDN

DALSONCOM LDN 917162 6 1 1975 22 35 2822 75. .

Attention . . .. Rt. Hon. Mr R. F. X. Connor, Minister for Minerals and Energy.

I and all my associates would like to take this opportunity to wish you and your family all the best for new year.

Reference my telephone conversation with Mr Gerry Karidis, I would like to mention that since I spoke to your last tiem. we have had the same problem which was on commission and that by dealing direct government to government level, it was found impossible to accomodate all concerned from the Arab side as well. That the lending countries. the Saudi Arabian and Kuwaiti governments. it was found impossible to make any arrangements at all. Hence, the visit to the Ambassador’s office in Paris had been delayed. as the Arabs wanted the commission from me for their services and emission as well. and for thisI also offer my apologies. for this did not help me at all.

However. after many efforts and my visit to Saudi Arabia. we came to a good solution and that they had decided to suggest that they shall pay 100 for 100 and in simple words that they are going to increase the rate of interest and give you full or total money and from increased interest they shall pay the commission and their administrators in Europe. And that is thus we have had confirmation from them that they shall charge interest of 8.35 per cent compounded over 20 years with 100 hundred percent emission.

Immediately after getting your kind confirmation to this request. they shall immediately send the confirmation of funds from a prime bank in Paris and request your bank officers to come and receive the proof of money and proving of the petro-dollars beyond doubt to you.

In the circumstances. your excellency, I shall be grateful if you will please let me have a simple confirmation that you would be prepared to accept the offer with full bank responsibility of tranch of 500 million US dollars at annually compounded rate of interest at 8.35 per cent and it is clearly understood that you will receive total capital of 500 million dollars tranch without deduction.

Thanks and regards . . . Tirath Hassaram Khemlani.

P.S. I sincerely hope that I have explained this very correctly and believe me your excellency that they are really interested in finishing this deal now and would only require this simple message as I have outlined in the last paragraph and thus there is no need to mention commission or emission at all.

Thanks . . .

Just in case I did not mention please note that the requested cnfirmation is required on this machine only and tomorrow the prime bank will immediately confirm the funds direct to you or to the reserve bank of Australia.

Howereveived.? +

Message received.

How many billions altogether + ?

We shall do the whole lot and only in the beginning tomorrow they just want to make a start by confirming immediately 500 million and thereafter we shall do the rest immediately within the next 10 days. This is just to set the mechanics and prove to your the sincericity. Ove

Gerry here you can call at Mr Connor’s office we want to talk toyou + ?

Thanks I shall do so now and in the meantime I shall appreciate if you can request the Ministe to have the message a simple sone prepared so that I can take it to my people in the morning early.

Okay over + +

BI

MINMEAA62680

DALSONCOM LDN

OM

DALSONCOM LDN

MINMEAA62680

To MrT.H. Khemlani

Unable obtain telex number Oman Embassy London and forwarded following message to Dr Aboudi Kosta. c/Embassy of Oman, Beirut on Saturday.

Would greatly appreciate your informing His Excellency Sheik Ghassan Chaker that on Friday 7 February I forwarded telex message to be conveyed to him confidentially to the Bank of Lebanon and D’Outre-Mer giving full text response to Moscow Narodny Bank London. Mr T. H. Khemlani also has a personal letter for delivery to his excellency conveying my thanks. Your co-operation would be sincerely appreciated as 1 am uncertain present address of His Excellency.’

Received reply per Gerry Karidis Saturday night I just received your telex through the Embassy. Please make I. A.O.R.E. clear and send it through our telex number Lebanon 21510 (SOGEX Beirut) and I will be in London Monday night.

Today 10.45 am forwarded following message to Dr Aboudi Kosta, Beirut.

Received response my telex to you through Mr Karidis unable understand your request “Please make I.A.O.R.E. clear”. Full text my response Moscow Narodny Bank London available Bank of Lebanon D’Outre-Mer Beirut. Response is very lengthy and also available in London from Mr Khemlani who should now have returned there from Australia.’

Regards

F. X. Connor

Australian Minister for Minerals and Energy

Over+ +

JML

10.2.75

30 am

DALSONCOM LDN

MINMEAA62680

For your co-operation.

From The Honourable R. F. X. Connor

Australian Minister for Minerals and Energy

Parliament House

Canberra

Unquote

Please let me know if you have any further requirements. Anticipate final confirmation of funds tonight as indicated.

F. X. Connor

Over+ +

Thanks well received and 1 shall be in touch with you without fail as I have promised and shall complete the work without fail.

Over

Please note the reference code which is as received by me in telexes from overseas development bank on the 3rd and 4th April. I trust there will not be any difficulties as I have in other responses quotedXX

AE + AG/420DSCLL . . .

Isthatcorectorshlditbe . . . 420/DSELL + ?

The first is correct that is AE + AG/320DSCLL. I shall take a care of this and there will beno difficulties over this and my early converstion with the VIP has been very encouraging and he even assured me that he appreciates this on the pan of minister and it shall be quite alright and they will not delay at all and shall finish the operation today and shall give you timing etc when I reach Frankfurst at 14 30 + over+

Thank you very much over and bibi for now + +

JML

16.4.75

1.12 p.m.

DALSONCOM LDN

MINME AA62680

DALSONCOM LDN

MINME AA62680

To MrT.H. Khemlani

Have just completed transmission of the undermentioned message to the Overseas Development Bank, Geneva for the attention of Messrs Angeloni and Ferrier

Quote

To Overseas Development Bank, Geneva

Attention: Messrs P. H. Angeloni and J. M. Ferrier

Reference Code: AE + AG/420/DSELL/KHEM/ 30011975

Following on my telephone conversation of today with Mr T. H. Khemlani, and referring to documentation in your possession, and in particular my telex of 28 February 1975 to S FNB please note the following alterations thereto relative to my participation in this transaction.

Clause ( 1 ): After the words “The Australian Government” in line one delete the word “Wishes” and insert in lieu thereof the words “Is Ready”.

Clause (3): Delete completely, and in lieu thereof substitute the following clause-

Our agreement in paragraph (2) abovementioned is, of course, given on the understanding that it does not in any way whatsoever commit the Australian Government to any costs fees or other liabilities and it is further understood that your bank in acting as a trustee bank, in the event of its receiving from the lenders bany monies in excess of the principal loan sum will disburse such excess to cover retrocession fees and operational charges and other expenses or commissions and will be in a position to transfer to the Australian Government the total amount of four billion United States dollars.

Would you please advise lending bank accordingly. Thank you.

Mr LYNCH:

– I thank the Minister who must be one of the few on the other side of this House who is prepared to allow part of the truth to come out. But the fact remains that so far as the loans scandal and these tax Bills are concerned, all the Australian community is faced with at the present time is a story of continuing deceit, dishonesty, evasion and inaccuracy. I repeat what I and other colleagues have said recently here and in another place: What is the Prime Minister of this country really hiding? Does he believe that he can wash his hands of the loans issue by dismissing 2 of the most senior Ministers in this country, 2 men who have served at varying times in the position of Prime Minister? Does he believe that he can absolve himself from responsibility? Why is it that the Prime Minister of this country is unprepared to apply to himself the same standards and the same sanctions that he has applied to 2 other Ministers in their dismissal? Are we in the Opposition Parties on this issue to be subject now and in the future to the refusal of the man who must accept the ultimate responsibility for this illegal and unconstitutional scandal, the most bizarre episode in Australian history? Is this Parliament to be subject to a situation in which we can no longer ask questions of the Prime Minister because he is the man whose word can no longer be trusted? Frankly, when we get a reply we know we cannot rely on it. He has misled the House time and time again. It is part of the story of deception- as are the Bills before the House- that has not just started; it has been going on since this Government first came into power. It is a government, I believe, which has the taint of scandal. It is a government which is corrupt. It is a government which should go and go decently and quietly, and it should go now.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Drury:

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

Mr WILLIS:
Gellibrand

-A listener to the mealy mouthed contribution from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Lynch) would have been pushed very hard -

Mr Peacock:

– Do not bring politics into it.

Mr WILLIS:

– … to find any reference to the income tax legislation which is before the House. He would have learnt very little of what is contained in these Bills.

Mr Morris:

– I take a point of order. Is it in order for a member of the ministerial staff to interrupt the proceedings of this House from without the precincts of the House? I think it is a gross offence to the House and I ask you, Mr Deputy Speaker, to act on this matter.

Mr King:

– Where?

Mr Morris:

– The gentleman over there who interjected. I think his name is Mr Andrew Hay.

Mr Peacock:

-To clarify the matter, I interjected. The interjection was mine and mine alone.

Mr WILLIS:

– I was saying that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition seemed more intent on pursuing his abusive vendetta than talking about the legislation which is before this House.

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– I take a point of order. The honourable member for Gellibrand referred to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition as ‘mealy mouthed’. I suggest that those words are unparliamentary and I request that you ask him to withdraw them.

Mr Lynch:

– Yes. I found that phrase offensive and I am very upset about it.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Drury:

-As the phrase has been found offensive I ask the honourable member to withdraw it.

Mr WILLIS:

-I did not say that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition was mealy mouthed; I said that his contribution was mealy mouthed. The fact is that these Bills contain a quite radical reform of the income tax system, one which is many years overdue and one which the Labor movement pushed the previous Government for many years to introduce but which it never had the initiative or concern to introduce at any stage. The principal feature of the new income tax system is that it replaces the old deduction system with a rebate system. I think that this needs explaining. Under the deduction system a taxpayer was allowed, say, $360, as an allowance for a spouse. (Quorum formed) As I was saying before the honourable member for Bendigo (Mr Bourchier) pursued his puerile tactical manoeuvre, these Bills introduce a rebate system in place of the previous deduction system. I was trying to explain the difference. Under the deduction system if a taxpayer was allowed $360 for a spouse that deduction came off the top of the income level. If that person earned $ 10,000 a year he could take $360 off that sum as a deduction for his spouse. Another taxpayer earning $4,000 a year could deduct the same amount from the top of his income. Because of the difference in the marginal rates of taxation which apply under a progressive income tax system, it meant that a given deduction was worth more the higher one’s income. The whole system of deductions for spouses and other dependants and for various expenses which were allowed under the Income Tax Act worked in a way which was most advantageous to the highest paid.

This new system of a rebate seeks to alter that situation so that there is an equitable scheme whereby the amount allowable is the same for all persons. Thus in the case of a spouse under the new legislation the amount allowable is $400 but that is a rebate whether one earns $30,000 a year or $3,000 a year. If a taxpayer has a spouse for whom he or she can claim a deducation under the taxation legislation that taxpayer can claim $400 off the tax that otherwise would have to be paid. Thus the saving in tax is the same for all taxpayers regardless of the income level. That applies to the deduction for dependants and all other deductions and it represents a radical departure from the previous system.

I want to go into some detail about the new legislation because the previous speaker paid no attention to it. Firstly, there is to be a new rate scale. In that scale there are only 6 steps instead of the previous myriad of steps by which one progressed up the progressive income tax scale to a maximum marginal rate of 66.6 per cent. Now there are to be 6 steps, from 25 per cent at the lowest level to 65 per cent at the top. This is a far simpler system. More importantly, and I will come to this again later, between the income levels of $5,000 and $10,000, which covers the areas above and below the average weekly earnings, there is a 35 per cent rate. Any increase in wages between those incomes will not attract higher marginal rates of tax.

We also have the introduction of a sole parent’s rebate. This did not exist before. There was no deduction for a sole parent. Now there is to be a $200 per annum rebate for a sole parent and this will assist 100 000 parents in this country. The amounts of rebates for dependants are very much higher in their effective assistance to the taxpayer than was the case under the previous system. For instance, for a spouse the deduction was $364. The maximum benefit which could be obtained from that for any taxpayer would have been two-thirds of that amountabout $240 odd- whereas under the new system the rebate will be $400 for all taxpayers. It is a much higher allowance. For a child under 16 years the previous deduction was $260 and the maximum benefit was two-thirds of that amount, and that was for people on very high incomes. Under the new system the rebate will be $200 for all. For children other than the first child the previous deduction was $208. Now there is to be a rebate of $ 1 50 for all. Again that will mean a substantial increase for most taxpayers. Therefore this change from a deduction system to a rebate system is very important.

There is one other aspect which is particularly important to lower income earners and that is the allowance of a block rebate. For allowable expenses other than for dependants, taxpayers are to be allowed a block rebate of $540 under the new system. This covers all allowable expenses up to $1,350. That has been worked out on the basis of 40 per cent rebate on $1,350 equals $540. Whether a taxpayer in fact spends on superannuation, life assurance, education, health and so on to the extent of $ 1 ,350 or not each taxpayer is to get a rebate of $540. So a taxpayer does not have to account for expenditure up to $1,350 as he would under the present system. This is particularly important because it will provide substantial income tax relief for lower income earners and will mean that many low income earners will pay no income tax at all as a result of this legislation. In fact something like half a million taxpayers will be relieved of all tax obligation by this new system. Of course, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in his contribution to this debate made no mention of that because he is not at all concerned with it.

I should mention too that the level of allowable deductions in respect of education expenses has also been altered. A student rebate of $200 will apply. This compares with the previous student deduction of $260. The rebate is better for all taxpayers who have student children dependent upon them than was the allowable deduction of $260 under the old system. Also, of course, the allowable deduction for education expenses has been increased from $150 to $250. Of course, that also becomes a rebate, as do all other expenses, at 40c in the dollar.

That is a brief outline of what the legislation proposes. It is a very radical change to the system. The hallmark of the Australian income tax system has been that since the Labor Government went out of office there has been very little change in the income tax system. There was some notable change in the early 1950s but from about 1 954 until the time when the Liberals went out of office in 1972 the system remained virtually the same. There was a little change here and a little change there. But for 15 years, from 1954 to 1969, there was virtually no change in the income tax scale at all. During that time, of course, taxpayers moved up into higher and higher tax brackets, and this is something which I will come to in a moment.

The Deputy Leader of the Opposition referred to the need for tax indexation, and I would like to make some comments on that. For those who are not too well aware of what is meant by tax indexation, it simply means a system of adjusting the income tax scales each year so that with inflation people do not move up into higher and higher tax brackets if their incomes are doing no more than keeping up with inflation. The fact is, as I have said, that under the previous Government inflation, with our progressive income tax system, did take people into higher and higher tax brackets. I shall give an example of the extent to which this happened. In 1949 when Labor went out of office a person on average weekly earnings, with a spouse and 2 children to keep, paid 2.9 per cent of his income in income tax. By the time Labor came back to office in 1972 the percentage of income that the same situated person would have paid in income tax had increased from 2.9 per cent to 14.5 per cent. In other words, the income tax burden had increased very substantially under the Liberal Government, mainly as a result of there being no adjustment of tax scales, which meant that people moved into higher and higher tax brackets as a result of inflation. That, of course, has continued under this Government. We do not deny that. But this is not something new. It has not just started with us. It happened almost every year for the 23 years that the Liberals were in office.

There is a growing demand in this country for tax indexation because obviously it just cannot keep going on the way it is at the moment. If it did, eventually all taxpayers would finish up on a maximum rate, and that, of course, would be rather absurd. So there is a growing demand for a system whereby people are not automatically forced into higher tax scales by inflation. I think it is true to say that the Government appreciates the problem. But there are various reasons for not having introduced such a system this year. The first reason is that we thought it was more important to revamp the system in the way I have just described. That has been a very important revamping. It is something which the Mathews Committee said was quite a possibility, that if the Government could not see its way clear to introduce tax indexation now it could at least change the system in something like the way we have put before the Parliament, and that is what is being done.

Secondly, to have applied tax indexation at this time would have cost $ 1,000m, and that is a lot of money. If we had introduced tax indexation at this time we would have required a much larger Budget or alternatively we would have had to cut expenditure by $ 1 ,000m. Both of these alternatives would have had very important economic effects which I will come to in a moment. Thirdly, a Medibank levy was refused by the Opposition. The fact was that we had a major program coming on this year which made the introduction of tax indexation impossible. This program was the introduction of Medibank. The Opposition refused to allow us to raise a Medibank levy. Having done so by stopping the legislation in the Senate it then says that we should have introduced tax indexation, or at least partial tax indexation to the extent of $500m a year to stimulate demand. Now the honourable member for Hotham (Mr Chipp), who is the Opposition spokesman on social welfare, is saying that we should also have a Medibank levy. I would ask the Opposition to make up its mind. What does it really think? First of all it blocks the Medibank levy and then it says: ‘We need tax indexation or partial tax indexation to provide stimulation to the economy’. Then one of its major spokesmen says:

What we need is- ‘ ( Quorum formed)

I was saying before I was interrupted that the Opposition seemed to be in a state of total confusion about tax indexation and Medibank. On the one hand members of the Opposition said that we should not have a Medibank levy, then they said that we should have tax indexation, or at least partial tax indexation, because of the need to stimulate the economy, and on the other hand they seem to be saying through one of their spokesmen that we should have a Medibank levy. That shows an enormous change of mind. Of course, a Medibank levy would have the effect of wiping out the economic effects which the Opposition expects to get from partial tax indexation because the amount that would be raised by the Medibank levy would be something like $500m which is what would be handed back to the taxpayers by way of partial tax indexation as proposed by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Malcolm Fraser) in his Budget proposals.

I suggest that there are good reasons for not having introduced tax indexation at this time. There is one other matter to which I have not referred and which is important, that is that under the new proposals the marginal tax rate for incomes between $5,000 and $10,000 does not change. As wage earners in the $5,000 to $ 10,000 bracket receive higher pay they will still be paying a higher proportion of their income tax but they will not be paying higher marginal rates of tax. That is a substantial step towards the introduction of a tax indexation system. This is not the full extent of it but it is a substantial step along the way.

Finally, I would briefly make the point that the Opposition, of course, finds tax indexation attractive because it means that it would be difficult for the Government to raise tax revenues very greatly at any one time. That accords with the Opposition’s philosophy completely because it does not really have any concern with public expenditure. Members of the Opposition do not have any real interest in the Government’s economic programs at the moment which are designed to provide better educational opportunities for the ordinary children in Australia, better welfare, better urban development and a better environment. They are not interested in those kinds of policies. Theirs is an elitist philosophy that talks about the freedom to spend one’s own income. What they want is a system where there is a minimal tax payment and minimal activity by governments to make the life of the ordinary Australian better in those areas where they most need assistance from governments, in areas where they cannot possibly provide for themselves. It is a rich man’s philosophy to talk about freedon to spend one’s own income. That is a philosophy that benefits those who can afford the best education, the best health services and the best environment.

Mr Kevin Cairns:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

-Mr Speaker -

Motion (by Mr Nicholls) put:

That the question be now put.

The House divided. (MrSpeaker-Hon. G. G. D. Scholes)

AYES: 62

NOES: 56

Majority……. 6

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Mr BOURCHIER:
Bendigo

-Mr Speaker, I should like to make a personal explanation. I claim to have been misrepresented by the honourable member for Gellibrand (Mr Willis) who claimed that as the Opposition Whip I was making puerile calls to draw attention to the state of the House. I think that you will agree with me, Mr Speaker, that it is the Government’s job to maintain the numbers in the House.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable gentleman will resume his seat.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

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

page 2485

INCOME TAX BILL 1975

Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 9 October on motion by Mr Hayden:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

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

page 2485

INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS) BILL 1975

Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 9 October on motion by Mr Hayden:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

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

page 2485

CONSUMER PROTECTION BILL 1975

In Committee

Clauses 1 to 3- by leave- taken together.

Mr HOWARD:
Bennelong

During the course of the second reading debate on this Bill last night the Opposition raised a number of basic questions regarding the establishment of the Consumer Protection Authority. I hope that during the course of the Committee debate the Minister for Science and Consumer Affairs (Mr Clyde Cameron) will show a little more restraint and a little more respect for the reasonable attitude that the Opposition has adopted towards this legislation. The Opposition wants an adequate opportunity to be provided for a careful examination by all interested parties of a proposal to establish a separate Australian Consumer Protection Authority. During the course of the second reading debate the Minister reacted to the fact that I had drawn his attention to a request the Minister received from the Associated Chambers of Manufactures of Australia that discussion on the Bill ought to be delayed for a period of time to allow sufficient consideration of the various clauses of the Bill. The Minister suggested that because I had referred to that request it indicated that the Opposition’s attitude to this legislation is to be dictated by the attitude of the manufacturers, whom the Minister was at pains to criticise at great length during the course of his reply.

I point out to the Minister, as he would well know today, that it is not only the Associated Chambers of Manufactures which is annoyed at the haste with which this Bill is being presented but also the Australian Federation of Consumer Organisations, the representative body of the consumers of Australia, the body which the Minister’s own Government sponsored last year, the body which the Minister’s own Government provided with funds amounting to $70,000 to present the consumers’ point of view. This group itself objects to the haste with which this Bill has been brought forward for debate. All the Opposition asks is that consideration of the establishment of this authority be the subject of careful investigation not only by the State governments which have a very important stake in consumer protection, not only by retailers, advertisers and manufacturers but also above all by the consumers of Australia and by the bodies throughout Australia which represent consumer opinion.

The Minister knows that he has received a letter from the Chairman of the Australian Federation of Consumer Organisations. In that letter the Chairman, Mr Malone, expressed his disappointment that the Federation did not have the opportunity to view a draft of the legislation and expressed his disappointment that the Bill has been presented for second reading discussion with such haste. I think it is also necessary in fairness to a balanced presentation of Mr Malone ‘s letter to point out that he made it clear that the Federation fully supports the intentions of the Government. I make that point clear lest the Minister, in his haste again to misrepresent the attitude of the Opposition to this legislation, alleges that I have misquoted what Mr Malone said. What he is saying, what we on the Opposition side say, what undoubtedly the State governments of Australia say in respect of this legislation, is that sufficient time should be allowed for a careful consideration of its detailed provisions.

All the Opposition asks is that a month be allowed. We moved an amendment last night that a period of one month be allowed for further consideration of this Bill. The Government used its numbers to defeat that amendment. We then allowed a second reading of the Bill without a division. I repeat that it will be the intention of the Opposition again to move that amendment asking that time be allowed for a detailed consideration of this legislation. I do not think that that is an unreasonable proposition to put. I do not think it is unreasonable that legislation which represents the most significant intervention by the Commonwealth Government in the area of consumer protection ought to be allowed more than one week’s consideration. This legislation, the proposal to establish this Authority, was introduced in this House only last Wednesday on 1 5 October and we are now being asked 8 days later to make a final decision on the Bill. It is an insult to a proper consideration of legislation to ask the Opposition, or to ask the many community groups throughout Australia who are as interested as we are in consumer protection, to bring forward a considered response to the provisions of the legislation in this time.

It is of no use the Minister or any of his supporters on the government side categorising our proposed amendment as being opposition to consumer protection. That is a pattern of misrepresentation that this Government has embarked on in respect not only of this legislation but also of many other pieces of legislation which have been brought forward before this Parliament. Whenever the Opposition has said, ‘Give us a bit of time to consider it. Allow those throughout the community who are interested to consider the legislation’, the Government has always said, ‘You are trying to kill the Bill. You are trying to delay the legislation’. The Minister’s colleague, the Attorney-General (Mr Enderby), adopted that tactic with respect to legal aid and the Minister has repeated it with respect to consumer protection. There can be no doubt that the Opposition is totally in favour of effective laws to protect the consumers of Australia. Just because we ask a few questions about some of the proposals of the Government to protect consumers we are accused of being the hirelings of the manufacturers and of taking our instructions from the board rooms of New York and Chicago. If the Minister wants to make an intelligent contribution to the discussion of consumer protection in this Parliament he must do better than indulge in ritualistic sideswipes at multi-national corporations. There is a lot more to consumer protection than simply establishing another authority and having an endless sideswipe at multinational corporations.

Of course some of the practices of multinational corporations are adverse to the interests of consumers. The Opposition does not dispute that. But just because the Opposition suggests that the views of manufacturers and retailers, along with the views of consumers and State governments, ought to be taken into account in considering any Federal Government legislation in the consumer protection area, that does not make us hirelings or mouthpieces of manufacturers in this place. The Opposition wants this Parliament and those throughout Australia who are interested in consumer protection to have a decent opportunity to study the Government’s proposals, to put forward their views as to whether the interests of consumers will be advanced by the Government’s proposals, to put forward their views as to whether the Government’s legislation achieves a proper balance between the obligations and responsibilities of the State governments in the area of consumer protection and the obligations of the Federal Government in the area of consumer protection.

The Opposition does not dispute that the Federal Government has an important role to play in consumer protection. All the Opposition asks is that the Government allow a decent time for the Opposition and others in the community to consider this legislation. A month is not an unreasonable time to ask for consideration of this Bill to be deferred. If the Minister is really interested in advancing rational, sensible, and if possible, bipartisan discussion of laws to protect the consumers he will allow sufficient time for those of whom I have spoken to consider the provisions of this Bill. The Opposition did not oppose the second reading of this legislation, not because it has committed itself to a final attitude on the Bill- because it has not- but because we knew that that action, along with everything else we have done with the Bill, would be misrepresented as an attack on the consumers of Australia, as taking instructions from the board rooms of the multi-national corporations. I ask the Minister again to consider allowing the Opposition and those interested in this legislation a reasonable period of time within which to consider the legislation and its impact upon the rights and the protection of consumers throughout Australia.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– The honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard) has sought to wriggle out of the predicament that he has wriggled into by trying to pretend now that the Opposition does not intend to defeat the Bill in another place. I know that the Opposition is going to defeat the Bill in another place. It has already decided to defeat it by using a device to defeat by delay. If delay overtakes its plot it will destroy the Bill by emasculation, and that is an open secret. Everyone knows it. We all know of the commitments members of the Opposition have given to their wealthy backers already, and the consumers of Australia will be able to judge the Opposition’s position.

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

- Mr Chairman, I draw your attention to the state of the Committee.

The CHAIRMAN (Dr Jenkins:
SCULLIN, VICTORIA

-Order! I wonder whether the honourable member for Griffith, when he does call attention to the state of the Committee, could speak more loudly. He is very difficult to hear from the chair.

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– If I might respond to that, Mr Chairman, we have a duty on this side to do this.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! The honourable member will resume his seat. His right to do it was not questioned. What was requested was that when he makes the request the Chair be able to hear it clearly.

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– Do you want me to try again?

The CHAIRMAN:

– You have tried enough. (Quorum formed)

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

-When the Opposition was in government it never gave the then Opposition the opportunity to discuss Bills that we have now given to the Opposition to discuss this Bill. Let us not forget the fact that I gave a public account on 1 August 1975 of what the Bill would provide. No piece of legislation has been talked about so much, so freely or openly by the Government weeks and weeks before it was introduced as this legislation has been talked about. I met representatives of the Associated Chambers of Manufactures of Australia in my office. I talked frankly and openly with them about the Bill. I answered truthfully, honestly and fully every question they asked me about it. I showed them and read to them portions of the Bill as it was then drafted. The Bill was not then completed. They went away thanking me for my courtesy, my frankness and my candour. They are not even now suggesting, though I would suspect that the telegram which I now have in my possession from ACMA was probably sent to me at the behest of its representative in this place, the honourable member for Bennelong -

Mr Howard:

– That is a lie.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! The honourable gentleman will withdraw that. He knows that it is unparliamentary.

Mr Howard:

– I withdraw it. I amend it to say that it is an untruth.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

-Even the representative of ACMA, Mr Henderson, does not ask that the Bill be delayed for another 28 days. He only asks that it be delayed for 2 1 days- and he is the representative of the manufacturers. Even he does not want 28 days, but the representatives of the multi-national corporations in the other place want 28 days because they want that time to report to the board rooms of New York and get the reply back, and 21 days would not be enough. The honourable gentleman says that a delay of a month is not an unreasonable time. It is not unreasonable for the manufacturers he represents, but it is an unreasonable time for the consumers who are being cheated, robbed and fleeced every day. Twenty-eight days is a damn long time to be robbed and cheated by the people he represents. It might not seem very much to him, but 28 days of robbery, deceit and deception is a lot for the consumers of Australia to put up with. We are not prepared to let this Bill be put aside for that period. What about the time when the former Government brought in over 100 clauses to amend the Conciliation and Arbitration Act? That most complex Bill was rushed through this House in the dying days of a session- in fact the very last day of a session. It was rushed through and gagged. No opportunity was given to deal with a Bill of that kind.

Now the honourable gentleman talks about the Australian Federation of Consumer Organisations and the fact that Mr Malone has sent in some amendments. I have had all these amendments considered. There are 23 of them. Thirteen of the 23 are amendments he suggests should be made to the provision of the Trade Practices Act which I have indicated before, including to the honourable gentleman, the Government proposes to lift in globo from the existing Trade Practices Act. We are not prepared to prejudice the passage of the Bill by making substantial changes to Part V of the Trade Practices Act as is now proposed. Mr Malone knows that. It was explained to Mr Malone and he accepted my explanation or, at least I thought he accepted it. My meeting with him was a friendly one. It was not a confrontation. He told me he supported what the Government was doing. The other 10 amendments that are suggested by him are either already covered by other clauses of the Bill that is now before the House or have been covered by the proposed amendments that I am now putting. So there is nothing of substance at all in what the honourable gentleman says.

I repeat that the proposal to defer for a whole month a Bill that has been on the stocks now in public discussion form ever since 1 August at least is nothing more nor less than a device to defeat by delay. If the delay overtakes the Opposition’s plot, the Opposition senators will certainly destroy the Bill by emasculation. That is the plan they have already set their minds upon. That is how they are going to operate. When they face their masters in a few months time or a few weeks time, depending on how long it takes them to make up their minds whether they have got the courage to reject the Budget- when they can pluck up enough courage to reject the Budget, then the retiring senators will face their mastersthey will have to explain why they voted for this plot to help the manufacturers to continue for another month to cheat and to defraud the consumers. That is what they will have to do. I propose to publish in all the newspapers in South Australia the name of every Liberal senator from South Australia who voted for the delay of this Bill.

Mr Peacock:

– Who is going to pay for that?

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

-The Labor Party, the unions and the consumers will pay for the advertisements. I got a donation today from a consumer group towards the cost of fighting the Liberal Party’s plot to destroy this piece of legislation. On election day, when the retiring senators have to face their masters, consumers will walk into the polling booths with the first opportunity of evening the score against the people who are more concerned for manufacturers’ profits than for consumer protection. I say no more at this stage except to repeat that this is nothing more nor less than a plot by multinational interests to allow their representatives in Australia to go on plundering the consumers of this country when the Government is determined to stop the plunder.

Mr RUDDOCK:
Parramatta

-I normally find the Minister for Science and Consumer Affairs (Mr Clyde Cameron) most convincing when he puts an argument to this Parliament, but today I must say that I have been exceedingly disappointed, particularly in relation to his analogy between this Bill and other Bills that are before this place at the present time. I think it is quite specious to suggest that he would treat delay of this Bill as rejection and yet when other important pieces of legislation are before the -

Motion ( by Mr Daly) put:

That the question be now put.

The Committee divided. (The Chairman- Dr H. A. Jenkins)

AYES: 62

NOES: 55

Majority……. 7

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Clauses agreed to.

Clause 4.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I move:

The purpose of the amendment is to overcome a drafting mistake. There is no sub-section (3) in section 39 that refers to a corporation. I have talked with my friend opposite who agrees that this drafting error should be corrected.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 5 to 40- by leave- taken together.

Mr HOWARD:
Bennelong

– I should like to address a few remarks to the Committee regarding clauses 7 and 8 of the Bill. Clause 7 sets out the functions of the proposed Authority and clause 8 deals with the powers of that Authority. The purpose of my few remarks regarding these clauses is to elicit some information from the Minister for Science and Consumer Affairs (Mr Clyde Cameron) as to precisely what the Authority will do during the course of carrying out its functions and exercising its powers. One matter that concerns me about the Bill is to understand exactly what relationship there will be between the Authority and bodies such as the Standards Association of Australia in the development of consumer product standards. I do not ask that question in any argumentative or querulous fashion. I think the Committee is aware of the attitude that the Opposition is taking to the Bill and my purpose in raising these matters and making these comments is to elicit some more information from the Minister.

The Minister will be aware that the Standards Association of Australia is a body which was established by royal charter, has developed an enviable record in the development of industrial and other standards throughout Australia and presently has under consideration approximately 150 projects for the development of consumer product standards. The Minister is aware of the contribution that the Standards Association of Australia has made to the development of standards generally. The Opposition would like to know, in some detail within the confines of the Committee debate, precisely what the relationship will be between the proposed Authority and the Standards Association. I recognise that in clause 7 the Authority is given a general function to co-ordinate activities and to devise, and assist other bodies to devise, consumer product standards. I would like to know, in a little more detail, precisely what the relationship will be.

I think the Minister will be aware that the experience of the United States Products Safety Commission, which, I would submit, is a fair analogy to draw when considering this legislation, has been that the development and devising of standards is a very protracted and often extremely expensive process and that quite often the voluntary observance of consumer product standards has been well in advance of regulatory enforcement. The Minister will be aware, because of the close interest that I know he has taken in the operation of consumer protection laws in the United States, that whilst at the time the Consumer Products Safety Commission was established in 1972 it was hailed as a very significant step forward in the development of consumer product standards, the experience with the operation of the Act concerning that Commission has not totally borne out the expectations that were held for the Commission when it was established. The point I make is that if the Authority is to take over the whole field of the development of consumer product standards- I am not suggesting for a moment that that is the Government’s intention; I am really asking whether it is- it will be a very expensive operation.

The Minister will be aware that clause 8 of the Bill confers powers on the Authority to erect, maintain and operate laboratories and other facilities for the testing of consumer products for the purposes of the Act. I recognise that the Authority should have that power but I put it to the Committee that at a time when a premium ought to be placed on responsibility in government expenditure and at a time when there already exists in the consumer standards field a number of bodies including the Standards Association and the Food Standards SubCommittee of the National Health and Medical Research Council- bodies which enjoy a very high reputation throughout Australia- I would hope and the Opposition would hope that any Federal Government activity in the area of consumer standards, whether it be through this proposed Authority or through any other mechanism, would draw as far as possible upon the expertise and the experience already offered by bodies such as the Standards Association and the Food Standards Sub-Committee of the National Health and Medical Research Council.

The Minister ought to be aware- I am sure the Minister is aware- that much of the success of the Standards Association of Australia in developing consumer standards is due to the fact that it is able to draw upon the industry, which makes available the resources and facilities of the industry, to assist the Standards Association in developing product standards. Of course not all sections of industry are out to fleece the consumer and not all sections of industry are unwilling to assist in the development of proper consumer product standards. I would like the Committee and the Government to bear in mind that if anything is done by the Government, either through this legislation or through future legislation in this area, to discourage the voluntary contribution which is already being made by industry and by bodies such as the Standards Association in the development of consumer product standards it would be a great pity. Matters of this nature can never be dealt with cheaply if there is no voluntary contribution made by agencies outside the Government. I would like the Minister, when replying to my comments on these 2 clauses, to give the Opposition some explanation of the relationship that will exist between the Authority and bodies such as the Standards Association of Australia.

The other matter upon which I would like some further explanation from the Minister concerns sub-clause (f) of clause 7 which reads: to examine critically, and report to the Minister on, the laws in force in Australia relating to the protection of consumers;

I would like the Minister’s opinion as to whether that sub-clause, when read in conjunction with the wide powers of public inquiry which are conferred on the Authority by another clause of the Bill, would empower the Authority to conduct a public inquiry as to the adequacy of consumer protection laws throughout Australia not only at the Federal Government level but also at State Government level. No innuendo is contained in the question. It is a straight out question. I would like the Minister to give the Committee the benefit of his opinion on that matter also.

The final question I raise with the Minister is this: Is the intention of the Government to give to the Authority, if established, the power of deciding the manner in which money set aside by the Government for consumer protection shall be allocated to the various consumer bodies and other bodies associated with consumer affairs throughout Australia? In other words, is the proposed Authority, unlike the Australian Legal Aid Commission proposed by the Government and which is purely an advisory authority, to have executory functions so far as the determination of Government policy and determination of the manner in which Government funds shall be allocated?

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– The Authority of course will not have power to determine Government policy other than that which is written into the Bill. The policy as written into the Bill is something by which the Authority will be bound as is any other authority. The Australian Consumer Protection Authority however will be the one to determine which consumer groups are to be given financial assistance out of its budget. At the moment it is the policy of my department, while we are waiting for ACPA to be established, to give all the financial assistance we can to the Australian Federation of Consumer Organisations, leaving AFCO to determine how the money will be dispersed to the various other consumer groups that are either affiliated or not affiliated. They do not have to be affiliated with AFCO to get the money. We will leave the allocation of money to AFCO to work out. We think this proposal is better because it takes away from politicians the opportunity of patronage to consumer organisations which I think is wrong.

We will give an annual budget to ACPA ACPA will be the one to decide whether or how much money goes to the various bodies. I hope that AFCO will be continued to be recognised as the central agency for the various other consumer groups. Clause 7 (1) (f) could empower such an inquiry as the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard) mentioned, but there could be no element of compulsion. It would be the duty of the Authority to examine critically the laws in force in Australia relating to the protection of consumers. That, however, would not be one of the major roles of- the Authority. But it would be very unwise to preclude the Authority from examining the laws for consumer protection in such a way as to make it possible for the Authority to report to the Minister on what way the laws might be defective. In fact I believe the Trade Practices Act is defective in some respects now. The Senate could have been more generous in the powers which it gave to the Trade Practices Commission. I have indicated to the honourable member for Bennelong the areas of difficulty within Part V of the Trade Practices Act that I think could be strengthened.

The honourable gentleman very properly paid tribute to the Standards Association of Australia, and so do 1. 1 join with him in that tribute. The Standards Association acts on royal charter, as the honourable member said. It receives quite generous assistance from the Australian Government and will continue to receive generous assistance from the Australian Government. If the honourable gentleman looks at sub-clause (2) of clause 7 of the Bill he will notice that it states:

It is the duty of the Authority, to the greatest extent practicable, to avail itself of the resources of, and to make use of the facilities provided by, other bodies or authorities engaged in the devising or evaluation of standards related to the provision of goods or services.

That sub-clause was deliberately written into the Bill so that when the Act becomes law the Authority will be required by law to use existing bodies to carry out the work that normally might require the setting up of separate laboratory facilities. I have indicated to SAA- I say it now publicly and quite categorically- that the Government proposes that ACPA will continue to use SAA. As SAA’s work expands- it will expand considerably rather than contract because it has a lot of projects on hand already and it will have more as time goes on and as more work is given to it to carry out on behalf of ACPA- it will need more financial assistance from the Government. I shall be recommending that SAA be given that additional assistance. I have had 2 meetings with SAA representatives now and they are perfectly happy with what I propose. I have had meetings with representatives of the Australian Consumers Association and they are perfectly happy with what is proposed here. It is just not true to say that there have been no negotiations or talks with the interested parties because there have been.

Although the Bill of necessity makes provision for the establishment of laboratories for testing we are not going to have laboratories set up for testing where existing facilities can be used. In fact I can say to the honourable gentleman that we envisage only a very small number of employees- from 30 to 50 people; the remainder will be on loan or will be on contract. We expect to let a lot of our testing work to private enterprise which has testing facilities. There is no reason why we should not do this. It would be absurd to spend large sums of money setting up our own laboratories if existing facilities can be found. I have talked with employers and big undertakings such as Philips and Sunbeam who have told me that they have testing facilities. They are quite willing to co-operate. Both Sunbeam and Philips, who are very big in the field of manufacturing of goods of everyday use, have given the assurance that they support completely the Bill and the concept of the Bill and that they will fully co-operate with the Government and as reputable manufacturers they would welcome some legislation that would save them, as well as the consumers, from the disreputable manufacturers with whom they have to contend now. They want higher standards set so that they can be protected. They put it to me this way: Philips representatives were talking about the production of dimmer switches. They asked how they could possibly produce a dimmer switch that would prevent radiation propagation when their competitors are producing switches at about a third of the price- $6 as against $19.50- which interfere with frequency modulation reception, interfere with television reception, especially colour television reception, and are injurious over a long term to people living and working in the same house as those switches are operating in. They said: ‘Unless we get some protection by way of regulatory requirement of standards we might as well slip back and drop our standards to the levels that our competitors have’.

So there is great support from the reputable manufacturers just as there is great support from the consumers in Australia. I repeat quite categorically that we shall continue to allocate moneys to ACPA for the purpose of supporting the Australian Federation of Consumer Organisations, SAA and consumer groups. We will continue to use SAA facilities. SAA will be upgraded rather than downgraded. SAA knows that. I have had talks with Miss Helen Gray about this matter and she is completely satisfied with the undertakings that I have given to her. She has written to me about the matter and is quite happy with what is proposed by the Government. The Food Standards Sub-Committee to which the honourable gentleman referred will be the one that we will turn to for setting food standards. ACPA will not have its own duplication of work in relation to food standards where the Food Standards Sub-Committee is able to do so. Where SAA standards have been set -

Mr Cope:

-What does SAA stand for?

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

-The Standards Association of Australia. We shall use SAA standards where public scrutiny proves them to be suitable. I believe that most, if not all of the Association’s standards would be deemed to be suitable. Once by way of public inquiry we find that they are suitable we shall accept them. There ought to be public inquiries because the manufacturer is entitled to have a viewpoint on what sort of standards are fixed before they are set. It is no use setting a standard for bathroom furniture by saying that everything that the manufacturer makes has to be plated in 22 carat gold. Sure, it looks good, but it will not last longer. What that will do is put the price of bathroom furniture out of the reach of the ordinary average working man. That is not what we want. All that we want to do is to make sure that goods are properly designated and that goods such as handrails are not branded as gold plated if they are not gold plated. If they are nickel plated the manufacturer should say that they are nickel plated. If they are chrome plated the manufacturer should say so. It is only where a particular kind of material which would represent a substantial safety hazard is being used that we would step in and prevent it from being used. All we want is frankness and honesty on the part of manufacturers so that people know what they are buying.

Mr RUDDOCK:
Parramatta

– I welcome the assurances in relation to the Standards Association of Australia. I ask the Minister for Science and Consumer Affairs (Mr Clyde Cameron) whether he may be able to give me the same assurances in relation to the National Association of Testing Authorities. The Minister may recall that I put on notice some time ago to his predecessor, the then Minister for Science, Mr Morrison, this question:

Will he outline the role NATA will play in ensuring quality control for consumer services and goods within Australia.

The Minister answered:

The Commission for Consumer Affairs which the Australian Government has decided to establish will no doubt wish to make use of NATA laboratories in appropriate cases for testing of consumer goods. I recently proposed that firms should regard NATA registration of their laboratories as a recognition of having reached a standard of quality control acceptable to the Association; such use of NATA registration would assist the public to identify those firms that have established adequate quality control.

I found in that answer some lack of reassurance. Certainly it indicated that the Minister was limiting the use of NATA to appropriate cases, whatever that meant. One could well see in the answer that there might be some selectivity in the approach taken. I was under the impression that NATA itself had adequate quality controls in relation to the laboratories that achieved its registration. I am somewhat concerned at the way in which members of NATA may have been left in some doubt as to the Government’s acceptance of such registration. Having regard to the approach that the Minister has taken and particularly references that he has made to other manufacturers and the use of their facilities I should like to know whether there has been the same degree of liaison with the NATA organisation to achieve appropriate recognition of its standards and if there is any doubt. I wish to be assured that that organisation will be able to play a proper role in the consumer protection provisions under sub-clauses (g) and (h) of clause 8 and particularly in relation to those paragraphs relating to consumer standards- 35, 36, 37 and

  1. They seem to be very permissive in terms of the directions given. It is particularly because of the permissive way in which those clauses are drafted that I ask the Minister for this assurance.
Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– Yes, I can give that assurance. This is yet another organisation with which I have had long discussions concerning the Bill. I keep being accused of not talking with the people and that the proposal has not been properly discussed. Each question which comes up gives me a reminder of yet another organisation with which I have discussed the Bill. The representatives of the National Association of Testing Authorities came to Canberra to see me some 4 weeks or 5 weeks ago. I answered all the questions that they put to me. I read to them excerpts from the Bill as it was then drafted. It was not in final form, but the parts in which they were interested have not been altered. I told the representatives of N ATA and I repeat now categorically that NATA will continue to be recognised for the quite magnificent organisation that it is. It is a body that is highly regarded and highly respected by the community at large and by me. It will be respected by the Australian Consumer Protection Authority as well.

So it gives me great pleasure to say that I have already discussed the Bill at great length with representatives of NATA who left me quite satisfied. They said that they were satisfied with my assurances and with my explanations. I repeat, as I did to them, that we will continue to regard NATA as the organisation which will set the testing standards. It does not run the laboratories and do the testing. What it does is test the standards of the laboratories. It has a role to play. That role is an important one. I do not see ACPA moving into that area. That type of work will continue to be done by NATA.

Mr HOWARD:
Bennelong

– I wish now to address a few remarks to clauses 10 to 24 which embody what is now Part V of the Trade Practices Act. Unfortunately, last night, the Minister for Science and Consumer Affairs (Mr Clyde Cameron) did not reply to that part of my second reading speech which dealt with the question which is quite fundamental to this Bill, that is, justifying the transfer from the Trade Practices Commission of the power over consumer protection. The Minister will be aware that the Trade Practices Commission has been operating now for a period of only slightly more than a year and that Part V of the Trade Practices Act represents a most significant intervention into the area of consumer protection by the

Federal Government. That part of the Act has been operating for a short period only. The Opposition would like to know why precisely the Government believes that it is necessary to take away from the Trade Practices Commission and to give to the new Authority responsibility for dealing with consumer protection. This aspect is very fundamental to the Bill.

I do not believe that in any of the Minister’s public speeches- I have read them all, I hopeand in his replies to questions in the Parliament, he has explained the reason why Part V of the Trade Practices Act must be taken from the Trade Practices Commission and given to the new Authority. To my knowledge, no suggestion has been made that the Trade Practices Commission has not administered fairly the consumer protection sections of the Trade Practices Act. I have not had any consumer groups come to me and say that the Trade Practices Commission is weak-kneed with respect to consumer protection. I have read the annual report of the Trade Practices Commission. I have read detailed articles on the activities of the Commission in the area of consumer protection. I can remember the Minister’s colleague, the Attorney-General (Mr Enderby), answering a question with obvious delight in this chamber from one of his own colleagues about the prosecutions that were launched under the consumer protection provisions of the Trade Practices Act, and which resulted in one company being fined the sum of $100,000.

The point that I make is that no case has yet been made by the Minister as to why the responsibilities of the Trade Practices Commission must be partially dismembered. It is not sufficient to say that, under the Administrative Orders Arrangement, control of Part V of the Act has been taken from the Attorney-General and given to the Minister for Science and Consumer Affairs. What the Opposition wants to know and what a number of people who are concerned to have a coherent body of commercial law in this country are interested in knowing, is why it is necessary to give to a separate authority control for consumer protection law when there are many very strong reasons why the same authority should be concerned with the promotion of competition in the market place as well as the promotion of fair trading in the market place. I think that the Minister will have an uphill battle convincing a number of people- not only those who sit on the ‘ Opposition benches but also people throughout the community- that a sharp distinction can be drawn between the two. They do merge and they do have a great deal in common. A consumer has a vested interest in there being competitive conditions in a market just as he has a vested interest in advertising being honest. Yet, under the Government’s policy, it is intended that the honest advertising part of the operation shall be the responsibility of the new Authority and the promotion of competition and the elimination of other restrictive trade practices shall remain the responsibility of the Trade Practices Commission.

If indeed there were evidence that, in the short time of its operation, the Trade Practices Commission had proved inadequate to discharge responsibility under Part V of the Act given to it by this Parliament, there would have been a case to transfer Part V to the new Authority. If they were contradictory responsibilities, there would have been a case for making the transfer. But no evidence of that nature has been produced. One of the matters that the Opposition will take most seriously into account in determining its final attitude to the legislation- and I remind the Committee that the Opposition’s final attitude to the legislation has not been determined and any suggestion that there is some kind of ruse or device in what we are asking is quite incorrect- is the argument that the Government might advance for effecting this transfer against what I and many of my colleagues are disposed to believe are overwhelming arguments in favour of keeping under the control of the same Authority the responsibility of promoting competition and protecting the consumer.

As we are dealing with all clauses up to and including clause 40, 1 wish to address a few brief remarks now to clause 39 of the Bill. This clause provides the procedure for the notification of substantial product hazards. I did refer briefly to this matter last night. The Minister in his reply took exception to the fact that I should even dare to question any aspects of this clause. I do not argue that if a corporation is aware that one of its products is unsafe it ought to take all necessary steps including, if Parliament says so, notifying the Authority. All I asked the Minister to do was to look again at the terms of the clause. It is fairly severe in its operation. It does propose a penalty of up to $ 10,000 or in the case where a person is involved imprisonment for a period not exceeding 6 months. Yet, the criteria are fairly loose. Clause 39 provides, if I may paraphrase it, that any corporation that is a manufacturer, a distributor or a retailer of a consumer product which has reasonable cause to believe that a defect exists or may exist in some or all of the consumer product and that the defect gives rise to or would, if it exists, give rise to, a substantial product hazard shall inform the Authority of that fact. What I am putting to the Minister is that he might- I say this in all seriousness- consider whether the clause ought to be tightened up. I can conceive of a situation in which a person, objectively speaking, ought to be aware of the existence of what might be regarded as a substantial product hazard and quite innocently might be caught by the operation of this clause. I am not expressing opposition to the clause in principle. I am asking whether the Government might consider some possible tightening up of the clause or at least to reconsider the clause as I believe it might catch genuine and reputable manufacturers, retailers and distributors. For that reason I would hope that the Government might have another look at that clause.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

-The transfer of Part V of the Trade Practices Act to the control of my Department is not being done by this Bill. There is nothing that the Opposition senators can do to stop that. It is already a fait accompli. It has been done by the Administrative Orders and there is nothing that anybody can do to stop that no matter what the majority of Opposition senators may do. So when the Opposition senators defeat this Bill which gives protection to consumers or when they emasculate it so that consumers will not get adequate protection, they will not be able to reverse the transfer that has already occurred. That is finished. That part is with me and it will stay with me.

Should the Opposition seek to defeat the Bill by delay, that will be identified clearly in the election campaign. Should it seek to defeat the Bill by emasculation the Government will not accept the emasculation. It will allow the Consumer Protection Bill to join the long list of other Bills already rejected by the Senate as evidence of the obstructionism of the Senate and as evidence of the way the Senate is bound hand and foot to interests that do not have votes and in this case are diametrically opposed to interests that have more than 7 million votes. It is up to the Opposition to decide whether it wants to commit political hara-kiri or not. That is the Opposition’s choice, but it is for the Government to determine in the light of its policies who should administer the consumer protection provisions of any legislation. It can be done either by administrative action or by legislation in the form that we are now proposing. It does not matter whether the Bill is passed. The present Administrative Orders will continue to prevail.

The trade practices provisions of the Trade Practices Act are really competition provisions. It is in the public interest to achieve the aim of promoting competition between corporations, businesses, etc. As a further development of that policy one ensures that the competition which exists is fair. This is the competition oriented approach. An equally valid approach is to protect consumers from business malpractice. The Government recognised the existence of the important and growing consumer movement which sees consumer protection as a right of the citizen independent of the need to promote fair competition. Although the consumer protection provisions of the Trade Practices Act dovetail with the provisions for the promotion of competition between corporations they have an even stronger nexus with the standard setting, information and educational roles of the proposed Authority. In acting as we have done we have been guided by the advice tendered to us by the relevant authorities in the United States, Great Britain and Continental Europe. The consumer movement is not just concerned with consumer protection laws and standards. It does not wish to have to go to a multiplicity of agencies, departments, etc. which through no fault of their own may not accord the consumer’s viewpoint the degree of importance the consumer feels is warranted. The Authority is therefore to be created partly in response to the large number of representations from consumer organisations requesting the Government to provide a single point of reference to which they might turn. Finally, it must be recognised that the Trade Practices Commission is not a body to which the less well informed members of our society will easily turn for help. Its very name militates against that. This deficiency is remedied by the creation of the new body.

If one looks at clause 39 to which the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard) referred, one will see if one examines it against section 1 5 of the relevant Act in the United States that in that country the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission has been able to find appropriate remedies for each case without the need for legislative restrictions. This provision is in fact a tighting up of the United States law which also covers such things as substantial product hazards and breaches of all product safety standards. Clause 39 also represents a grafting on to this Bill of section 15 of the United States Act, an Act that went through Congress after some 2Vi years of thrust and parry by the multi-nationals and the consumer organisations in the United States. That Act was finally accepted by the Congress by, I think, unanimous vote or an overwhelming vote. I cannot remember the exact terms used to describe the vote. It was accepted by the Congress as representing a sensible compromise, and we have picked it up. That is all we have done. We may be accused of being anti-manufacturer and being unfair to the wealthy manufacturer just because we have picked up something that the United States Congress has been willing and seen proper to adopt, but if we do no more than adopt what the citadel of monopoly capitalism has been prepared to accept- namely the United States- I cannot see how anyone can properly say that we are giving too much protection to the consumer. The honourable member for Griffith (Mr Donald Cameron) who constantly tries to interrupt this debate apparently has absolutely no concern for consumer protection at all. There is no doubt that he gets much more money from manufacturers for his campaign funds than he does from consumers.

That sufficiently covers what I wanted to say. A person is not required to notify a substantial product hazard unless there is reasonable cause to believe, and the person alleging that someone has not complied with the provisions would have to prove that there was reasonable cause to believe, that the person concerned had information supplied to him or that the defect did in fact exist.

Clauses agreed to.

Clauses 41 to 99- by leave- taken together, and agreed to.

Clause 100.

  1. 1 ) Where the Authority proposes to publish information concerning a consumer product and the manner in which a consumer product is to be designated or described in the information is likely to disclose the identity of a manufacturer of the product, the Authority shall not publish the information unless it has, so far as it is reasonably practicable to do so-

    1. notified each manufacturer of the product of its intention to publish the information;
    2. b ) afforded to each such manufacturer an opportunity to furnish to the Authority, within 30 days after receipt of the notification, any views that the manufacturer wishes the Authority to consider in connexion with the publication of the information; and
    3. given consideration to any views furnished to it by such a manufacturer within that period.
Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I move the following 2 amendments which have been circulated in my name:

In sub-clause ( 1) (b), leave out the words ‘30 days’, and substitute the words ‘a period to be prescribed ‘.

Insert after sub-clause ( 1 ) the following: 100 1 A. Sub-section 1 does not apply to or in relation to the publication by the Authority of information of a prescribed kind concerning a consumer product’.

The object of the first amendment is to confer flexibility on the Authority. A period of 30 days would be the usual period allowed for manufacturers to respond. Experience may show the need to reduce this period somewhat, particularly in relation to the consumer magazine which is to be published. I ask the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard) to listen to this point as it is important: If we say that we cannot publish anything until we have given at least 30 days notice to all manufacturers we could never put out a monthly magazine.

Mr Howard:

– I understand.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

-Very well. The amendment to line 21 is designed to confer a further measure of flexibility relating to publishing. We would have to get permission to put the annual report in to Parliament otherwise.

Amendments agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 101.

  1. Where the Commissioner or an Associate Commissioner has reason to believe that a person-

    1. a ) has information with respect to a defect in goods that constitutes or may constitute a substantial product hazard; or
    2. that a person is engaged, or is engaging, in conduct that constitutes or may constitute a contravention of Part III, he may, for the purpose of ascertaining, by examination of documents, goods or equipment in the possession or under the control of the person, by testing any such goods or equipment or by examining samples of any such goods, whether the defect exists and, if so, the nature and effect of the defect, or whether the person has engaged or is engaging in that conduct, as the case may be, authorize, by writing under his hand, a member of the staff of the Authority (in this section referred to as ‘authorized officer’) to enter into premises of the person and-

  2. 6 ) A person is not excused-

    1. from furnishing information, answering a question or producing, or permitting the inspection of, a document:
    2. from producing, and permitting the examination or testing of, goods or equipment; or
    3. from producing, and permitting the taking of a sample of, goods,

In pursuance of this section on the ground that the information, the answer to the question or the document, or information obtained by examination or testing of the goods or equipment. or of a sample of the goods, may tend to incriminate the person, but the answer by any person to a question asked in a notice under this section, any information furnished by a person in pursuance of such a notice, any document produced in pursuance of such a notice or made available to an authorized officer for inspection, any answer to a question asked in accordance with this section, any information obtained by examination or testing of goods or equipment, or of a sample of goods under this section, is not admissible in evidence against the person in any criminal proceedings other than proceedings under this section.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

-I move:

The first amendment relates to line 34 and is designed to rectify a drafting slip. As the clause now stands there would be no difference in interpretation between ‘is engaged’ and ‘is engaging’. Clearly that is something that needs to be corrected. The object of the second amendment is to see that the clause contains in full the existing provisions of section 155 of the Trade Practices Act. I need not explain it further.

Mr Howard:

– I understand.

Amendments agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

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

Bill reported with amendments; report- by leave- adopted.

Third Reading

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

page 2496

TRADE PRACTICES BILL (No. 2) 1975

Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 15 October on motion by Mr Enderby:

That the Bill be now read a second time. (Quorum formed)

Suspension of Standing Orders

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
WannonLeader of the Opposition

- Mr Speaker, I wish to move a motion for the suspension of Standing Orders. I move:

Motion (by Mr Daly) put:

That the honourable member for Wannon be not further heard.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The question is that the honourable member for Wannon be not further heard. Is the motion seconded?

Mr Sinclair:

– Yes. ( The bells being rung)

Mr Malcolm Fraser:

- Mr Speaker, I seek your guidance. Was the motion of the Leader of the House valid when the motion in fact had not been seconded?

Mr SPEAKER:

– Motions moved by Ministers are never seconded.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:

– When my motion had not been seconded.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The motion is: ‘That the honourable member for Wannon be not further heard’.

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

AYES: 61

NOES: 55

Majority……. 6

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative. -

Motion (by Mr Daly) put:

That the right honourable member for Richmond be not further heard.

Question put:

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

AYES: 61

NOES: 54

Majority……. 7

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Mr DALY:
Leader of the House · Grayndler · ALP

– The motion that has been moved and seconded-

Motion (by Mr Sinclair) put:

That the Leader of the House (Mr Daly) be not further heard.

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

AYES: 52

NOES: 56

Majority……. 9

(Mr Speaker-Hon. G. G. D. Scholes)

Majority……. 4

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Question put:

That the motion (Mr Malcolm Fraser’s) be agreed to.

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

AYES: 51

NOES: 56

Majority……. 5

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

page 2499

TASMAN BRIDGE RESTORATION BILL

(No. 2) 1975

Assent reported.

page 2499

ADJOURNMENT

Motion (by Mr Daly) proposed:

That the House do now adjourn.

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

-Mr Speaker-

Motion (by Mr Daly) put:

That the question be now put.

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

AYES: 56

NOES: 51

Majority……. 5

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

House adjourned at 5.22 p.m.

page 2501

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS UPON NOTICE

The following answers to questions upon notice were circulated:

Standing Committee of Australian and State Attorneys-General: Meetings (Question No. 2104)

Mr Snedden:
BRUCE, VICTORIA

asked the Attorney-General, upon notice:

When will he answer my question No. 1323 which first appeared on the Notice Paper on 16 October 1975.

Mr Enderby:
Attorney-General · ALP

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

The answer to this question appeared in House of Representatives Hansard of 9 September 1975 at page 1 184.

Voting Age (Question No. 2322)

Mr Ruddock:

asked the Attorney-General, upon notice:

  1. With reference to the Prime Minister’s answer to my question No. 1779 (Hansard, 5 December 1974, page 4763), has his attention been drawn to the book of Mr J. J. Spigelman entitled Secrecy- Political Censorship in Australia and, in particular, An Inside Dopester’s Index of 1 00 examples of Secrecy, on pages 1 77 to 1 80.
  2. Has his attention also been drawn to indexed item 70- Legal opinion on the lowering of the voting age to eighteen.
  3. 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 Enderby:
ALP

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

  1. and (2) Yes.
  2. No.
  3. 1 refer the honourable member to part (3) of the answer given by the Prime Minister on 1 3 May 1 975 to question No. 2243: see Hansard, page 2198. (I am pleased to note that the issue referred to by the question has since been resolved by the enactment of the Commonwealth Electoral Act1973).

Aboriginal Land Rights (Question No. 2331)

Mr Ruddock:

asked the Attorney-General, upon notice:

  1. With reference to the Prime Minister’s answer to my question No. 1779 (Hansard, 5 December 1974, page 4763), has his attention been drawn to the book of Mr J. J. Spigelman entitled Secrecy- Political Censorship in Australia and, in particular, An Inside Dopester’s Index of 100 Examples of Secrecy, on pages 1 77 to 1 80.
  2. Has his attention also been drawn to indexed item 19- Commonwealth Solicitor-General’s report on Aboriginal land rights.
  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 Enderby:
ALP

– The answer to the honourable member ‘s question is as follows: (1)and (2) Yes.

  1. No.
  2. I refer the honourable member to part (3) of the answer given by the Prime Minister on 1 3 May 1 975 to question No. 2243: see Hansard, page 2 1 98.

Marrickville Holdings: Takeover (Question No. 3036)

Mr Kelly:

asked the Attorney-General, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Did he receive representations from any of the parties involved in the takeover by Amatil of one of the food divisions of Marrickville Holdings.
  2. If so, did he subsequently direct the Trade Practices Commission to grant an authorisation to the parties to allow the takeover to proceed.
  3. Did a consultant, Mr Eric Walsh, make representations to him on this matter.
  4. If so, what case did Mr Walsh present to him, and which of the parties did Mr Walsh represent.
  5. Is it a fact that the Trade Practices Commission determined that if this takeover proceeded it would lessen competition in part of the food industry.
Mr Enderby:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) Representations were received from a subsidiary of Amatil, namely Associated Products & Distribution Pty Limited, and from Marrickville Holdings Limited. (2)I informed the Commission on 13 March 1975, pursuant to paragraph 90 (9) (b) of the Trade Practices Act 1974, that the Australian Government considered that there were special considerations relating to the take-over that made it desirable in the interests of national economic policy that an authorisation be granted in respect of the acquisition.
  2. and (4) Yes. Mr Walsh requested that I receive representations.
  3. The Trade Practices Commission made a determination to that effect, but, on the advice of the Interdepartmental Committee on Foreign Take-overs, the Government had already concluded that the take-over would not be against the national interest. As the take-over was within the announced measures for the control of foreign take-overs, I considered that the appropriate course was to ensure that it was dealt with in the same way as all other foreign takeoversnotwithstanding that the Companies ( Foreign Takeovers) Act was not applicable.

Safety (Question No. 3127)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice:

  1. 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 Charles Jones:
ALP

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

I refer the right honourable member to the Prime Minister’s reply to Question 3 1 10 (Hansard, 1 October 1975, page 1598).

Foreign Language Publications (Question No. 3321)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) What publications are produced in foreign languages by the Department or authorities under his control.
  2. ) What is the general nature of the publications.
  3. In what languages are they published.
  4. When were they first published in this way.
Mr Charles Jones:
ALP

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

  1. to (4) See the answer provided by the Minister representing the Minister for the Media on 4 December 1 974 (Hansard, page 4590).

Foreign Language Publications (Question No. 3328)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice:

  1. What publications are produced in foreign languages by the Department or authorities under his control.
  2. What is the general nature of the publications.
  3. 3 ) In what languages are they published.
  4. When were they first published in this way.
Mr Morrison:
Minister Assisting the Minister for Foreign Affairs in matters relating to the Islands of the Pacific · ST GEORGE, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

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

  1. to (4) See the answer provided by the Minister representing the Media on 4 December 1974 (Hansard, page 4590).

Poverty Report (Question No. 3289)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

What procedures has he set in train to ensure that all relevant Departments examine those suggestions and recommendations of Professor Henderson’s first main report on poverty which can be put into effect immediately or over a longer term, particularly those recommendations that do not involve large costs but which, if introduced, would, according to Professor Henderson, greatly assist those in need.

Mr Whitlam:
ALP

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

I refer the right honourable gentleman to the statement made by the Minister for Social Security on 28 August 1975 when tabling the first main report of the Poverty Inquiry (Senate Hansard 28 August 1975, pages 362-3). Asmentioned by the Minister, Professor Henderson’s report will be one of the major documents to be considered by the Income Security Review, the terms of reference of which I announced on 8 September 1975.

The Government expects that by the time of the 1976-77 Budget it will be in a position to determine its long term program of reforms and the steps which will need to be progressively taken to achieve those reforms.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 23 October 1975, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1975/19751023_reps_29_hor97/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant