House of Representatives
18 August 1976

30th Parliament · 1st Session

  1. House of Representatives
  2. 30th Parliament
  3. 1976

Mr SPEAKER (Rt Hon. B. M. Snedden, Q.C.) took the chair at 2.15 p.m., and read prayers.

page 255

PETITIONS

The Clerk:

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

Social Security Payments

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 distress is being caused to social security recipients by the delay in adjusting pensions to the Consumer Prices Index months after prices of goods and services have risen, and that medications which were formerly pharmaceutical benefits must now be paid for.

Additionally, that State housing authorities’ waiting lists for low rental dwellings for pensioners grow ever longer, and the cost of funerals increase ever greater.

Your Petitioners call on the Australian Government as a matter of urgency to:

Adjust social security payments instantly and automatically when the quarterly Consumer Prices Index is announced.

Restore pharmaceutical benefits deleted from the free list.

Update the State Grants (Dwellings for Pensioners) Act of 1974, eroded by inflation, to increase grants to overcome the backlog.

Update Funeral Benefit to 60 per cent of reasonable cost of funeral. (This benefit was 200 shillings, 20 dollars, when introduced in 1943. It was seven times the 1943 pension of 27 shillings a week).

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Anthony, Mr Lynch, Mr Sinclair, Mr Howard, Mr Aldred, Mr Baume, Mr Bradfield, Mr Burr, Mr Connor, Mr Fisher, Mr Garrick, Mr Gillard, Mr Graham, Mr Groom, Mr Jarman, Dr Jenkins, Mr Les Johnson, Dr Klugman, Mr Lusher, Mr Ian Robinson, Mr Ruddock, Mr Scholes, Mr Simon, Mr Stewart, Mr Sullivan and Mr Wentworth.

Petitions received.

Education

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

  1. That the Australian Government maintain the effective indexed value of education spending.
  2. That the Tertiary Education Assistance Scheme be immediately increased and indexed as recommended by the 197S Williams Committee.
  3. That the Australian Government implement the 1973 reports of the Schools Commission and the Technical and Further Education Commission; and introduce a secondary students living allowance scheme with principles in line with those advocated for the Tertiary Education Assistance Scheme.
  4. That the Australian Government implement the 1975 reports of the Australian Universities Commission and the Commission on Advanced Education and re-establish the principle of triennial planning.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Sinclair, Mr Bourchier, Mr Connor, Mr Crean, Mr Garland, Mr Gillard, Mr Lusher, Mr McLean, Mr Les McMahon, Mr McVeigh, Mr Ruddock, Mr Scholes, Mr Short and Mr Simon.

Petitions received.

Pensions

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 those who have retired and those who are about to retire, are being severely and adversely affected by inflation and Australian economic circumstances.

The continuance of the Means Test on pensions causes undue hardship to them.

We call on the Government to immediately abolish the Means Test on all Aged Pensions.

To ensure a pension for all on retirement, and a guarantee that all Australian citizens will retire with dignity.

Acknowledge that a pension is a right and not a charity.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Viner, Mr Bungey, Mr Drummond, Mr Garland, Mr Hayden, Mr Hyde, Mr Martyr, Mr McLean and Mr Wallis.

Petitions received.

Australian Heritage Commission

To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned members of community organisations respectfully showeth that:

There is a growing interest and concern in all sections of Australian society for the conservation of the environment, natural and man-made.

That there are also rapidly growing pressures by powerful forces tending towards the destruction of the Australian heritage.

That it is therefore urgent to appoint the Australian Heritage Commission, which was approved by both sides of this Parliament and to give the Commission sufficient independent staff, resources and funds.

That Technical Assistance Grants and Administrative Support Grants to community organisations are needed to partially redress the gross imbalance in technical expertise and resources suffered by community groups in pressing the community’s case against the exploiter.

That a proper balance between the Government’s program of public austerity and the need for action in conservation would be a modest increase in the budget allocations in these areas over that of 1975-76.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Brown, Dr Cass, Mr Falconer, Mr Fisher and Mr Wilson.

Petitions received.

Similar petitions were lodged by Mr Malcolm Fraser and Mr Keating.

Petitions received.

Overseas Development Assistance

To the Speaker and the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that many Australians are concerned at the announced decision by the Australian Government to reduce the 1975-76 Overseas Development Assistance vote by $21m, and by the abolition of the Australian Development Assistance Agency.

We your petitioners do therefore humbly pray that the Australian Government:

As a matter of urgency, reverse the decision to cut the 1975-76 Overseas Development Assistance vote, so as to ensure that the full amount appropriated by Parliament for Overseas Development Assistance is spent this financial year to meet the pressing needs of those in the developing countries; reaffirm Australia’s commitment of Overseas Development Assistance being a minimum of 0.7 per cent of GNP; and establish fully independent statutory authority to administer Australia’s official Overseas Development Assistance.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Anthony, Mr Ellicott, Mr William McMahon, Mr Bradfield, Mr Connor, Mr Dobie and Mr Yates.

Petitions received.

Medibank

To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We the undersigned, citizens of the Commonwealth by this our humble petition respectfully showeth:

That Medibank has proved to be the cheapest and most efficient means of bringing health care to Australian citizens and that the citizens of Australia have received Medibank as a great and valued social reform.

That Medibank has proved itself to be a far superior system of health care than was offered by the private funds prior to July 1975.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government will observe the promise made by the Prime Minister in his policy speech that ‘We will maintain Medibank and ensure the standard of health care does not decline’.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Dr Cass, Mr Garrick, Dr Jenkins, Mr Scholes, Mr Short and Mr Yates.

Petitions received.

Aurukun Community: Mining

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

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

Whereas the Aurukun Associates Agreement Act was passed by the Queensland Government in contravention of a 1968 agreement.

Whereas this Act conflicts seriously with Commonwealth Government policy on Aboriginal affairs and on Australian equity in multinational corporations working in Australia;

Your petitioners therefore note with appreciation the statements already made on the matter by Government members but humbly pray that the Commonwealth Government will also

  1. initiate a Commission of Inquiry into the whole matter
  2. insist that no mining take place on the Aurukun Aboriginal Reserve until a full environmental impact study has been made by the Commonwealth Department of the Environment, Housing and Community Development
  3. refuse to gram an export licence to the Consortium until detailed negotiations are held at Aurukun by Consortium representatives with the Aurukun people, the traditional owners of the land and advisers of their choice, and an agreement satisfactory to all has been reached.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Malcolm Fraser, Mr Peacock, Mr Viner, Mr Les Johnson and Mr Wallis.

Petitions 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 distances, in sport, in the building and allied trades, in the printing trade, and in retail trade.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Aldred, Mr Baillieu, Mr Brown, Mr Carige and Mr Simon.

Petitions received.

Home Mortgage Interest

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We, the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth of Australia by this our humble petition respectfully showeth:

That the proposal to exclude all persons from the benefit of tax deductibility for mortgage interest rates other than first home buyers in their first five year of home purchase is a repudiation of the Government’s election undertaking to maintain the scheme.

That the effect of the proposal will cause hardship to many current beneficiaries of the scheme, in that existing benefits will terminate, thus putting housing loan repayments beyond reach.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray:

That the Government reconsider its decision to drastically curtail the scheme; that the principles applying to the scheme as introduced by the Labor Government be maintained; and that benefits be upgraded by indexation to take account of the effects of inflation.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Hayden, Mr Hurford, Mr Jacobi, Mr Les Johnson and Mr Wallis.

Petitions received.

Apple and Pear Industry

To the Speaker and the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that many Australians are concerned at the implications for the Australian apple and pear industry of recommendations to the Commonwealth Government by the Industries Assistance Commission that the apple and pear stabilisation scheme be phased out over a period of two years.

We your petitioners do therefore humbly pray that the Commonwealth Government:

Reject the IAC proposals which if implemented will cause destruction and not reconstruction of the apple and pear industry.

Adopt the alternative proposals put forward by the industry to provide a means of restructuring the industry to meet the changes forced upon it by outside circumstances. by Mr Lynch, Mr Sinclair, Mr Burr and Mr Simon.

Petitions received.

Overseas Development Assistance

To the Speaker and the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that many Australians are concerned at the announced decision by the Commonwealth Government to reduce the 1975-76 Overseas Development Assistance Vote by $21m and by the abolition of the Australian Development Assistance Agency.

We, your petitioners, do therefore humbly pray that the Commonwealth Government: As a matter of urgency reverse the decision to cut the 1975-76 Overseas Development Assistance Vote so as to ensure that the full amount appropriated by Parliament for Overseas Development Assistance be spent this financial year to send some of our more productive cows to the Indian Sub-Continent where they are urgently needed for milk production and breeding purposes. The needless slaughter of thousands of cattle throughout Australia each day is an international disaster and the Commonwealth Government is urged to take immediate action.

Such initiative by the Commonwealth Government would overnight restore confidence in the Dairying Industry and would provide an immediate market for many of our surplus cattle. 10 000 children die from malnutrition and its associated causes every day on the Indian Sub-Continent, mainly because there is nothing to replace the mother’s milk. On humanitarian grounds we urge the Commonwealth Government to send as many as possible of our more productive cows to help overcome this great human injustice.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Baillieu, Mr Bourchier, Mr Falconer and Mr Simon.

Petitions received.

Milk Substitutes

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth of Australia by this our humble petition respectfully showeth:

  1. That reduction of the age limit from six years to eighteen months for patients eligible to receive cows’ milk substitutes as a pharmaceutical benefit under the schedules of the National Health Act will cause serious financial hardship to many families;
  2. That children allergic to cows’ milk and other dairy products who often include asthmatics and sufferers of respiratory complaints depend on Soya Bean milk such as Isomil or Prosobee as a main source of protein;
  3. That the Government’s action is responsible for a 100 per cent increase in the cost of milk substitutes frequently involving parents in expenditure of $10 per week to sustain desirable protein intake for an affected child;
  4. That there is an urgent, humane need to restore milk substitutes to children up to six years of age to the schedule of Pharmaceutical Benefits.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that milk substitutes be restored to the schedule of Pharmaceutical Benefits for children up to the age of six years as soon as possible. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Jacobi, Mr James, Mr Les Johnson and Mr Les McMahon.

Petitions received.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! I have to inform the House that at this time, immediately after the recess, petitions that have been received are very numerous. I expect that it will take the Clerk at least another 5 minutes to read the petitions. I remind the House that the purpose of a petition is to bring the attention of the House to matters about which the petitioner is concerned. I ask all honourable members to listen to the Clerk reading the petitions.

Mr Katter:

- Mr Speaker, may I respectfully draw to your attention the fact that over a period of 10 years I, for one at least, have never been able to hear distinctly what the various Clerks of the House have had to say. I think it may be because of a faulty microphone or something.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I ask the honourable gentleman to listen attentively. I shall find out whether the microphone can be improved.

Australian Broadcasting Commission

To the honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We, the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth do humbly pray that the Commonwealth Government:

Subscribe to the view that the Australian Broadcasting Commission belongs to the people and not to the government of the day whatever political party.

Eschew all means, direct or indirect, of diminishing the independence of the Australian Broadcasting Commission.

Reject all proposals for the introduction of advertising into ABC programs.

Develop methods for publicly funding the Commission which will prevent the granting or withholding of funds being used as a method of diminishing its independence.

Ensure that any general inquiries into broadcasting in Australia which may seem desirable from time to time shall be conducted publicly and that strong representation of the public shall be included within the body conducting the inquiry.

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

Petitions received.

Whaling

To the Speaker of the House of Representatives assembled. The humble petition of residents of Australia respectfully shows:

That we the plight of the world’s great whales to be desperate; that we are convinced that they need conservation now, and that exploitation should cease; that we agree with Dr Sidney Holt of FAO who says that a complete reassessment of all scientific date on whales is needed; and we further submit that substitutes to all whale products are available, and could, with Government encouragement, be made in Australia. We are convinced that the great whales, as a significant pan of the world’s wildlife heritage, and being on the verge of extinction, now need our complete and wholehearted protection.

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

Support a 10-year moratorium on whaling at the 1976 meeting of the IWC.

Support research and development of alternatives to whale products, and encourage production of these products in Australia.

Provide increased funds for research into marine biology.

Force the cessation of whaling operations at Cheynes Beach, W.A., at the same time providing funds to assist the personnel and facilities of the factory to be otherwise gainfully used (perhaps in whale research, to further our own and the world ‘s knowledge).

Ban the import into this country of all whale products, and all goods containing whale products.

Urge that Australia, as a member of the IWC, use all possible influence to encourage the end of whaling throughout the world, and refuse to service ships of all whaling nations at Australian ports.

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

Petitions received.

Overseas Students: Tertiary Fees

To the Speaker and the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia and residents from overseas respectfully showeth that many Australian and residents from overseas are concerned at the announced consideration by the Commonwealth Government to introduce tertiary fees for overseas students.

We your petitioners do therefore humbly pray that the Commonwealth Government:

As a matter of urgency, not to introduce tertiary fees for overseas students and vote so as to ensure that free education is provided to overseas students to meet the pressing demand for trained persons in the developing countries;

Recognise that overseas students have a valuable contribution to make in promoting better understanding and friendship between the people of overseas countries and Australia and any discriminatory move against overseas students will create ill will and damage good relations; understand that most overseas students come from ‘underdeveloped’ countries of the Third World because of the lack of educational facilities there;

Acknowledge that the imposing of discriminatory overseas students fees would result in few overseas students from rich families being able to come to Australia for training and education. This would deprive students from poor economic backgrounds of access to training and education;

Reject the economic arguments advanced by some authorities’ for imposing discriminatory overseas students fees especially since they do not take into consideration the material contribution (foreign exchange, research etc.) made by overseas students. Furthermore, to impose this burden on overseas students is morally unfair;

Upholds the concept of free education and that this is not a privilege but a right of all people;

Reaffirm Australia’s commitment of Overseas Development Assistance being a minimum of 0.7 per cent of GNP.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray, by Dr Cass and Mr Simon.

Petitions received.

Grants to Under-privileged Schools

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 public schools in the inner city of Sydney are in desperate need of special grants and provisions, viz., the maintenance of current expenditure; the allocation of smaller classes; the absorption of unemployed teachers; the provision of more specialist teachers, such as bi-lingual and remedial teachers; the provision of special grants for disadvantaged schools; the provision of cash grants for aid and equipment, and the implementation of building programs to improve the deplorable conditions in these schools.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House urge the Government to ensure that Grants to Underprivileged Schools in the Sydney Inner City are retained, and your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Ellicott and Mr Les McMahon.

Petitions received.

Family Law Act

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the electors of Flinders respectfully sheweth:

Such alterations and amendments to the Family Law Act as will abolish the Maintenance and Alimony System and establish the right of fathers to custody of their own children against defaulting wives.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that:

The Family Law Act be amended thereby reducing the divorce rate and re-establishing security and stability in family life.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray, by Mr Lynch and Mr Simon.

Petitions received.

Aid to Poor Countries

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble Petition of the undersigned citizens of Glamorgan, Tasmania, respectfully showeth:

That 400 million people in the world are undernourished.

That inflation is hitting the poor countries more than the rich.

That every reduction in aid affects people.

That Australia can afford to help.

That Australian aid helps people help themselves.

Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House urge the Government to reverse the decision to cut overseas development assistance and to increase the allocation of overseas aid to at least $0.55 of GNP in the next Budget.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray, by Mr Burr and Mr Les McMahon.

Petitions received.

Dairy Industry

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

That through no fault of its own, the dairy industry is in serious trouble and that unless the Australian Government comes to its assistance in the 1976-77 season, starting in July, thousands of dairyfarmers will be forced out of business and there will be massive unemployment and economic disruption in rural areas dependent on dairying.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Australian Government will accept the following assistance package put forward by the United Dairyfarmers of Victoria:

A minimum survival underwriting to return farmers no less than55c a lb butterfat, provided the industry also obtains;

Sufficient funds for debt reconstruction and carry-on finance for those farmers judged to be viable in the longer term;

Investment loss compensation for farmers leaving the industry, provided their dairy licences are surrendered;

Household support payments to be immediately available during refinancing, rehabilitation and periods of no income;

An immediate Australia-wide ban on the issue of dairyfarm licences; and

Immediate implementation of the Industries Assistance Commission recommendations for the eradication of bovine brucellosis.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray, by Mr Lloyd and Mr Simon.

Petitions received.

Market Planning Commission

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We the undersigned members of the Order of the White Cross, a humanitarian Knighthood for the Defence and Protection of Life and residents of the Commonwealth of Australia by this our humble petition respectfully showeth:

That the undersigned petitioners are deeply concerned with the deteriorating state of our farm communities, resulting from lack of agricultural planning, national support and rapid take-over of the chemical industry as supplier of basematerials to the food-manufacturing industry, and that this, our concern, must be the concern of many citizens with a sense of responsibility.

  1. That increasing numbers of farmers are forced to give up and leave their land for economical reasons and that a majority of farmers maintain their life on the level of bare existence because the chemical industry has achieved to provide the food manufacturing industry, formerly a mainoutlet for farm produce, with the base-materials for the manufacture of synthetic and semi-synthetic food, which requires no or only little natural fruit for dressing-up purposes, and that consequently such kind of food produced, deprive the country of an important export outlet, since most food importing countries desire only genuine, high quality nourishment.
  2. That such synthetic, partly synthetic or chemical polluted food cannot be beneficial to the health of people, to animals or to any life in general, nor do these products represent a fair value to the consumer, but create a health hazard in many ways and are found to be responsible for the increasing hyperactivity of children.
  3. That the consumer is often misled by incomplete description of the contents of the item, not being aware of the chemical additives or synthetic nature of the product, so well advertised and bought in good faith.
  4. That liquids and semi-liquids offered for human consumption are still packed in plastic containers, despite scientific assessments, proving the toxidity of such packagematerial.
  5. That DDT and related compounds are still being used in large quantities for insect control in Australia, despite the bans in most countries of the world, representing the most serious threat to the environment and our all wellbeing.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that:

  1. The Government appoints a special MarketPlanning Commission to prevent over and under production of farm produce, to assist the growers financially to the extent needed to make the farm viable and to develop a market price structure able to maintain a fair and justified income for the farmer.
  2. And enacts a ban on all chemical food additives, any type of synthetic or partly synthetic food, DDT and its related compounds and plastic material to be used for food packaging, and to have all existing stocks of the named items safely destroyed under government supervision.
  3. And enacts regulations concerning the labels of food packages, which shall state every ingredient contained in the product, clearly readable and understandable by the consumer, and that confusing terms like ‘Edible Fat’ should not be used in order to protect people, who are not permitted to eat food of animal origin.

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

Petition received.

Post-graduate Awards

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: many members of the staff and students of the University of New England, Armidale, N.S.W., are concerned by recent (20 May 1976) statement of policy of the Federal Government regarding post-graduate and second degree study in Australian universities.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that:

  1. . There be no reduction from present levels in the number of Commonwealth Post-graduate Awards to be granted in 1977.
  2. The Federal Government withdraw its proposals to reintroduce tuition fees for post-graduate and second degree students.

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

Petition received.

Superphosphate Bounty

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 re-introduction of the superphosphate bounty only in respect of superphosphate delivered on or after 1 1 February 1976 is detrimental to those who accepted delivery prior to that date.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House protest to the Government about the lack of retrospectivity of the superphosphate bounty as reintroduced on 1 1 February 1976.

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

Petition received.

Television

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

That we strongly oppose the easing of restrictions on the importation, production in Australia, sale or distribution of pornographic material whether in films, printed matter or any other format.

That any alterations to the Television Programme Standards of the Australian Broadcasting Control Board which permits the exploitation of sex or violence is unacceptable to us.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government will take no measures to interfere with the existing Television Programme Standards or to permit easier entry into Australia, or production in Australia, of pornographic material.

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

Petition received.

Films

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 publicly oppose the public screening of obscene or depraved films, such as The Story of O, which portray either excessive violence, moral perversion, drug use or sadomasochism as normal or desirable behaviour.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government will take immediate measures to ensure such films are not classified for screening anywhere in Australia.

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

Petition received.

Whaling

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

  1. That whales are a significant element in the world’s wildlife heritage.
  2. That whales are highly intelligent, highly evolved creatures.
  3. That there is growing international concern at the continued killing of whales for commercial gain.
  4. That synthetic products are able to fully replace all whale products.
  5. That Australia continues to operate a whaling station and to import whale produce.
  6. That Australia supported a proposal to enforce a ten year moratorium on all commercial whaling at the 25th meeting of the International Whaling Commission held in London, June 25-29, 1973.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the members in Parliament assembled will move to immediately revoke all whaling licenses issued by the Australian Government and to reimpose a total ban on the importation of all whale produce.

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

Petition received.

Uranium

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

That whereas uranium found in vast quantities in Australia is the raw material for the nuclear fission reaction.

And whereas presently assured reserves of uranium in Australia represent a potential production of over 540 000 kilograms of Plutonium 239 if utilised in light water reactors overseas.

And whereas the maximum permissible inhalation of Plutonium 239 is 0.000 000 25 gram.

And whereas Plutonium 239 is one of the most dangerous substances human society has ever created, causing mutations and cancers.

And whereas there are no methods of safely and absolutely confining Plutonium from the biosphere for the requisite quarter of a million years.

And whereas Plutonium coming in contact with the air forms an aerosol cloud of micron-sized particles, its most dangerous form.

And whereas the export of uranium may return to us an import of Plutonium particles dispersed in the global environment via the circulation of the atmosphere.

And whereas there are no sure safeguards against the military use of nuclear fission and the nuclear proliferation represents a prime environmental threat to all forms of life on the only earth available to us.

And that it is therefore an act of self-preservation to demand a halt to all exports of uranium except for bio-medical uses.

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

  1. That further mining and export of uranium from Australia except for bio-medical purposes be banned.
  2. That the Australian Atomic Energy Commission be transformed by the rewriting of its charter into an Australian Energy Commission to further the understanding of energy flows through our society and to promote national economic independence and self-sufficiency.

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

Petition received.

Medibank

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 decision of the Government to introduce a 2.5 per cent levy on incomes to finance Medibank and to offer private health insurance as an alternative to Medibank.

  1. Constitutes a repudiation of an election promise to retain Medibank.
  2. Will place an unjust financial burden upon low and middle income earners.
  3. Will force many people out of Medibank and create a double standard of health care in Australia.
  4. Will destroy the principle of a comprehensive compulsory health insurance scheme for all Australians.

Your petitioners call upon the Australian Government:

  1. To strengthen and extend the principles of Medibank as a comprehensive compulsory health insurance scheme covering all Australians, from General Revenue.
  2. Provide equitable health care for all members of Australian society.

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

Petition received.

Jewish People in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled. The Petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that the Government of the U.S.S.R. has been and is continuing to harass, intimidate and practice discrimination against Jews who reside within and are citizens of the U.S.S.R. and Jews who seek to emigrate to Israel, contrary to both the Constitution and Laws of the U.S.S.R. and to International Laws, Conventions and Agreements concerning human rights and freedoms.

Your Petitioners therefore do humbly pray that the Australian Government call upon the Government of the U.S.S.R. to:

  1. Respect its own Constitution and Laws, to fulfil its obligations as set forth in International Declarations and Agreements in the field of human rights and fundamental freedom, and to implement the Helsinki Final Act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe;
  2. Recognise and respect the right of Jews in the U.S.S.R. to be united with their brethren in the land of Israel, the historic Jewish Homeland;
  3. Remove all obstacles in the way of those who wish to leave and desist from all harassment and intimidation;
  4. Free forthwith the Prisoners of Zion- the prisoners of conscience incarcerated for their struggle to return to Zion;
  5. Recognise and respect the freedom of our brethren within the Soviet Union to profess and practice their religion and to enjoy their cultural heritage and language;
  6. End the campaign of anti-semitism and acts of discrimination against Jews;
  7. Allow all Jews in the Soviet Union to establish and maintain ties with the rest of the Jewish people.

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

Petition received.

Nursing Home Subsidies

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

The purpose of this petition is to bring to your notice the mounting financial burden being thrust upon patients and or relatives of Nursing Home Patients. ‘

Fee levels are controlled by the Government but increases in Government subsidies have not been sufficient to cover the spiralling fees in Nursing Homes. ‘

Your Petitioners most humbly pray that the Government will consider its decision and, take immediate steps to apply a major increase in patient subsidies’, and your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Clyde Cameron.

Petition received.

Gold

To the Honourable Speaker and the members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled, this humble petition of the citizens of Western Australia will showeth that the decision by the Federal Government to implement the recommendations of the Industries Assistance Commission on the Production of Gold will have disastrous effects on the gold mining industry throughout Australia.

Your petitioners humbly pray that the House can bring about a reversal of the decision to implement the recommendations of the Industries Assistance Commission ‘s reports on the Production of Gold or at least defer for five years its implementation. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Cotter.

Petition received.

Medibank

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 many Australians are concerned that amongst many dismal actions of the Fraser government, its proposed actions in connection to MEDIBANK are the most debilitating in that they will affect most seriously those most in need of MEDIBANK. Your petitioners fear most:

  1. The creation of a two strata medical system which must eventually develop into one for the rich and one for the poor, the less qualitative being reserved for those who comprise the preponderance of the populace.
  2. That the levy for MEDIBANK has been set at too high a level. A level which might well exclude many who, similarly, might not be able to afford private medical insurance.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that Parliament will ensure the following:

  1. That steps be taken to make MEDIBANK truly universal with constant quality being constantly available to the rich as to the not so rich.
  2. That the levy be reduced so that it can more easily be coped with by those in the lesser income brackets.

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

Petition received.

Woodchip Industry

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

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

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

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

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

Petition received.

Income Tax: Land and Water Rates

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

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

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Governmentwill 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.

Television Program

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

  1. Consideration was not given by the Australian Broadcasting Commission to the majority of viewers in the proposed alteration in the format of Bellbird to a one hour session one night a week at 6.00 p.m.

    1. How many mothers could sit down at 6.00 p.m. and watch a one-hour drama?
    2. How many fathers would be home from work at 6.00 p.m.?
    3. How many working mothers would be in a position to sit down at 6.00 p.m. for one hour?
    4. This relegates Bellbird to a solely children’s program which it most certainly is not.
  2. In view of the above how can the ABC infer that the proposed time slot would improve ratings?
  3. Isn’t it time our Australian industry was given more encouragement and taxpayers money used more wisely in supporting a well documented, well acted, good family viewing Australian program instead of wasted on highly over-rated imports?

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

Return Bellbird to its previous time slot from Monday to Thursday inclusive.

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

Petition received.

Australian Assistance Plan

To the Speaker and the House of Representatives in Parliament Assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that many Australians are concerned about the future of the Australian Assistance Plan.

We your petitioners do therefore humbly pray that the Commonwealth Government support the Australian Assistance Plan:

We believe the Australian Assistance Plan should continue because we believe the Australian Assistance Plan helps to make people self reliant and more aware of what they can do to help themselves. In this it is anti-bureaucratic and contrary to the idea of the welfare state which encourages dependence on Government.

We believe the Australian Assistance Plan should continue in such a way as to give all citizens the opportunity to participate through a Regional Council for Social Development in their region.

We believe the idea encompassed in the Australian Assistance Plan is an effective way for citizens to work cooperatively with all levels of Government.

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

Petition received.

Apartheid

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

That whereas uprisings in South Africa have caused death, and injury to hundreds of innocent men, women, and children;

And whereas these uprisings have been caused by the repressive and un-Christian policy of apartheid;

And whereas the striving of the non-white majority for freedom in their own country may give rise to further bloodshed;

Your petitioners humbly pray that the members in Parliament assembled will: Call on the Australian Government to take all steps within its power to have abolished the South African policy of apartheid and to have instituted democratic government in South Africa. by Mr Haslem.

Petition received.

Kelvin Grove College of Advanced Education

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 demand a full Government investigation into the incident occurring on this campus, Kelvin Grove College of Advanced Education, on Friday 28 May 1976. On that day two men professing to be Channel 7 newsmen attempted to solicit support in discrediting the Aboriginal tent embassy at King George Square. The men asked a particular group of students if they would like to go on television. To do so these students needed to go to King George Square and be filmed setting up a tent to be provided by the newsmen. They were then to protest against the ‘favouritism’ shown to Aboriginal parents by the Government Education Allowance.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House urge the Government to conduct an investigation into an attempt by Channel 7 newsmen to contrive a news report on 28 May 1976 in Brisbane and to investigate the whole issue of media bias and its social implications.

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

Petition received.

Aged Persons Accommodation

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 removal of the grant of $175,000 from the Lauriston Centre and other institutions for the Sick Aged is totally unjustified.
  2. That the removal of such grants will cause unnecessary hardship to those citizens of Australia resident there.
  3. That the removal of such grants will cause unnecessary unemployment in the area.
  4. That the decision to remove such grants is a ruthless political one taken without due consideration for the lives and welfare of those citizens dependent upon the care provided at such centres.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government should reconsider its decision to cut budgets of such centres and immediately restore the grants to enable these centres to continue with the high standard of dedicated and unselfish care for the aged and the infirm in the community.

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

Petition received.

Immigration

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 an amnesty was announced for all illegal migrants and that whereas Mr Ignazio Salemi an applicant for amnesty has been denied amnesty.

Your petitioners humbly pray that the members in the House assembled, will take the most urgent steps to ensure: That as Mr Salemi fulfils all the publicly announced criteria for amnesty he is permitted to remain in Australia as a resident. by Mr Innes.

Petition received.

Fees and Levies

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 new Government during the recent election campaign, promised lower taxation and more money in people ‘s pockets.

Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray: That the House of Representatives will take immediate steps to prevent the introduction of Television and Radio licence fees, the imposition of a tax levy for Medibank and the introduction of higher charges for drugs dispensed under the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme.

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

Petition received.

Aurukun Community: Mining

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 notes with appreciation the statements already made on the matter by Government members but humbly pray that the Commonwealth Government will also:

  1. initiate a Commission of Inquiry into the whole matter
  2. refuse to grant an export licence to the Consortium until detailed negotiations are held at Aurukun by Consortium representatives with the Aurukun people, the traditional owners of the land, and advisers of their choice, and an agreement satisfactory to all has been reached.

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

Petition received.

Australian Broadcasting Commission

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 reduction in the budget of the Australian Broadcasting Commission has already resulted in a reduction in news and information services available to the people of Australia. The Australian Broadcasting Commission is the only news and information service of international standard available in this country. Their services cater to a wide variety of interest groups ranging from those interested in stock market reports on the first network to the younger age groups reached by 2JJ in New South Wales and comparable radio stations in other States.

Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the members of the House of Representatives:

  1. Strongly condemn the action of the Government in reducing the budget of the Australian Broadcasting Commission;
  2. Restore the budget of the Australian Broadcasting Commission to its previous level;
  3. Reinstate those members of the Australian Broadcasting Commission who have been dismissed; and
  4. Undertake not to interfere with the management of the Australian Broadcasting Commission in this, or any other way, in the future.

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

Petition received.

Taxation

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- the present amount of Educational Expenses allowed as a Tax deduction is inadequate.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government increase the allowance of Educational Expenses to be Tax deductible to $750.

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

Petition received.

Taxation

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 existence of a system of double taxation of personal incomes whereby both the Australian Government and State Governments had the power to vary personal income taxes would mean that taxpayers who worked in more than one State in any year would-

  1. Be faced with complicated variations in his or her personal income taxes between States; and
  2. Find that real after-tax wages for the same job would vary from State to State even when gross wages were advertised as being the same; and
  3. Require citizens to maintain records of income earned in each State.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that a system of double income tax on personal incomes be not reintroduced.

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

Petition received.

Dockyards at Newcastle

To the honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Newcastle respectfully showeth:

That shipbuilding and repairs play a vital role in the economic stability of the Newcastle region.

That a recent study by the Hunter Valley Research Foundation showed that SO 000 people were partially or wholly maintained by the State Dockyard.

That stability is at present in jeopardy, as a new ship order is required within the next few weeks if serious unemployment and hardship is to be avoided.

That the previous Government’s plan for the building of a graving dock in Newcastle should be continued as proper ship repair facilities are a vital factor in the maintenance of a viable shipbuilding industry.

That the Government’s election pledge to restore business and cut unemployment can be implemented in Newcastle if new orders and a graving dock are granted.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government place immediate orders with the Newcastle State Dockyard and implement the previous Government’s plan to build a graving dock in Newcastle.

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

Petition received.

Health Services

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 Government is committed to the continuation of the Community Health Program as pan of the Government’s policy to provide to all Australians a National Health Program.
  2. That the communities through their committees in Churchill, Morwell, Moe, San Remo and Cockatoo in the McMillan electorate have satisfied the Commonwealth Department of Health that there is a need to establish Community Health Centres in each of those respective towns.
  3. the citizens of each of the communities referred to are concerned that the Community Health Centre Program be not prejudiced by any reduction in the funds available from the Government of the Commonwealth of Australia.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government take all necessary and urgent action to ensure the continuation of service from each of the Community Health Centres and make such finance available to allow the establishment of such centres in permanent accommodation.

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

Petition received.

Education

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

  1. That the maximum level of Tertiary Education Assistance Scheme (TEAS) payments be immediately increased to parity with the level of unemployment benefits, and that all levels of TEAS allowances be increased proportionately.
  2. That the TEAS allowance be adjusted six-monthly to maintain parity with unemployment benefits.
  3. That as soon as possible the level of TEAS be raised to an amount equal to the figure set by the AUS- Education Department survey as being reasonable as at January, 1 975, after having been adjusted to take account of inflation since that time.
  4. That the other recommendations of the Williams Committee be implemented as soon as possible.

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

Petition received.

Children’s Commission

To the Honourable the Speaker and the Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth of Australia do humbly submit:

  1. That pre-school education is the right of every child, irrespective of financial circumstances;
  2. That any cuts in money available for Children’s Services will deny this right to many children in need of them;
  3. We therefore urge that the cuts already made in the budget of the Children’s Commission be restored and no further cuts be made in Children ‘s Services, i.e.

Full daycare

Occasional day care

Sessional pre-schools

Family day care

Residential care

Playgroups

Parent Education programs

Holiday programs

Toy libraries

Mobile pre-school units, and any other areas concerned with the total development of the child.

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

Petition received.

Dairy Industry

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

That the dairy farmers in Victoria and Tasmania are suffering as the result of a collapse of world markets of milk products, in particular the skim milk powder market;

That the farmers, their families, the communities and businesses which depend on a viable dairy industry are experiencing an extreme economic depression;

That the social consequences from this depression will result in many hard working and responsible farmers surrendering their farms and seeking other employment;

That it is incumbent on the Government of the Commonwealth of Australia in the short term to guarantee a minimum return for the dairy farmers manufactured products of butter, skim milk powder, casein and cheese, and in the long term to determine whether the Government supports a dairy industry which will produce for the export markets.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House urge the Government to take immediate steps to support the dairy farmers in the crisis they are currently experiencing until the stabilisation of the industry and the determination of long term Government policy is concluded after consultation with industry leaders and the State governments.

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

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:

That the products of nuclear fission create risks unlike those of any other single technology and, furthermore, it is uncertain whether or not nuclear fission technology, taking all inputs into account, is a net producer of energy.

Your petitioners most humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled will take immediate steps to bring about the wishes expressed in our petition that by reason of the hazards associated with the use of uranium in nuclear power plants, mining of uranium in Australia be restricted to that needed for physical and biomedical research and medical diagnosis.

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

Petition received.

Community Mental Health Program

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 condemn the apparent strangulation of the Community Mental Health program in the State of Victoria. By freezing new and pending positions, refusing to refill vacant positions and stopping capital works, it retards the growth of the total program. The concept and implementation of Community Mental Health has been considered by many health workers as the most progressive, innovative and economical step in health care delivery in many years. The savage cuts can only take us back to the dark ages.

Your petitioners most humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament will take immediate steps to enable the Community Mental Health program to continue and advance in the State of Victoria and your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Yates.

Petition received.

page 266

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

page 266

QUESTION

EMPLOYMENT

Mr E G Whitlam:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I direct a question to the Treasurer. The question is to clarify 2 statements about employment in the statements attached to his Budget Speech. The first is in Statement No. 2 at page 25 in which he states that the labour force is projected to grow by 2 per cent at most over the course of 1976-77. The other is in Statement No. 4 at page 1 17 in which he says that there is an estimated increase in 1976-77 of 1W per cent in the average level of employment. I ask: What is the estimated percentage or number of persons who will be unemployed at the end of June next?

Mr LYNCH:
Treasurer · FLINDERS, VICTORIA · LP

– I welcome the honourable gentleman back on one of his rare visits to this country. It is at least- (Opposition members interjecting)

I do not know whether it is a matter of discomfort to the Opposition to realise that the honourable gentleman is back and indeed, if I may say so, but with a sense of irrelevance, the honourable gentleman returned only to be rolled by the first Caucus meeting, which says a lot for him. But in response to the question -

Mr Keating:

- Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. This Ministry fails to answer questions in the Parliament.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! This is not a good commencement to question time. I cannot hear the point of order being made by the honourable member for Blaxland. I ask the House to keep silent while I hear the honourable member for Blaxland.

Mr Keating:

- Mr Speaker, this Ministry continually fails to answer questions in a relevant way. I ask you to rule that when a serious question is posed to a Minister he should give a serious relevant answer and not rot.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The point of order is well founded. The Minister must give an answer which is relevant to the question. However, it is perfectly clear that a Minister must be free to answer a question in the way he thinks fit. I intend to ask Ministers to make their replies to questions relevant. I cannot eliminate the political to and fro-ing and I do not think that the Parliament would expect me to do so. I call the Treasurer.

Mr LYNCH:

– In response to what the honourable gentleman has asked, I direct his attention to page 25 of Statement No. 2 which, in fact, is the real point of the question. Incidentally, this question was asked of me last night on television by Mr Hawke who made the same fundamental error in assumption which the honourable gentleman now makes in this House. But, of course, economics has never been his forte.

Mr Innes:

– He did not say that last night.

Mr LYNCH:

– That is exactly what I said last night. The honourable gentleman might well have listened to the interview. Budget Statement No. 2 indicates- I have it before me and I am quite happy to read it to the honourable gentleman, to send it to him with a compliments slip or to sign the document, whichever he likes- that the average level of employment during 1976-77 as a whole is expected to be 1.2 per cent greater than the average level of employment for 1975-76. 1 should have thought that the honourable gentleman, in relation to understanding the assumptions on which -

Mr E G Whitlam:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-Mr Speaker -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Is this a point of order?

Mr E G Whitlam:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-Yes, sir.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The Treasurer will resume his seat. I call the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr E G Whitlam:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-Mr Speaker, the Treasurer- trivial or tragic as one might like to describe him- is misquoting himself. He does not say 1.2 per cent; he says one per cent to 2 per cent.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I am afraid that without the document in front of me the point made by the Leader of the Opposition is lost on me. I call upon the Treasurer to answer the question.

Mr LYNCH:

– Without wanting to be tedious, the point is not lost on me in response to what the honourable gentleman questions because what I was saying- I repeat it and I hope the honourable gentleman will listen to it with the advice of the former Treasurer, who is now the shadow Minister for Defence- was that the average level of employment during 1976-77 as a whole is expected to be one per cent to 2 per cent greater than the average level of employment for 1975-76. But the number of people employed will be more than 2 per cent greater in June 1977 than in June 1976. During the same period, that is to say, between June 1 976 and June next year, it is projected that the labour Force will grow by about 2 per cent. In brief, if I may put it on the record of this House, the particulars on page 25 of Treasury Statement No. 2 bear out the fact that employment will grow by more than 2 per cent over the financial year whereas the labour force will not grow by more than 2 per cent over the same period. This therefore means, as I made perfectly clear in what I was saying in the House last night, that there will be a gradual reduction in unemployment, although little of this reduction will be experienced during the course of this calendar year. As I mentioned in my speech last night, what we are looking for will be an upturn and a pick-up in the early part of next year.

page 267

QUESTION

UNEMPLOYMENT

Mr FIFE:
FARRER, NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question, which is directed to the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, concerns the plight of unemployed women and men who are suffering hardship as a result of 3 years of economic mismanagement by the former Labor Government. I ask: Will the Minister inform the House whether he has brought to the attention of the President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions and other trade union officials the fact that there is a nexus between wage costs and job opportunities? If so, did he receive a favourable response? If not, will the Minister continue to press this matter in the interests of the unemployed who are seeking jobs and who have been badly let down by the Labor movement?

Mr STREET:
Minister Assisting the Prime Minister in Public Service Matters · CORANGAMITE, VICTORIA · LP

-Before going to the main body of the honourable member’s question I think it is worth reviewing the employment situation both when the Labor Government came to power and when it went out of office. When it came to power in December 1972 the number of unemployed in Australia in actual terms was about 136 000. When it was tossed out of office last December the number of unemployed was about 328 000. So let there be no mistake about what caused Australia’s high unemployment and what is the basic cause of the unemployment rate that we have now. As the honourable member has correctly identified, it was 3 years of disastrous economic mismanagement by the Labor Government.

Coming now to the main part of the honourable member’s question, yes, I have stressed to the President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions and indeed to other union leaders- other Ministers have joined me in those expressions of concern- the nexus between wage costs and job opportunities. At the talks that we held in June it was recognised by the union movement that there was a nexus between excessive wage rises, inflation and unemployment. Unfortunately, that recognition has not been carried forward into the practical policies which are pursued by the leaders of the Labor movement.

As a result of their policies we now have 3 categories of workers in Australia. First, we have those in safe employment. In the second category we have those in vulnerable employment, and I put in this category those in import competing industries who have their jobs threatened by the excessively high rate of wages in Australia at present, and those in export competing industries which have to rely on world market prices for their products. Of course, in the third category are the unemployed. The Labor movement’s wages policy would inevitably reduce the number of those in safe employment, increasing the number in vulnerable employment and push more and more of those presently in vulnerable employment into the ranks of the unemployed. In fact, it would mean more and more wages certainly, but for fewer and fewer people. It shows a total lack of concern for the unemployed and would have the effect of adding to their numbers.

There are members of this community who do not have powerful industrial muscle. These people have been deserted by leaders in the Labor movement and their political representatives. They are the unemployed, the selfemployed and the tens of thousands of primary producers who are battling the combined effects of drought, disastrously high increases in their costs and disastrously low prices for their products. We will not desert these people even if the Opposition does. We have been representing their interests before the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, and it is just as well that we have, because they have been callously disregarded by the leaders of the Labor movement.

page 267

QUESTION

INFLATION

Mr UREN:
REID, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Is the Prime Minister aware that in Statement No. 2 attached to the Budget Speech it is estimated that the likely change in the consumer price index for the year 1976-77 is of the order of 12 per cent? Does this indicate that the Government’s Budget will bring inflation only marginally under control in 1 976-77? Does it suggest that the sacrifices by a very wide section of the Australian people will be in vain?

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
Prime Minister · WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

-The Treasurer will answer the question.

Mr LYNCH:
LP

– It suggests nothing of the sort, and I am surprised that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition would seek to take political points with a question of this type. In fact, he is running the same risk as the Leader of the Opposition ran in making comparison between particular years. The fact is that average prices for the next financial year, when compared with average prices for 1975-76, are expected to increase at around the rate of increase of average weekly earnings- in other words, around 12 per cent. This is perfectly clear, and the Budget documents bear it out. There is no dispute on this side of the chamber. The honourable gentleman would understand that they are comparisons of average prices for this financial year with the previous year. The Budget documents indicate what I said in a clear sense last night- that at the end of this financial year the rate of inflation will be down to a single digit level. If the honourable member has some preoccupation with this matter I suggest that he read page 26 which is the prices section of the same document. I will quote to him from this section, because it is a matter of very great substance:

Price changes of these magnitudes for the year as a whole imply a markedly better performance -

Honourable gentlemen would understand this Treasury document well- over the course of 1976-77 than occurred over the course of 1973-76. Looked at on a June quarter to June quarter basis, price increases some 4 to 5 percentage points lower than the increases recorded between the June quarters of 197S and 1 976 are expected for broadly based deflaters

If the honourable gentleman wants to know what broadly based deflaters are we will send him a letter to help him. Page 26 of Statement No. 2 also states:

This picture would be consistent with annual rates of change in the single-digit area by the end of 1976-77.

Putting all the technical jargon to one side, I do not believe that there is any disbelief in the community that inflation will fall this year as a consequence of what we are doing.

page 268

QUESTION

FORECASTS FOR ECONOMIC GROWTH

Mr DOBIE:
COOK, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the Treasurer a question following his most admirable and excellent presentation of a very fine Budget last night and following the absence of questions from any of the 3 former Treasurers sitting opposite. Will he give details to the House of the Budget forecasts for economic growth this year?

Mr LYNCH:
LP

– I thank the honourable gentleman for the kindness of his comment which enables me to find the appropriate paper. This year’s Budget is designed to achieve a level of real economic growth in the Australian economy of 4 per cent. This will build on the resumption in real economic growth that has taken place during the latter part of the previous financial year. These developments must, of course, be placed in context. Because of the incompetence of our opponents in this House, gross non-farm product in the December quarter of last year, seasonally adjusted and at constant prices, was still almost 5 per cent below its peak level recorded 2 years earlier.

Dr Richardson:

– Shame.

Mr LYNCH:

– Of course there is a sense of shame. That sense of shame will be even more compelling when I remind the Leader of the Opposition that his Party promised in 1972 that it would achieve a growth rate of 6 per cent to 7 per cent in each year of office. The appalling record of our predecessors can be further illustrated by the fact that the gross domestic product increased at an annual average rate of 5.2 per cent between 1962 and 1972. Last night’s Budget will put the economy back on to the growth path it was on before the Labor Party caused a recession in this country. It is a Budget which stands for economic growth; it is a Budget which stands for greater prosperity for all Australians.

page 268

QUESTION

UNEMPLOYMENT

Mr HURFORD:
ADELAIDE, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question is supplementary to questions from the honourable member for Cook and the Leader of the Opposition. If it is a fact, as the Treasurer stated to the Leader of the Opposition, that the Budget optimistically assumes a 2 per cent growth in employment by June next year, although the Budget papers do not set this out, will this not be more than offset by a growth in the work force of at least 2 per cent, thus producing unemployment levels at least as great as if not greater than they are at present- worse than 8 months ago when this Government took over? What are the Treasury’s actual forecasts of the unemployment levels at the end of the next 4 months? This is the sort of forecast looked for by the honourable member for Cook; I understand the Treasury makes these forecasts. What is the explanation for the cut of $33m or 5.7 per cent in the allocation for unemployment and sickness benefits?

Mr LYNCH:
LP

– It is a matter of great irony that the Australian Labor Party has a fixation with a problem which it effectively caused and for which it found no answer during the whole period it was in government. Even if my answer be interpreted by some as being a political response, I want to say, consonant with what my colleague the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations has said, that no one in this country ought to forget the tragedy of this Government’s inheritance after 3 years of Labor government. The honourable member for Adelaide and his colleagues created more unemployment than any other government, certainly any other government that I can recall- and that goes back a long period. If the honourable member had heard, I responded earlier to questions about the 2 per cent. If he would like me to repeat what I said, I will be happy to do so, but I remind him that the details of the 2 per cent, the 1 per cent to 2 per cent, the averaging year by year and so forth are clearly set out on page 25 of Budget Paper No. 2 and are clearly set out in the speech I made. If the Opposition wants me to repeat them, I will be happy to do that. The number of people employed will be more than 2 per cent greater in June 1977 than in June 1976. In brief, between June 1976 and next June the labour force is projected to grow by around 2 per cent. Employment will grow by more than 2 per cent over the financial year, whereas the labour force will not grow by more than 2 per cent over the same period.

I say to this House, and I say it deliberately, that it may be one thing to seek to ascertain what the projections are, but surely as a matter of confidence in the country and as a matter of a responsible attitude, the Opposition ought to be promoting in this Parliament whatever it believes ought to be done in relation to the economy. All we have got in the opening stages of this question time have been nit-picking exercises about assumptions which are built in and questions which I have already answered. If honourable gentlemen opposite want to play a responsible part in economic recovery, let them come up with some genuine alternatives. They cannot.

page 269

QUESTION

ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS

Mr HYDE:
MOORE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– Has the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs seen a Press report stating that, as a result of the reductions in money to be appropriated for Aboriginal affairs, over 1000 Aborigines will be unemployed? Can the Minister provide some information on this matter?

Mr VINER:
Minister for Aboriginal Affairs · STIRLING, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

– I thank the honourable gentleman for asking the question which allows me to explode the statement made in a particular newspaper. It is quite incorrect that one thousand or anywhere near that number of Aborigines will be unemployed as a result of the decisions announced by the Treasurer. In fact the Government has made arrangements during the Supply period to provide funds to enable employment to be continued at the same levels. As the Treasurer said last night, reviews are being undertaken in fundamental areas of Aboriginal affairs programs- notably housing and enterprisesand these are 2 areas where there is large employment particularly in remoter communities.

The Government recognises its obligation to Aboriginals and to the community at large to see that where money is spent in areas like this it is spent wisely, effectively and efficiently. That is why the Government has undertaken these fundamental reviews. As the Treasurer has said, when those reviews are completed, additional funds will be provided, because we recognise that in these areas of housing and employment the Aboriginal people are disadvantaged. There is a high level of unemployment already amongst them- too high a level. What we want to do is to introduce programs which are soundly based, soundly administered and will provide real benefit to the Aboriginal people.

page 269

QUESTION

MONEY SUPPLY

Mr HAYDEN:
OXLEY, QUEENSLAND

– I ask the Treasurer: Is it a fact that the increase in the money supply- M3- sought for this fiscal year is about 12 per cent? Is it a fact that the Budget domestic deficit increases M3 by less than 6 per cent? Is it a fact that comment in Statement 2 of the Budget Papers makes it clear that there will be no surplus, and probably a deficit, on the balance of payments this year, excluding this as a source for increasing money supply? If these questions are correct in fact, from what source, in what way and with what riming will the additional increase in money supply be provided?

Mr LYNCH:
LP

-The fact is that the Government is thinking all the time, which is more than I can say for the Opposition. In relation to M3, I can understand the honourable gentleman’s particular interest because for the first time that I can recall we have put down a specific parameter for the growth of the money supply, broadly defined on the M3 basis. As I recall from last night- I do not have the particular section in front of me- it is between the levels of 10 per cent and 12 per cent. That figure was put down on the basis of a Government decision, following the best advice available to it from the Federal Treasury, following also my close and constant monitoring with the Reserve Bank and after Government consultation with people in the free enterprise sector. Given the assumptions which surround it and given the qualifications to which that figure is subjected in the Budget Speech and in the associated documents, the Government is confident that that broad range of growth in the money supply on the M3 basis will not be accommodating to inflation but at the same time will allow a capacity to underwrite economic recovery.

I can understand the Opposition’s attitude in relation to this matter. Although the honourable member for Adelaide, who is the shadow Treasurer, has in recent days been quite quiet about our achievements in the money supply area, he will recall that in my statement of 20 May I put down a parameter of 1 1 per cent to 13 per cent. What did Opposition members say then? They said ‘credit squeeze’ and they repeated it but their cries became weaker and weaker as time went on.

Mr Hayden:

– I take a point of order.

Mr LYNCH:

– I think it is to the Government’s credit that there was no credit squeeze.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The Treasurer will resume his seat.

Mr Hayden:

- Mr Speaker, it is extremely regrettable but, probably understandably, the Treasurer has not understood the question.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! There is no substance in the point of order.

Mr Hayden:

– I wonder whether he could answer the question which I asked. I ask for leave to ask the question again so that the Treasurer might be able to answer it.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Oxley will resume his seat.

page 270

QUESTION

REPATRIATION PATIENTS

Mr MILLAR:
WIDE BAY, QUEENSLAND

– Is the Minister representing the Minister for Repatriation aware that the policy announced on 20 May 1976 concerning the admission of repatriation patients to nonrepatriation hospitals, particularly in country areas, has caused considerable problems in its application and has created widespread concern among veterans and veterans’ organisations? Will the Minister explain to the House the circumstances relating to the policy?

Mr NEWMAN:
Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development · BASS, TASMANIA · LP

– I thank the honourable member for Wide Bay for the question. I am aware that there has been some concern. In fact I was in Maryborough when a group from the Returned Services League from Bundaberg and Maryborough were discussing this very point. I should like therefore to take the opportunity on behalf of my colleague in the other place to assure everybody that no repatriation beneficiary will be disadvantaged by this policy.

Let me explain the situation again as I think I have done once before in this place. If a repatriation beneficiary has to go into hospital and if his local medical officer or the specialist looking after him cannot follow him because of procedures relating to public hospitals in the State concerned, he may be admitted as a private patient in a shared room so that his local medical officer or his specialist may attend to him.

page 270

QUESTION

MINING INDUSTRY

Mr KEATING:

– I direct my question to the Treasurer. I refer to the accelerated write-off provisions allowed for mining expenditure on capital equipment. As the Treasurer did his best last night, with a play on words, to conceal the fact that the Industries Assistance Commission -

Mr SPEAKER:

– I ask the honourable member for Blaxland to commence his question as distinct from his preface.

Mr KEATING:

– Accepting the fact that the Government does not have to accept an IAC decision, will the Treasurer explain to the House why the Government set aside an IAC recommendation for a 15-year write-off? Why has the Government discriminated in favour of the healthier section of Australian corporate enterprise when manufacturing industry has a write-off average of 12 years? Does the Treasurer realise that the accelerated write-off, coupled with the 40 per cent investment allowance, constitutes an industry handout of unparalleled magnitude?

Mr LYNCH:
LP

– I do not regard the provision as an industry handout of unparalleled- whatever the phrase was that was used by the honourable member.

Mr Keating:

– Magnitude.

Mr LYNCH:

-It does not matter what word the honourable member used or what he said about the matter. The fact is that the honourable gentleman stands indicted for what he said about the mining industry in Western Australia recently and he knows it. He was quite rightly repudiated by his Western Australian colleagues.

Mr Keating:

- Mr Speaker -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I ask the Treasurer to resume his seat. I cannot hear the point of order being taken by the honourable member for Blaxland while the honourable member for Chifley is shouting so loudly.

Mr Keating:

- Mr Speaker, I have asked a legitimate question as to why the Government rejected an IAC recommendation. I want a specific answer.

Mr LYNCH:

-Mr Speaker, I thought I was taking a proper point, if you wish to rule upon it. I was simply seeking to say -

Mr SPEAKER:

– The Treasurer is entitled to answer the question as he sees fit providing his answer is relevant.

Mr LYNCH:

-Thank you, Mr Speaker. I was saying, with your leave and through you to the honourable gentleman on the other side of the House, that in a recent statement he made in Perth, and which was rejected by his own Party in that State he did more to destroy confidence in the industry than has any statement that anyone has made since he was the lackey of the fellow who now sits on his right hand side.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I ask the honourable gentleman to withdraw that statement.

Mr LYNCH:

-I do withdraw. I think he is an uncritical admirer or something like that, but I withdraw the word ‘lackey’.

Mr E G Whitlam:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

- Mr Speaker, we can all see that the Treasurer is rattled as he is called out of his foxhole.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! If the Leader of the Opposition wishes to take a point of order, he shall take it without preface. I call upon him to take his point of order

Mr E. G. Whitiam Mr Speaker, you ruled that the Treasurer had to withdraw the reference to the honourable member for Blaxland being the lackey of another honourable member. The Treasurer withdrew his remark and then interpolated another reference. The reference was not relevant to the question. You, sir, have twice today said that answers should be relevant to the questions, that a Minister can answer as he wishes as long as the answers are relevant. The original reference was offensive and irrelevant. The amended reference was still irrelevant. Mr Speaker, I submit that you should require the Treasurer to withdraw the irrelevant reference unequivocally.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I called upon the Treasurer to withdraw that part which I believed was likely to cause offence to a member of this House and therefore produce disorder in the House. The Treasurer withdrew it. I did not require its withdrawal from the point of view of relevance.

Mr LYNCH:

– In relation to the question asked, the Government has taken some very significant decisions for the mining industry. The honourable member is entitled from his side of the House to object to those decisions. It just so happens- it is not a matter of coincidence- that this is a government that believes in the mining sector and in getting this country off the ground once again. The changes which are proposed are very significant. The Government obviously has the capacity to look at the Industries Assistance Commission recommendations and to take its own decisions based on those recommendations. Some of the 4 recommendations utterly endorse what the IAC put forward. Others are amendments thereof. The Government believes that the right decisions were taken. If honourable members look at what the mining industry is saying today about its sense of confidence in now moving they will see that those decisions are justified.

page 271

QUESTION

COMPANY STOCK VALUATION ADJUSTMENT PROPOSAL

Dr EDWARDS:
BEROWRA, NEW SOUTH WALES

-My question is directed to the Treasurer. I refer to the stock valuation adjustment proposal for companies as announced last night by the Treasurer. Will he explain to the House in what ways the proposal differs from the recommendations of the Mathews Committee on this subject?

Mr LYNCH:
LP

– There are in fact 2 important differences from the trading stock valuation adjustment scheme that I outlined in the Budget Speech last night and the proposal recommended by the Mathews Committee. It is a matter of substance and I take the opportunity to respond in a little detail to the House. First, the Government has decided to use the goods component of the consumer price index for adjustment purposes rather than the more complex provisions which were proposed and recommended by the Mathews report. The Government’s proposal will have the distinct advantage of simplicity and will therefore avoid the complexities and additional costs that the Mathews formula would have meant for businesses, particularly small enterprises, which find difficulty in understanding the dialogue about stock adjustment, clawback and what have you. Our approach will also overcome certain technical difficulties. For example, the original Mathews proposals would have been difficult to implement in cases where there was a change in the quality of stocks or where obsolescence of stocks was a factor, for example, where fashion goods were involved.

The second major difference lies in the Government’s decision that the trading stock valuation adjustment should take the form of a permanent reduction of taxation rather than deferment in the clawback concept as proposed by the Mathews Committee. In deciding against the deferral the Government had in mind several serious disadvantages which would have arisen. For example, this method would have increased company tax collections in times of trade depression and the Government could have been placed in a position of having to liquidate businesses in order to recapture the tax which would have been owing in those circumstances. As well, there are formidable technical difficulties associated with the design of an efficient means of recapturing tax revenue under the concept of a deferral system. The Government believes that its proposals are certainly soundly based. I should emphasise that they were brought down in this House only on the basis of the most detailed consultations with industry groups involved and the House will be very much aware that the Government took the opportunity to seek the return of Professor Mathews from the United Kingdom for direct discussions in relation to the implementation of this scheme.

page 272

QUESTION

TAXATION

Mr CONNOR:
CUNNINGHAM, NEW SOUTH WALES

-I refer the Treasurer to the Budget Papers in which the Government’s estimate of income from pay-as-you-earn taxation, after deductions by way of rebate, for the coming year will be of the order of $8,750m, an increase over the 1975-76 figure of almost $l,750m and an increase in percentage terms of more than 25 per cent. How does he equate this 25 per cent impost on the trade unionists of Australia with the generally accepted inflation component of 12 per cent in the present Budget?

Mr LYNCH:
LP

– I do not know whether the honourable gentleman has done his sums. I am subject to correction until I have had the opportunity of checking the figures following question time. The honourable gentleman used the figure of 25 per cent. My recollection is that the figure is 23 per cent. Who is talking about taxation reform in those areas that are the subject of inference in the honourable gentleman’s question? Of course the country is going ahead. Of course more people are coming back into the work force. Of course there will be greater personal income tax collections during the period. What honourable gentlemen opposite always conveniently seek to overlook and forget, of course, is that this Government, after being in office for less than 6 months, brought down the greatest single tax reform in Australia’s history. I refer specifically to the implementation of full personal tax indexation. We said we would do it in 3 years; we did it in less than 6 months.

Dr Klugman:

– How come it has gone up 23 per cent with indexation?

Mr LYNCH:

– The honourable gentleman represents a government which implemented the greatest tax rip-offs in this country since Herod was a boy; and that goes back a long period.

page 272

QUESTION

INDIRECT TAXATION

Mr BRADFIELD:
BARTON, NEW SOUTH WALES

– The Treasurer will be aware of the general favourable response to the Government’s decision not to increase indirect taxes this year. Can he give the House a comparison of the effects of the Government’s decision in respect of indirect taxes in this Budget with those of other recent Budgets?

Mr LYNCH:
LP

– I thank the honourable gentleman for the unforeseen nature of his question which was obviously prompted by the previous question asked from the Opposition side. All Australians can take great comfort from the fact that this year, for the first time in 3 years, there will be no increases in the major indirect taxes.

Mr Keating:

– I rise on a point of order. This is supposed to be the time when questions without notice are asked. It is obvious that the Treasurer cannot answer any of the questions that are genuinely asked without notice, and that he has to read the answer to every other question.

Mr SPEAKER:

-There is no point of order. I call the Treasurer.

Mr LYNCH:

– It is in major contrast to the policies of our predecessors over the past 3 years when we saw an increase in the annual level of taxation in this area of more than $ 1 ,000m.

Mr Scholes:

– I rise on a point of order. I am concerned that the Minister is deliberately misleading the House. He has stated that there will be no increase in indirect taxation. He apparently does not consider that payments to Medibank, etc., are taxation.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The honourable member for Corio will withdraw the statement that the Treasurer is deliberately misleading the House.

Mr Scholes:

– I withdraw the statement that he deliberately misled the House.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The honourable gentleman may make his point of order now, if he wishes to do so.

Mr Scholes:

– I have made my point of order.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I call the Treasurer.

Mr LYNCH:

– I remind the House of what the former Prime Minister, now the Leader of the Opposition, said by way of a promise. He made this comment:

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

Having given the Australian public that assurance the Leader of the Opposition, as Prime Minister, presided over a Budget last year which increased the duty on beer, which increased the duty on spirits, which put up the price of cigarettes by around, as I recall, 6c a packet, and put additional taxation on petroleum.

Last year’s Budget raised $602m in additional levies, even excluding the coal export levy. The fact is that the man in the street has not been hit by this Budget; he was virtually destroyed by the former one.

page 273

QUESTION

EMPLOYMENT AND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

Mr E G Whitlam:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-Without notice, I ask a question of the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. What does he expect to be the increase in the percentage and/or the numbers of persons available for employment, including those unable to secure employment, between the end of last June and the end of next June?

Mr STREET:
LP

-The figures available to me are consistent with those the Treasurer has already given to the House.

page 273

QUESTION

MEDIBANK

Mr FALCONER:
CASEY, VICTORIA

– Has the Prime Minister seen reports that the President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, Mr Hawke, has taken out health cover with Medibank Private, rather than through the private health fund with which he was previously insured? Was this option open to him under the Labor Government’s Medibank arrangements? Can the Prime Minister explain why he himself has taken out health cover through Medibank Private?

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
LP

-The option was not available to Mr Hawke under the previous scheme introduced by the former Administration. I am delighted that the President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions and President of the Australian Labor Party, and maybe one day a member of this House, has taken advantage of the opportunity provided by the Government to demonstrate to all Australians that Medibank is alive and well, ready to do business with Mr Hawke and many other people, and ready to compete with the private funds to help keep the cost of health insurance down. And that is what is happening. We all owe Mr Hawke our thanks. A number of other people have joined Medibank Private insurance, I think for similar reasons. As the honourable gentleman drew attention to it, I have joined Medibank Private and I think some of my colleagues either have or intend to do so as well. The Government is providing an interesting field of competition between Medibank insurance and private health funds which I believe will advantage many people in Australia. I regret that the previous Administration did not provide the equivalent opportunities under its regimented program.

page 273

QUESTION

SHIPBUILDING INDUSTRY

Mr YOUNG:
PORT ADELAIDE, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I draw the attention of the Prime Minister to the policy of his Party, as printed, which states: ‘We regard industry, particularly shipbuilding, as the fourth arm of defence’. I ask the Prime Minister: Does the Department of Defence agree with his decision to close the shipyards of Australia? Does he agree that Australia is better defended by losing the capability to build and repair ships or by having 10 000 additional people, skilled and unskilled, on the unemployed list?

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
LP

-The honourable gentleman should be aware that ships built for defence purposes and ships built for normal trade purposes have very different characteristics and have generally been built in separate specialised yards. On many occasions- I did this and I know the present Minister for Defence has looked at the question- there have been attempts to get some arrangement which would enable normal commercial yards to build defence ships. That would have enabled increased work to have been provided from time to time for Australian yards. Because of the specialised nature of defence ships, it has so far been found difficult to achieve this. I believe that the previous Administration must also have found that was so, otherwise the light destroyers that were ordered in the time of the previous Administration presumably would have been ordered for construction in Australian yards. I note that the previous Administration did not take the opportunity to do just that. I think probably, and regretfully, the reasons for not being able to do it were justified. The Government is concerned about the situation in Whyalla and at Newcastle, but I think the honourable gentleman does not do his own previous Administration justice. Would he have said the same thing if he had understood as clearly as he should that all we have done in this instance is to continue the policy of the previous Administration? We have announced that the previous Government’s policy continues. But because the circumstances and times have altered we have also referred the matter to the Industries Assistance Commission for fairly immediate report to see whether it wants to stick to its past recommendations or whether it wishes to change those recommendations. Opportunities will be provided for people to give evidence in relation to those particular matters.

I have just been discussing the matter with the Minister concerned. The Commission also will be asked to report on the impact of either a continuation of the present position or of any other recommendations it might wish to make in relation to Whyalla and Newcastle. That, again, will provide an opportunity for people to give evidence. It will provide an opportunity for the honourable gentleman’s own State Government to say in plain and firm terms what the State Government might be prepared to do to assist in a very difficult situation. There have been reports that Mr Dunstan is prepared to offer some relief from payroll tax but I have not seen that offer made on hard and fast terms, as though it would be a real offer. I should like to know if it was a real offer.

I think that this is a very difficult situation. The IAC has been asked to look at it. All this Government has done is to continue the policies that were formulated by the previous Administration. But not being happy with that, it referred the question to the Industries Assistance Commission. I also note that during the time the previous Administration was in office a significant number of ships were ordered overseas, including 4 large bulk carriers. If it had not been for the eagerness of the previous Minister for Transport to get these ships at a very early date it would have been possible for those orders also to have been placed in Australian yards and then there would have been an opportunity for the previous Administration to put its money where its voice is on this occasion. It did not take that opportunity just as it did not take the opportunity to have ships built for defence purposes in Australia. I hope that the honourable member will take the constructive opportunity that is provided to him and suggest that Mr Dunstan also do it in relation to the forthcoming IAC inquiry.

page 274

QUESTION

SHORTAGE OF REFRIGERATED CARGO SPACE

Mr O’KEEFE:
PATERSON, NEW SOUTH WALES

-Is the Minister for Transport aware that there has been a shortage of refrigerated cargo space available for the carriage of meat to Japan? Does the Minister realise that this shortage is causing the delay in the filling of important contracts on the Japanese market? Can the Minister give the House any information as to the reasons for the shortage? What is being done to overcome the situation?

Mr NIXON:
Minister for Transport · GIPPSLAND, VICTORIA · LP

– I have to confirm that there is a shortage of refrigerated cargo space for the carriage of meat to Japan. The estimate given by the Australian Meat Board some days ago was that there was a shortage of about 4000 tonnes. I am happy to inform the House that about 1000 tonnes of that has been picked up by a nonconference line. Other tonnage has been picked up as well. The shortage is estimated to be about 1300 tonnes for carcass mutton and about 500 tonnes for carton meats. The reason for the shortage, of course, has been the continued industrial disputes that have taken place, affecting the waterfront and the loading of ships.

It is interesting to note that since 1 May there have been 83 days lost in Melbourne, 1 1 days lost in Brisbane and 30 days lost in Sydney, due to industrial disputes. What the trade union leaders who lead these strikes do not seem to understand is that they are threatening the jobs of many of their fellow workers throughout the community. It really is a disgrace that so many stoppages have occurred and have affected the carriage of meat at a time when the meat industry is going through a difficult period.

Our failure to be able to fulfil contracts for such an important market as Japan- it prejudices our total opportunities to maintain a stable market in that country- is beyond words as far as I am concerned. I could use words outside this House to express my feelings but, Mr Speaker, you would not appreciate it if I tried to use those words in this House to describe the current situation. For the information of honourable membersI think it is important- I should like to include in Hansard, if I may, a list of the series of strikes that have taken place in the various ports which have affected the loading of meat. I seek leave to incorporate that list in Hansard.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Is leave granted?

Mr Uren:

– No.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Leave is not granted.

Mr NIXON:

– I am sorry to delay the House but I think this matter is important and as I am sure honourable members would like to be aware of this information. I propose to read out the list to the House so that honourable members and the people of Australia will be aware of the number of strikes that have occurred- petty though some of them may be- and the difficulties they are causing the shipping industry and the meat trade. I will start with Brisbane. After I have read out the figures for Brisbane, perhaps the Deputy Leader of the Opposition will permit me to incorporate the rest of the list in Hansard. The details of the strikes in Brisbane are as follows:

The list for Brisbane does not include a 4-day strike by Brisbane tugs at the end of March for some reason or other. I turn now to the number of strikes that occurred in Sydney. Perhaps the Deputy Leader of the Opposition will permit me to incorporate this information in Hansard.

MrUren-No.

Mr NIXON:

-The strikes that occurred in Sydney are as follows:

Mr Bryant:

– I rise on a point of order. I wonder whether the honourable gentleman could also have prepared for us, as a supplementary list, the terrible waste of man hours and its effect on unemployment.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! That is not a point of order. I call the Minister for Transport.

Mr NIXON:

-The list states further:

Mr Young:

– Medibank.

Mr NIXON:

-We will come to Medibank again. I will tell you when the strikes were over Medibank. Just relax. The list states further:

No reason given for the meeting.

I now come to Melbourne. Would you like me to incorporate these details in Hansard?

Opposition members- No.

Mr NIXON:

– I continue reading from the document:

It was too hot.

Mr Young:

– About half the strikes were over Medibank.

Mr NIXON:

-Reference to half the strikes being about Medibank is nonsense. They would have a strike over whether they left their toothbrushes at home. The document continues:

That is the national strike to which the honourable member referred. All unions went out on strike on 12 July. It continues:

Just think of all the poor farmers back on the farms trying to get their meat to market.

Mr Les McMahon:
SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP
Mr NIXON:

– You can laugh your head off. You would know all about it, would you not? The hardship that is being created in the rural areas is because of nits like these union organisers. The document continues:

Again they found it a bit hot. The temperature was too high so they knocked off work. Tell the farmers out there in your electorates they should not work on a particular day because it is too hot.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member will not address other honourable members.

Mr NIXON:

– The information regarding Sea.tainers Depot is as follows:

Here we are: We provide proper facilities for them to appeal through the conciliation and arbitration system. All the appeal systems are there for them but they have to go out on strike for 26 days rather than use proper appeal facilities. The document continues:

Would you like me to incorporate the rest of this in Hansard?

Opposition members- No.

Mr NIXON:

– We come now to the Seatainer Terminal. The document reads:

Nobody knows what the dispute was about. They just did not like each other.

Mr Young:

– Medibank.

Mr NIXON:

– No, it has nothing to do with Medibank. The document continues:

That is a beauty. All unions went on strike because of the smell of chemicals. There is a smell under my nose about this whole business but it is not chemicals:

It has been a lengthy list to read out. I persevered with it because I think that the people of Australia ought to be told the truth about the difficulties confronting this Government in getting a reasonable flow of trade between this country and other countries. The few who are running the unions are forcing others to go out on strike. I ought to put this in its proper context because that is what they are doing. They are jeopardising our trade with other countries and jobs in this country for their fellow workers. I am sorry that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition forced me to read out that list, but I think it is important that it be recorded in Hansard.

page 277

QUESTION

SHIPBUILDING INDUSTRY

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
Prime Minister · Wannon · LP

– May I add a sentence to an answer I gave?

Mr SPEAKER:

– Is the Prime Minister asking for indulgence?

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
Mr SPEAKER:

-Indulgence is given.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

– I think the honourable member may be interested to know that the Department of Defence has called for the construction of a Bedivere class heavy lift ship in Australia. It is a transport with civilian characteristics rather than defence characteristics. That is why it is able to be built in Australia. The total cost should be about $45 m. This work will be going to Australian yards.

page 278

EMPLOYMENT

Mr LYNCH:
Treasurer · Flinders · LP

-I seek indulgence to make one statement to the House.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Indulgence is given.

Mr LYNCH:

– I simply say that I think the questions which were posed -

Mr Uren:

– Did he seek leave of the House?

Mr SPEAKER:

– No, it is not necessary for him to seek leave of the House. He has indicated to me that in answering a question there was an omission of a matter of fact. I think it would be in the interests of the House for me to give indulgence to allow the Treasurer to provide that matter of fact.

Mr LYNCH:

– For purposes of clarification, I think the problem -

Mr Uren:

– I would like clarification. In reply to what question and which honourable member is the Treasurer giving the matter of fact?

Mr SPEAKER:

-The point will be taken by the Treasurer. I have not ascertained that myself. I rely on the Treasurer’s statement that there is a matter of fact he wants to state. I am sure the House will be anxious to know it.

Mr Uren:

– I am seeking information. In reply to a question from which honourable member does he wish to state a matter of fact?

Mr SPEAKER:

-Does the Treasurer recall the question to the answer to which he now wishes to add the matter of fact and by which honourable member it was asked?

Mr LYNCH:

– I ask the honourable gentleman to be patient; it is only a very short statement in response to a question which, as I recall, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr E. G. Whitlam) asked.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I have given the Treasurer indulgence to make a short addition to an answer he gave. I call the Treasurer, and I ask the

Deputy Leader of the Opposition to hear the Treasurer before taking a point of order.

Mr Uren:

– I seek your guidance, Mr Speaker. The Treasurer has no right to make a statement. I am seeking a simple answer to my query: To which question from which honourable member was the reply given? We are not giving the Treasurer leave to make a statement. We want to know in reply to which honourable member the error was made or the facts not made available.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I will not require the Treasurer to answer before I proceed with giving indulgence. However, I ask the Treasurer to provide the information if he does recall which question it was. If he cannot, I continue to give him my indulgence to make the point he wishes to make.

Mr LYNCH:

– It was the first of several questions posed to me by the Leader of the Opposition. The questions referred to projections in relation to unemployment and to particular pages of Budget Statement No. 2.I want to add briefly, I hope in a spirit of clarification, to what I said before to the honourable gentleman. I think there has been a confusion because of the comparison of 2 different statistical series. One is the average level of employment during the year and the other is the movement over a 12-month period, as I think the honourable gentleman will see when he again reads page 25 of the Statement. I say this only to assist the Opposition and not to interrupt the House.

page 278

MANUFACTURING INDUSTRY

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
Prime Minister · Wannon · LP

– For the information of honourable members I present Volume II of the Committee to Advise on Policies for Manufacturing Industrythe Jackson Committee. This volume was publicly released on 21 June 1976 during the parliamentary recess. All 4 volumes of the Committee ‘s report have now been released.

page 278

AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
Prime Minister · Wannon · LP

– For the information of honourable members I present the report of the Royal Commission on Australian Government Administration together with 4 volumes of appendices. This report was publicly released on 1 August 1976, and the Government is very glad to have it and, consistent with its size, will act on it expeditiously.

page 279

ADVANCE TO THE TREASURER 1976-77

Statement of Expenditure

Mr LYNCH:
Treasurer · Flinders · LP

– I present the following paper

Advance to the Treasurer 1 976-77- Statement of Heads of Expenditure and the amounts charged thereto pursuant to Section 36a of the Audit Act 1901-1975.

Ordered that the statement be taken into consideration in Committee of the Whole House at the next sitting.

page 279

POULTRY RESEARCH

Mr SINCLAIR:
Minister for Primary Industry · New England · NCP/NP

– For the information of honourable members I present the third report of the Poultry Research Advisory Committee for the year ended 30 June 1 975.

page 279

FISHING INDUSTRY

Mr SINCLAIR:
Minister for Primary Industry · New England · NCP/NP

– Pursuant to section 19 of the Fishing Industry Research Act 1969, I present the annual report of the Fishing Industry Research Committee for the year ended 30 June 1975.

page 279

TEMPORARY ASSISTANCE AUTHORITY

Mr HOWARD:
Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs · Bennelong · LP

– For the information of honourable members I present reports by the Temporary Assistance Authority on Orange Juice, and Sheets and Plates of Iron or Steel.

page 279

TEXTILE AUTHORITY

Mr HOWARD:
Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs · Bennelong · LP

– For the information of honourable members I present a report by the Textile Authority on Knitted and Woven Apparel.

page 279

INDUSTRIES ASSISTANCE COMMISSION

Mr HOWARD:
Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs · Bennelong · LP

– For the information of honourable members I present reports by the Industries Assistance Commission on Short-term Assistance to Commercial Theatre; Paints, Varnishes and Lacquers; Railway and Tramway Locomotives, Rolling Stock, etc; and an interim report on Domestic Refrigerating Appliances etc. (Chest Freezers of up to 350 litres capacity).

page 279

NATIONAL TRAINING COUNCIL

Mr STREET:
Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations · Corangamite · LP

– For the information of honourable members I present the annual report of the National Training Council for the year ended 3 1 December 1 975.

page 279

DEFENCE SERVICE HOMES SCHEME

Mr NEWMAN:
Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development · Bass · LP

For the information of honourable members I present a review of the Defence Service Homes Scheme, its nature, history and operations.

page 279

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY POLICE FORCE

Mr STALEY:
Minister for the Capital Territory · Chisholm · LP

– For the information of honourable members I present the annual report of the Australian Capital Territory Police Force for the year ended 30 June 1 975.

page 279

RETIREMENT OF PRINCIPAL PARLIAMENTARY REPORTER

Mr SPEAKER:

– I wish to draw the attention of the House to the fact that during the recess the Principal Parliamentary Reporter, Mr W. J. Bridgman, retired after giving nearly 4 1 years of service to Hansard- more than half the period since Federation. Mr Bridgman is in the House, and I welcome him on behalf of the House. Mr Bridgman is the elder son of Mr J. S. Bridgman who served on the Western Australian Hansard for the same length of time- a very remarkable family record. He was educated at Perth Modern School and the University of Western Australia. For the first 7 years of his working life he was a journalist in Perth and joined the Federal Hansard staff in 1935. At the time, Mr J. A. Lyons was Prime Minister and Mr John Curtin Leader of the Opposition. There have been 13 Prime Ministers and 8 Leaders of the Opposition since then.

Mr Bridgman was closely associated with the reporting and printing changes required for the introduction of daily Hansard in 1955. He introduced in 1970 tape recording on a large scale to produce transcripts of the evidence taken by parliamentary committees and the proceedings of ministerial conferences. He holds the diploma in journalism awarded by the University of Western Australia. He is a member of the council of the Commercial Education Society of Australia and a Fellow of the Incorporated Phonographic Society, London. He edited the 3rd edition of Commonwealth Hansard: Its Establishment and Development, which contains, in addition to the history of the staff since 1901, the authorities and rules for the production of the report. He made Federal Hansard history by appointing women as reporters in what had been for 70 years an exclusively male preserve. An ambitious scheme for training young reporters commenced under his direction is flourishing.

He was Principal Parliamentary Reporter for more than 8 years- a period during which the reporting department developed at a greater rate than at any other time in its 75 years existence. He is regarded as a spokesman for other Hansard staffs in Australia on matters of common interest. He knew 2 members of the original Hansard staff appointed in 1901 and so has been a bridge between the very old and the very new. In awarding birthday honours in June, Her Majesty the Queen conferred on him the O.B.E. He will continue to live in Canberra. He has no intention of writing a book. He says he will never seek again to know for whom the bells in Parliament House toll because they will not be tolling to summon him to this chamber. He always made us read better than we sounded. I know similar tributes are being paid to Mr Bridgman in the Senate, but on behalf of this chamber I wish him to know that we hope he will have a long and enjoyable retirement, and we hope that because of the comradeship we have built with him we will often see him here.

Consequent upon Mr Bridgman ‘s retirement, Mr K. R. Ingram, who is not scheduled to be in the chamber at the moment but who will be known to all honourable members, has been appointed Acting Principal Parliamentary Reporter. Mr Ingram is Acting Principal Parliamentary Reporter at his own request for an interim period. I hope that he will find himself physically fit to undertake the permanent appointment as Principal Parliamentary Reporter.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
Prime Minister · Wannon · LP

– For the Government, I would like to say how much all honourable members appreciate the work of Bill Bridgman and the devotion to duty he has shown over a very long period of years. I think all honourable members are greatly indebted to Bill Bridgman and to those who work with him. As we know, he has only recently retired. You, Mr Speaker, drew attention to how Hansard reporters have the unique ability to turn a mediocre speech into a memorable one. How many of us have often retired from the chamber less than happy with the delivery of our speech and then marvelled at what we have seen when we have read it in Hansard! I can remember an incident that perhaps can serve as a warning to honourable members in case they believe they are better than Hansard. On one occasion an honourable member from South

Australia complained that he wanted to be reported exactly as he spoke and he did not want Hansard changing his language, grammar or the meaning of his words. As I understand it, on the next occasion that honourable member spoke, he had his speech reported exactly as he had delivered it. His 20 minute speech was in one sentence, without any punctuation and even without a full stop at the end. After that, so the story goes, he allowed Hansard to change his speeches.

Mr Young:

– It would not have been a South Australian. It was a member of the Country Party.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

-He came from the honourable gentleman’s Party before the honourable gentleman’s time. That is a warning which some honourable members may like to heed. I suppose Hansard would be delighted to provide them with the same service if they wanted to try it. I think we will all recall that Bill Bridgman has left a great tradition behind him. He was an innovative Principal Parliamentary Reporter. Especially during the last 10 to 15 years the workload of Hansard reporters has been much greater than ever before with the work of parliamentary committees and with the increased work of the Houses of Parliament. Two notable innovations were the introduction of the tape recording service for parliamentary committees, and the employment of female reporters to which you, Mr Speaker, drew attention. The latter must have broken down one of the last male bastions in employed positions. Probably the chamber is much better for it. All honourable members would want to wish Bill Bridgman the very best in his retirement. He will always have a warm welcome in this place. I suppose we could expect that, having heard so many long debates and having been here for so many years, he might find it hard to leave the place and therefore would want to be a very frequent visitor to the House. I am sure he can be assured of a warm welcome when he comes to visit the House.

Bill Bridgman has the capacity to teach many politicians a lesson in courtesy. He is always a most courteous person. Very often, at different times all of us might have put requests to Hansard to which Hansard was not able to accede, but when the answer was in the negative it was always given in a way that was so pleasant that it was impossible to quarrel with it. Maybe this is something honourable members could take to heart when we are debating matters and disputing with each other across the table.

Mr E G Whitlam:
Leader of the Opposition · WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Members of Hansard, like Presiding Officers, have to attend in the chamber more often than any other persons entitled to sit in it. Even more than Presiding Officers, they are precluded from speaking on their own behalf. I must compliment you, Mr Speaker, on the eloquence and the humanity with which you have spoken on this occasion. I assure you that members of the Australian Labor Party support and enjoyed everything you said, not only in the references you made but also the wishes you extended to Mr Bill Bridgman and Mr Ken Ingram. For myself, I hope I will be forgiven for making 2 nostalgic references to gentlemen I have known for very many decades. Indeed, I have long envied Mr Bridgman because he married the most vivacious of the girl students at Telopea Park High School shortly after we both left it. Mr Ken Ingram and I sat together and learnt from the same people at Telopea. I hope we have both improved since then. He certainly has. Since the House is in such a very good mood, I might say that he and I certainly derived what skill in or appreciation we may have of the English language from members of a family whose father was a member of this House at the time and one of whom is married to a former Clerk of the House.

Mr Speaker, there is only one other thing I would like to add. Due to the vagaries of the remuneration system applying to those who can sit but not speak in this chamber, it was only on the eve of his retirement that Mr Bridgman was able to approach the income that Mr Ingram had been receiving as his deputy. I believe both were entitled to receive proper remuneration because they both served this House superbly. We are all singularly indebted to them. We wish Mr Bridgman and his wife many years of good health and we wish Mr Ingram the good health which will enable him to take up permanently the appointment for which he is so well qualified in succession to Mr Bridgman.

Mr SINCLAIR:
Minister for Primary Industry · New England · NCP/NP

- Mr Speaker, briefly I would like to associate the members of the National Country Party of Australia with your own good wishes to Bill Bridgman. As the Leader of the Opposition (Mr E. G. Whitlam) has just stated, there is no real requirement for those of us who are members to be in this chamber other than for those minimal periods when we are involved in legislation or when we have an involvement at question time. But for those who are officers of the Parliament there is a continuing requirement to be present. I think all of us admire the patience and perseverance which they demonstrate in sitting through long hours of what can often be extraordinarily tedious and repetitious speeches. In so many ways Bill Bridgman has personified the qualities of one who as a servant of the House we can respect. He has contributed so much to making those rather inept and inadequate utterances of ours reasonably word perfect. There is no doubt that in the manner of the implementation of his reforms he has made our sitting in the Parliament more enjoyable because he has introduced female members to the parliamentary Hansard staff.

Bill Bridgman himself is a man of considerable humility and, as the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) has explained, his constant courtesy could well be emulated by those who as parliamentarians place such strains upon the Hansard staff. Hansard plays an extraordinarily important role in the British parliamentary system. We have immense privileges as members of Parliament, as those who make utterances within this place are not accountable elsewhere for anything they might say. That means that Hansard in its recording of those statements provides a continuing record, not just of the interplay between personalities but also of the whole of the interplay of policies and programs of successive governments. Hansard is therefore, in a very real form, a continuing historical record. Those who are responsible for preserving that historical record need to be looked at not just with a personal respect but also with a respect which accords with the tradition which they follow.

Mr Speaker, on behalf of the members of my Party I would like also to extend to Mr Ken Ingram our hope that he will assume the mantle of Principal Parliamentary Reporter if his health so permits. In particular I would like to wish Mr Bill Bridgman good health and many years of happiness in his retirement. Albeit without the same measure of writing, I trust that we will still see him from time to time in this place. If so, I know that he will always be most welcome.

Mr WENTWORTH:
Mackellar

-On behalf of the back bench I would like to join in the very deserved tributes that have been paid to Bill Bridgman. I think that only the honourable member for Hindmarsh (Mr Clyde Cameron) and I have been here since 1949. Of course, I have had little to say and have not been putting much burden on Hansard but I know that in my years of retirement when I look through the volumes of Hansard I will be asking: ‘Well, was I ever able to say that?’ My words will have been so much improved by the inimitable art of Mr

Bridgman. I have been associated with him particularly in the introduction of the daily Hansard and I recall with pleasure what he did in that regard. I do not think that without his encouragement and help we would ever have achieved that particular reform. I think that the honourable member for Hindmarsh is waiting to say something in this regard. He and I, as perhaps the longest serving members in this chamber at the present moment, would certainly wish to be associated in a tribute to what has been done for us.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

-Mr Speaker, it gives me a great deal of pleasure to be able to associate myself with your remarks and those of the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser), the Leader of the Opposition (Mr E. G. Whitlam), the Acting Leader of the National Country Party (Mr Sinclair) and the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Wentworth) in respect of Mr Bridgman. As the honourable member for Mackellar has pointed out, he and I are the longest serving members in the chamber this afternoon.

Mr E G Whitlam:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-Is this the South Australian member to whom the Prime Minister referred?

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

-No, it is not, but I am going to say something about your remarks. This is the second time that I have heard the Leader of the Opposition confess that somebody else has cut his lunch, the second time that he has said he had turned his eyes towards some vivacious girl with whom he attended school but whose attentions and affections drifted towards an officer of the Parliament instead of to himself. In this regard he shares something in common with the Prime Minister who, according to the National Times the week before last, was also twice rejected by a member of the fairer sex. This brings me to the most important achievement to which I think Mr Bridgman can lay claim- the introduction of women into the parliamentary reporting staff. I tried very hard to persuade Mr Campbell, who was the Principal Parliamentary Reporter when the honourable member for Mackellar and I first came to the Parliament, to do exactly that but he said that he just could not do it; it was not the place for women. As well, there were difficulties about ladies’ toilets which apparently presented some enormous problem that made it impossible to employ women in this job.

Women have introduced into this Parliament an element of refinement which we needed badly. They are an adornment to the place. It seems that we have not got into the habit of allowing women to be elected to the Parliament as members but it is very nice indeed that we do have women taking the shorthand. If I may say so, from my own experience, the records of what I say in the Parliament are usually fairly faithfully recorded in Hansard. There does not seem to be much alteration to them, or alteration does not appear to be as necessary in my case as the Prime Minister has found in his own. I have compared the reporting of the lady reporters with the reporting of men- I have made a note of this because it has been my aim in life to overcome the discrimination against women which has been characteristic of the human race down through the centuries- and I am bound to say that the women reporters in this House are on the whole better than the men. I was one who at a very early age recognised the value of women. I was not even able to sit up, speak or see. I have never ceased to recognise their great value.

Mr E G Whitlam:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– He was able to stand.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

-The honourable member ought to refrain from interjecting because there is something written on the bottom of my notes about you to which I might have to refer. I was the first Minister to appoint women to the Federal judiciary; the first Minister to appoint a woman as an arbitration commissioner I appointed two of them- and the first to insist upon the appointment of a female first assistant secretary.

If I may refer again to the National Times of the past weekend, I think it is nonsense to suggest that Sir Arthur Tange could tell the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser), when he was the Minister for Defence, that the Minister could not talk to his officers or that they could not talk to him. The Minister, of course, is in charge of his Department, as I made certain to emphasise when the appointment of first assistant secretaries came up in the Department of Labor and Immigration. I was the first Minister to insist upon the appointment of a woman to the executive of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation. So I have something in common with Mr Bridgman in my love for women.

Mr Bridgman has always been courteous and absolutely correct in his behaviour towards members. He has never attempted to show favouritism to one side or the other or to one member or another. He was, I think, in very essence a perfect public servant and a perfect servant of the Parliament. I think, Mr Speaker, his example is one which you could very well emulate. I conclude my few remarks by offering my good wishes to Mr Bridgman. I wish him a long and very happy retirement. I am sorry that he is not writing his memoirs because he could have perhaps swapped them with mine to see how they compared. It is a pity that men like Mr Bridgman, who know so much of the unwritten history of the nation, do not write it. They ought to, and I still hope that he will yet change his mind.

Mr SCHOLES:
Corio

-I should like to add some remarks to those already made. I had the opportunity of working with Mr Bridgman in a manner which is different from the experience of most members. I think I can say that he always presented himself and sought to do what was necessary in a manner which was so courteous and so responsive that it was almost an embarrassment to the person to whom he reported. He displayed enthusiasm for his job and did it with competence. The honourable member for Hindmarsh (Mr Clyde Cameron) said quite a deal. He indicated that Mr Bridgman should write his memoirs so that they could compare notes. There are 2 books- one allegedly and one certainlyabout a former Victorian, Mr John Wren, which are now being serialised. Those 2 books would most likely have as much in common as the 2 tomes referred to by the honourable member for Hindmarsh should they be written. Bill Bridgman has given service to this Parliament and far greater service to members than many of them really realise.

Mr HODGES:
Petrie

-Mr Speaker, I think it is appropriate that a member of more recent vintage and certainly one with a less chequered career than yourself and the 6 previous speakers should make a few comments on this occasion. Very pleasant duties such as this do not present themselves very frequently in this House. Today is one such occasion. I, as a back bencher and as the Chairman of the Joint Committee on Publications, should like to add a few remarks on this occasion when we are honouring the departure of Mr Bridgman after long service. I first met Mr Bridgman when I came to this House a couple of years ago. Briefings were being carried on for new members and apart from the Chief Librarian, Mr Bridgman, as the Principal Parliamentary Reporter, was present. As was stated by the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser), I found him to be very courteous, knowledgeable, pleasant and helpful in every way.

He was a very industrious worker. After listening to the lengthy list of all those recent strikes throughout this country given by the Minister for

Transport (Mr Nixon), I wondered whether Mr Bridgman had ever been on strike in his long term of office. I wonder whether he ever had a ‘sickie’ as distinct from a genuine illness. My guess is that probably the answer is no. In his 41 years of service here no doubt there would have been some very interesting incidents. I, like the honourable member for Hindmarsh (Mr Clyde Cameron), would hope that Mr Bridgman would reconsider his view and write his memoirs. I have spoken to him about this and I hope that he will reconsider the matter. Too frequently, long and dedicated and meritorious service goes unnoticed and unmentioned, particularly when performed by persons who have held a position such as Mr Bridgman held for so many years.

I wish him a lengthy retirement. I hope that he will come to Queensland and enjoy some of the sun and beautiful climate that we have to offer. I hope that he is spared for many years to do so and to grace the floors and corridors of Parliament House and to mix with the many friends he has made.

Mr SPEAKER:

- Mr Bridgman cannot speak, but I invite him to stand. On behalf of Mr Bridgman, I thank those who have spoken. While the honourable member for Hindmarsh was speaking the reporter who took most of his speech was the first lady reporter appointed to the Hansard staff. I think it was appropriate.

page 283

MEDIBANK

Discussion of Matter of Public Importance

Mr SPEAKER:

– I have received 2 letters, one from the Leader of the Opposition (Mr E. G. Whitlam) and the other from the honourable member for Hotham (Mr Chipp), proposing that definite matters of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion today. As required by standing order 107, 1 have selected one matter, that is, that proposed by the Leader of the Opposition, namely:

The Government’s failure to maintain Medibank.

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

Mr E G Whitlam:
Leader of the Opposition · WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– The Opposition moved motions of urgency on Medibank on 19 February and 18 May. Since then, the Government has surpassed even its own high standards of ineptitude and deception. The past 3 months have seen all the false promises repeated, all the muddle and inefficiency increased and extended, and all the people’s hopes for a just and fair system of universal health insurance recede still further.

The argument on Medibank comes down to this: A sensible and popular reform is being destroyed in defiance of the Government’s promises. A scheme which benefited the whole community is being sacrificed to benefit a few. A scheme which was clear, simple, and straightforward is being replaced by a scheme that is complex, confusing and uncertain. A scheme which was working well is being replaced by a scheme that is untried, untested and unnecessary. A scheme which the people wanted is being replaced by one which the doctors and the health funds want. A scheme which saved the taxpayers’ money is being replaced with a scheme which will take more from their pockets. From next October the Fraser Government will be taking hundreds of dollars a year from every taxpayer in Australia. And why? Why is all this being done? It is being done for no other reason than to appease the medical profession, to bolster doctors’ incomes and to preserve the moribund private health bureaucracies. A working, efficient and popular institution is being sacrificed to Liberal dogma about private enterprise.

There was not a word in the Liberal policy speech last November about this outlandish and cumbersome health scheme. There was not a word about ceilings or levies or options or any of the weird innovations since inflicted on the taxpayer. There was not a word about the Government’s stated intention of driving SO per cent or 60 per cent of the Australian people out of Medibank and into the private funds. Even after the basic Medibank Bills were passed at the joint sittings 2 years ago, the Liberals persisted in wanton, reckless obstruction. They still blocked the levy. They are now imposing a higher levy themselves. During the election only the right honourable member for Bruce- Mr Speakerwas honest in declaring the Fraser Government ‘s intentions. On 8 December he said:

Medibank is an area of massive expenditure which will have to be curtailed. People who use Medibank will have to make some contribution to it.

Mr Speaker was immediately repudiated by the caretaker Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) in these direct terms:

I have said repeatedly that essential programs in health, education and urban development will be maintained. Medibank will be maintained.

On 3 February the Prime Minister still explicitly was saying- this time to the Australian Financial Review:

YouVe got to look at it against a commitment to maintain Medibank and that’s not just a verbal use of the term ‘Medibank*. I think the concept of Medibank was endorsed.

So much for promises. We now know that the moment the election was over the Prime Minister set about doing exactly what Mr Speaker had suggested- exactly what the Prime Minister said he would not do. The Government justifies its vandalism and deception by the spurious argument that health costs are beyond what the community can afford. We have this phoney line that Medibank is a monster eating up taxpayers’ money. The fact is that Medibank will cost much less to operate than the system sought by the doctors and the private insurance industry. Administrative costs will not diminish; they will simply be transferred from Medibank to the private funds. Rather than one set of administrative costs there will be a whole series of overlapping administrative costs met by both Medibank and the private organisations. It costs more to run 100 funds than it does to run one. In 1 969 the Nimmo committeeestablished by a Liberal governmentcriticised the private funds for ‘the unduly high proportion of contributions absorbed in operating expenses’. This proportion averaged 14 per cent compared with administrative costs for Medibank of 4 per cent Under the new arrangements the expenses of the funds are likely to be higher, not less. The records of the funds are scanty and incomplete. Contributors moving from Medibank or between one fund and another will increase the costs of record keeping and administrative supervision. Staff group deductions will require additional commission charges. The overwhelming simplicity and efficiency of a universal health scheme, backed by computerised records and streamlined accounting procedures, will give way to appalling administrative complications after 1 October.

It is not only administrative costs that are bound to rise. The Government scheme will place no restraint on health costs generally. It is fatuous and dishonest for the Government to blame Medibank for the rising cost of health care. All over the world these costs are increasing, whatever health insurance system is used. The Minister for Health (Mr Hunt) speaks of waste and ‘over-utilisation’. He has given no evidence to support his claim. The few abuses by doctors of medical insurance procedures could never have been detected before Medibank was established; they can be detected under Medibank and they will again be undetectable if Medibank is destroyed or curtailed. The chief cause of high medical costs remains unchallenged by this Government- the system of feeforservice and the unrestricted right of doctors to charge what they like. The increasing costs of health care will not be reduced by getting rid of Medibank. All that Medibank can do is apportion those costs as fairly as possible throughout the community and eliminate unnecessary expense in insurance procedures. The only way to reduce the cost of health care is to reduce the availability of health care and the standard of health care for the majority of Australians, and that is precisely what the Fraser proposals entail.

People will simply pay more for less. That is what the attack on Medibank boils down to. For the vast majority of Australians costs will riseand rise sharply. The levy of 2.5 per cent is artificially high so that people will be driven out. Most Australians will pay more than they need to pay and many will pay more than they can afford. The wage earner on $ 100 a week will pay 90c a week more under the Government’s scheme than he would if the levy were 1.6 per cent and the whole community were paying. The man earning $ 1 50 a week will pay an extra $ 1 .34 and the man on $200 a week an extra $1.80. All told the family man on $9,000 a year will have to find $4.32 a week or $225 a year after 1 October. Not only that, but doctors who bulk bill will be able to charge an additional amount above the 85 per cent of the scheduled fee. Under Medibank, doctors who bulk billed had to accept the 85 per cent as full payment. The Fraser Government will let them collect the rest. In other words, it is sanctioning a back-door increase in doctors’ fees. If doctors who bulk bill take advantage of the Government’s offer the community will pay another $30m for medical care. That is how the Fraser Government cuts the cost of health bills and eliminates waste and extravagance.

As usual, the poorer sections of the community will pay more than the better off. That is a universal principle of Fraser Government policies. The levy of 2.5 per cent will put a much heavier burden on low income groups. They will pay 2.5 per cent of their income but those who opt outeven those who are forced out- will pay a lower proportion. The lower income earners left in Medibank will pay more to maintain the scheme. Private health fund contributors will be exempt. Everyone in the community uses and benefits from emergency health services and the teaching facilities of the large public hospitals. The lower paid Medibank contributors will be subsidising the provision of these sources for the rest of the community.

The Government’s muddling and deception have continued right throughout the recent spate of last-minute compromises and innovations. In

June the Government met understandable protest about the injustice of the levy by announcing that Medibank would be allowed to compete with the private funds in insuring against intermediate and private ward costs. It was obvious that families above $ 10,000 a year that wanted this extra insurance would be driven out of Medibank by the size of the levy. They would have had no choice at all. The Government responded to this injustice by devising an alternative Medibank private insurance scheme. It was a typical Liberal confidence trick. On 8 June the Prime Minister promised that Medibank (Private Insurance) would compete on ‘equal terms’ with the private funds. I will quote his exact words:

Medibank will be able to compete on equal terms with private funds . . . The Government has decided to give authority to Medibank so that it can operate as a private insurer in fair competition with other registered organisations . . . The Government is determined to ensure that Medibank remains available to every Australian. This will enable full and open competition between Medibank and the private funds.

On top of all the falsehood and trickery that had gone before here was yet another deception. We soon discovered what the Prime Minister meant by ‘fair competition’. He meant Medibank would be priced out of business. When he said there would be ‘equal terms’ he meant that some terms would be more equal than others. When he spoke of ‘open competition’ he meant that Medibank rates would be announced first and the funds could follow later with their cut price rates. In the event, every private health fund was able to announce charges for private and intermediate cover which were significantly lower than Medibank and were made possible by the $250m in reserves which the funds have accumulated from their contributors. Some funds announced rates of $1.40 less than Medibank rates. The smallest difference is 30c. As early as 1 5 July my colleague the honourable member for Maribyrnong (Dr Cass) stated:

Newspaper reports confirm that the private funds are waiting to hear the official Medibank (Private Insurance) rates before setting their rates. If the Minister were really committed to the principle of full and open competition the premium rates for Medibank (Private Insurance) and the funds would be published simultaneously.

People are still confused about what fund to join and what their protection will be. They have no clear idea of their rights and prospects under the Fraser Government’s health scheme. The Government spent half a million dollars in May on a pamphlet to explain its changes, then tore up the pamphlet. It is now spending another half a million dollars to explain its mistakes. All that people know for certain is that they are paying more than necessary and as time goes on they will be paying more than they are this year.

The Minister for Health said at the weekend that the levy would be reviewed next year. Of course it will; it will go up. That is the only certainty in this whole sorry affair. The Government has ensured that under a multiplicity of private schemes the cost of medical insurance- private or otherwise- will escalate in the same wasteful fashion as those of all other forms of compulsory insurance; and those costs will be passed on and they will go up every year. The mounting annual burdens of third party and workers compensation insurance- two other forms of compulsory insurance- will be a permanent feature of health insurance, this new form of compulsory insurance. That will be so whether doctors cooperate or not.

The only way out of the present mess is to scrap the Government’s proposals and to revert to Medibank as the Labor Government introduced it, as the people endorsed it, and as the Prime Minister repeatedly promised to maintain it, both before the elections and after. The alternative is inequity, inefficiency, mounting costs and diminishing standards. The Government knows that. It is the victim of its own obsessions, its own record of mindless obstruction, its obligations- stated and implied- to these ramshackle health funds and professional pressure groups. If it has any concern for the welfare of the Australian people, it will admit its mistakes and think again. There is still time to save Medibank from destruction and the Government from its ultimate humiliation. There is still time to put the health of the people first. I ask the Prime Minister to show a little of the honesty, the candour and the responsibility he likes to claim for himself and his pathetic Administration. I ask him to face the facts. If he does not, Medibank, the great legacy of the Labor Government, will be the nemesis of this Government.

Mr HUNT:
Minister for Health · Gwydir · NCP/NP

– The Opposition sees Medibank as the cure-all and the cover-up for its weakness and impotence in defeat. It is amazing how many sections of the community and how many people have tried to rip off Medibank. As is clearly shown by todays debate and by comments made in recent days, the Opposition seeks to gain the maximum political advantage in surrounding Medibank with a cloud of emotionalism and anxiety. Notwithstanding the fact that the President of the Australian Labor Party, Mr Hawke, the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) and I have in recent days joined Medibank Private, we face here today a matter of public importance introduced by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr E. G. Whitlam) in these terms:

The Government’s failure to maintain Medibank.

The Opposition cares nothing for 50 per cent of the population, including millions of pensioners and low and medium wage and salary earners who will remain with Medibank standard. It is doing its best either deliberately or by default to undermine confidence in Medibank, especially in Medibank Private insurance. If one listened to the statements from the Opposition over recent days one would think that it wanted people to join the private health funds rather than Medibank Private. Late last week the Leader of the Opposition belatedly realised that his Party’s attacks on Medibank Private had gone too far. Realising the foolishness of his act, he added to a long and critical motion before the Labor Party’s Federal Executive a statement of support for Medibank Private. It did not receive the prominence given to the rest of the distorted nonsense about Medibank which we have been hearing from the Opposition. Let me defend Medibank Private. (Quorum formed)

It is rather incredible that the Opposition has to get a quorum in order to support its own discussion of a matter of public importance on Medibank. As I said earlier, late last week the Leader of the Opposition belatedly realised that his Party’s attacks on Medibank had gone too far and he issued a long statement supporting Medibank Private. It has been these irresponsible statements that lead me to try to defend Medibank Private in the market. The rates for Medibank Private were calculated on the best actuarial advice by Medibank itself. The only action taken by the Government was to give a subsidy estimated to cost $ 15m to keep the cost of premiums for shared room intermediate ward hospital accommodation within the reach of low and medium income families. That subsidy is available to all private health insurance funds. We took that action because 70 per cent of the Australian people had already taken out extra insurance above standard Medibank. Many families did that because they wanted to be treated by their own doctor in hospital. The Government had a genuine concern to ensure that people were not denied that choice.

The Opposition’s suggestion that Medibank Private will deliberately run dead is a direct reflection on the dedicated and enthusiastic people of the Medibank organisation- people who cannot defend themselves from political attack. I wonder why on earth the Australian Labor Party continues to attack Medibank and continues to create doubt in peoples minds as to whether they should or should not support it. The Opposition is concentrating its publicity on the private health fund rates for private room and private hospital insurance. It must know that only 20 per cent of the Australian people- mostly those on the higher incomes- seek that form of insurance; 80 per cent of the people covered by private funds are insured at intermediate ward level of hospital cover. That is the level of cover that most people want. In that area both Medibank Private and the private health funds have very similar rates. Medibank is very competitive, and will continue to be very competitive, in the efficiency of its service and the speed with which it can process its claims. We make no apology for having announced at the time we did the actuarially estimated premiums, which were worked out with the Health Insurance Commission and our actuaries, to try to allay some of the public concern that was being expressed about how much it would cost. Instead of attempting to confuse and to frighten people for its own political motives, the Opposition should get wholeheartedly behind Medibank and ensure that Medibank ‘s new fund has a fair chance and a fair go.

The real cause of the Opposition’s complaint is its usual narrow-mined hatred of any kind of competition or any kind of choice. By their own admission some private funds will have to dip into their reserves. No one can deny that that is good news for the public. That certainly is a direct result of Medibanks entry into the private health insurance business. It is high time that the Opposition stopped trying to turn back the clock and accepted the fact that the Government has made its final decisions and that the new health insurance arrangements will take affect from 1 October. There will be 3 choices. The first, of course, will be standard Medibank as it is now, and the second will be standard Medibank plus basic hospital-only private insurance which is available to people to day. The .third choice will be complete medical and hospital private insurance cover. The people who choose this cover will pay the premium but they will not pay the levy. Those 3 basic choices are quite straightforward. They are similar, as I said earlier, to the choices that are available today.

The 2 principal changes are that everybody except those on the lowest incomes, most pensioners and certain defence personnel and repatriation beneficiaries and those who privately insure, will be paying 2Vi per cent of their taxable incomes towards meeting the cost of some of their health care. They will pay according to their means, up to a ceiling of $300 a year for a family and $ ISO for an individual. The second change is that people will be able to take out both medical and hospital insurance cover from Medibank Private or any other registered private health fund. They will pay the insurance premiums but not the 2 Vi per cent levy.

The Government announced its fiscal policy decisions on 20 May, including the full indexation of personal income tax, the generous family allowances and the modifications that we are talking about today. During that low key debate the Opposition congratulated the Government on numerous occasions. Medibank Mark 1 certainly achieved universal health insurance but it did so at the expense of largely ignoring the need for economy and efficiency in overall health care. The changes we have made will save Medibank from destroying itself by the uncontrolled explosion of costs. The promise by the Leader of the Opposition to restore Medibank Mark 1 is nothing more than a recipe for Medibank ‘s self destruction. The lesson of defeat has taught him nothing. If he is not attacking His Excellency the Governor-General or the Chief Justice of the High Court, he is attacking Medibank.

The Government’s decisions on Medibank were taken as a result of the reports and recommendations of the Medibank Review Committee. That Committee was established in January against a background of allegations of abuses and rip-offs, allegations of over-use of medical and health services, and against a background of exploding health care costs in Australia. The cost argument cannot be ignored by any responsible government. In this financial year alone total health care costs are estimated to explode to $5,400m or $ 1,000m more than last year’s total export returns from iron ore, coal, wool, wheat and meat. The rise in health care costs is far in excess of the general high rise in inflation. Doctor’s incomes have risen by record amounts under Medibank.

What is the argument all about? The Australian Labor Party argues that there should be a special levy to help fund universal health cover. Although the Opposition opposed the levy during the last session, the Leader of the Opposition now supports a straight levy of 1 .8 per cent on all incomes. It is interesting to note that in 1972 in the policy speech that he gave there was no mention whatsoever of a levy. The Government rejected a straight levy because it would have done nothing but perpetuate a system of runaway costs. Under the straight levy, the government of the day would have been forced continually to increase the percentage level in a fruitless chase after costs. If I was reported as saying, as the Leader of the Opposition has said, that the Government will increase the 2Vi per cent levy, that is quite incorrect. The Government will not increase or change the 2V4 per cent levy, but from time to time it will adjust the ceiling amounts that will be payable.

The evidence for this is provided by the experience of the Opposition itself in regard to the levy. When the Opposition first proposed Medibank the levy was to be a straight 1.25 per cent. Then it became 1.35 per cent. This year the proposal was up to 1.6 per cent. Now the Leader of the Opposition has raised the proposed figure to 1.8 per cent. Under the straight levy system there would be no way in the world that a government could maintain the levy at a percentage level because as costs exploded underneath that levy the percentage levy would have to increase. We have adopted the optional system for 4 very good reasons. Firstly, we recognise that 70 per cent of the Australian people are already privately insured. Secondly, we recognise that competition will be encouraged between the public and the private insurance systems. Thirdly, we sought to preserve private practice and the desired relationship between the patient and the doctor. Lastly, we sought to reduce the burden of costs on Consolidated Revenue by $800m in a full year, and separate the costs in a more equitable manner to the people.

Of course, the biggest subsidy will go to those on low and medium incomes and those who suffer from chronic illness. The lower the income, the higher the subsidy. This is clearly shown by the fact that under the Medibank levy the average person staying with Medibank will contribute only 18 per cent towards his health costs. Those taking out full private cover will contribute about 70 per cent towards those costs. So I think it is absolutely incredible for us to be discussing this subject as a matter of public importance.

The fact of the matter is that Medibank has been maintained. The Government has maintained 3 basic principles to which it committed itself. Firstly, Medibank has been maintained and broadened. Universal health insurance remains. Everyone will remain covered automatically for full medical care and standard ward treatment in hospital. Pensioners dependent on pensions and those on the lowest incomes will pay no levy. Every Australian resident is entitled to those benefits unless he voluntarily chooses to take out private cover with a health fund.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock)Order. The Minister’s time has expired.

Dr CASS:
Maribyrnong

-The main rationale for the Liberal Government’s so-called improvements to the Labor Government’s Medibank was to constrain the mounting costs of Medibank. With this simplistic view, which the Minister for Health (Mr Hunt) has repeated today, of the cause of mounting health costs, namely the cost of Medibank, the simpleton solutions were obvious for a Liberal Government with its ideological blinkers on- just drive people out of Medibank and at the same time impose a tax on those who stay in it; but do not call it a tax, call it a levy. So the Government does not have to find money out of tax revenue to pay for those who are forced out of Medibank; and for those who stay in, the poorer section of the community, they pay for it themselves through the high levy imposed on them. Hey presto! The cost of Medibank, against the usual taxation revenue, that is, has been dramatically reduced and so the cost of a program which was going to bankrupt the country has been curtailed. Who do supporters of the Liberal Government think they are fooling other than themselves? Quite contrary to their claims, the basic cost of health services to the community will be unchanged in that the cost of doctor and hospital charges will be the same. Added to this basic cost is the cost of the administrative system devised to collect the money from the community and to pay it to the providers of the health services. Under the Labor Government’s Medibank system the administration was relatively simple. Everyone pays tax, so the collection of funds from the community for all medical refunds under Medibank and to pay the cost of standard ward care in public hospitals required no, or a negligible, additional administrative cost. If additional money was required, all that had to be done was to increase the rate of tax, still with no additional administrative cost.

Under the Liberal Government’s proposal a separate levy has to be assessed and collected by the Taxation Office from those who stay in Medibank. That will require additional administrative costs. Because there is a ceiling to the levy, people have to make decisions, and hence choices, about whether they opt out of the levy and pay the ceiling, depending on their individual and family incomes, and whether they opt for intermediate or private cover with Medibank. This all represents added administrative costs to them and Medibank, costs not incurred under Labor’s Medibank.

Under Labor’s Medibank those wishing to take out additional insurance for intermediate or private ward accommodation could do so by simply joining a private fund of their choice. There was no limitation of that freedom of choice. This represented no additional administrative cost for Medibank, which automatically provided the same cover for medical services as will now be provided under the new system, and also provided automatic cover for standard ward care. Most of those wanting intermediate or private ward cover, as the Minister has mentioned, were already in private benefit funds. Therefore no additional cost was incurred with the introduction of Medibank, as far as administrative costs to the funds are concerned.

Now, with the new Liberal proposals we will have to decide between Medibank and more than 100 private funds. When people choose a private fund they will opt out of Medibank. That means that Medibank will be involved in additional costs in updating its membership lists. At the same time, the Taxation Office has to be informed of movements from Medibank to private funds and vice versa. This will require additional administrative effort and, hence, additional costs. Initially, the Liberal Government proposed that the funds would have to advise the Taxation Office. The funds complained early and now, as I understand it, the burden is to be imposed on Medibank and the Taxation Office. This increased cost- an unnecessary administrative cost- will make Medibank look less efficient in relation to the funds whereas under our Medibank plan the government service was clearly much more efficient than that offered by private funds. The administrative costs of Medibank were less than 4 per cent. The administrative costs of the private funds were about IS per cent.

Mr Baillieu:

– That is not correct.

Dr CASS:

– Some administrative costs were much higher. That is true. I suggest to the honourable member that he read the Nimmo report and the reports presented by the Government on the whole financing of the private sector. He will see that the administrative costs are IS per cent. The honourable member should not lie to himself. None of this takes into account the additional waste of money with the enormous advertising campaigns now being waged by the funds and Medibank Private, all of which add to the contributors ‘ costs. That means all of us.

For Medibank alone, we had the first abortive pamphlet which cost more than $150,000. It had to be withdrawn because it was misleading. Now more than $500,000 is being spent by the Government in an attempt to explain all the changes- without pointing out the increased costs, I might add. Still more government money is being spent in advising people to leave Medibank and join private funds. At the same time Medibank Private spends more public money wooing customers back. To all this must be added the contributors ‘ money being spent by the funds themselves in their advertising endeavours to coax people to join a particular fund. None of this takes into account the loss to the community in the destroyed potential for Medibank to provide the Government with real statistics for the first time on the state of health services for the whole community. It was the potential for the Medibank computer to provide truly comprehensive figures for the whole of the Australian community which was such a valuable spin-off, as it were, without significant additional administrative costs. It is this information which is vital if any government is to do anything intelligent about the planning of our future health service needs. All that is destroyed by the Liberal Government changes to the Labor Medibank scheme. So much for the administrative skills, wisdom and foresight of the businessman’s government- the Liberal Government.

Finally, I should like to deal with the one remaining advantage claimed for the changes to Medibank by the Liberals. The Government claims that the freedom of choice will improve the health services for the community. From what I have said it is clear that there will certainly be no improvement but rather the reverse, as far as administrative costs are concerned. How about the basic costs- the cost of doctors’ bills and hospital charges? The changes will tend to increase these costs for a number of reasons. Firstly, the potential statistical surveillance to be provided by the Medibank computer has now been destroyed. This means that in those areas where there were abuses, the abusing doctors or patients will go undetected. I have been told that the incomes of some unscrupulous doctors have soared to well over $100,000 a year. Such incomes in a profession dependent on personal exertion are impossible without fraud. When the Government destroys the computer it will not detect such abuses. Such abuse was going on and it will increase, even with the modifications being proposed now.

A possible restraint proffered by the Liberal Government is the fact that if doctors raise thenfees the private funds, which will be carrying the cost of medical refunds- which they did not have to carry under the Labor Medibank scheme- will have to raise their contribution rates. This may make private insurance too expensive and people will be forced back into Medibank standard. This will mean that doctors will lose their private hospital patients. That is the theory. The argument so put by the Liberals is dishonest, as we have the assurance by the Government that the Medibank levy will be reviewed.

Mr Hunt:

-Not the levy.

Dr CASS:

– The disciplinary effect on the doctors would work only if the Medibank levy remained static. I take it that the Minister for Health did not say that but I am afraid that the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Street) argued that the levy would be reviewed.

Mr Hunt:

– He was talking about the ceilings.

Dr CASS:

– That is not the way I read his report. The increase in costs would be borne either by the patients themselves having to pay increasing gaps between rebates and bills or the Medibank refund would have to be increased. If the Medibank refund increases that will increase the cost to the general taxation revenue unless the Medibank levy is increased. This the Liberals have promised already to review- a euphemism for ‘raise’. Thus patients will not be financially encouraged to return to Medibank. To stop the complaints of people finding that they have ever widening gaps between bills and rebates, the funds and Medibank will simply increase contribution rates. It has no restraining effect on the doctors’ fees, the real and basic cost of health services. Quite apart from all that, which I think is superficial to the basic argument as far as the Australian community is concerned- the quality of health care and none of this has anything to do with the quality of health care- it is only an argument about how the bills are paid. The so-called competition between the various funds has nothing to do with the quality of health care. It is only a competition between one fund and another and Medibank and Medibank Private over who will handle the money. That in no way controls the distribution of medical services or their quality.

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

Mr CHIPP:
Hotham

-I am pleased to support the Government most strongly in this debate and to speak against the comments made by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr E. G. Whitlam) and the honourable member for Maribyrnong (Dr Cass). I cannot really say with truth that I am speaking from the highest point of objectivity when I support the Government on this measure because the new Medibank scheme is almost identical, if not identical, to the health scheme . which I wrote for the Liberal and National Country parties in May 1974. Therefore, I am obliged to say that it is a fantastic scheme. I say at the outset, picking up a couple of the comments, that this is essentially why I rise today- to identify myself with whatever support I have, from the public and to support the Government very strenuously. I compliment the Minister for Health (Mr Hunt). In the face of unbelievable difficulties when he took over this job, he has made a splendid effort in producing a first class scheme.

I should also like to place on record the fact that I will not be a trendy or what is now known as fashionable by joining Medibank. It is all very well for people like Mr Hawke, the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) and others on a similar level of salary to be opting for the dearest fund. Being an impoverished backbencher, I will have to shop around and join the fund which is most economic for me and my family. As it appears at the moment, that will not be the Medibank private fund but it will in fact be one of the private health funds.

One of the quaintest parts of the speech of the Leader of the Opposition- I think it was unbelievable- was his berating the private health funds for undercutting Medibank. For years the private health funds have in fact been the target of the Labor Party. The Labor Party has an obsession about the private health funds. It is a manic obsession. Members of the Labor Party pour out hymns of hatred against the private health funds in the same way and in the same breath as they pour out hatred against the multi-national corporations. The Labor Party does not bother to remind people that the private health funds are not huge profit making multinational corporations. They are, in fact, cooperatives of millions of ordinary people. If it is a matter of judgment, without going into figures, I am a liberal because I have this passionate belief that private enterprise can perform functions, generally speaking, cheaper and more efficiently than public enterprise. Therefore, I believe that there is a place in health insurance- we are not talking about health care but we are talking about Medibank- for the private sector to use the expertise which it has acquired over the years.

The Leader of the Opposition (Mr E. G. Whitlam) I believe- and I do not want to be too rude- was blatantly dishonest when he said, speaking about the levy, that the Fraser Government would be taking hundreds of dollars from each taxpayer each year to pay doctors and private hospitals. Of course we will do that, but what in the name of fortune was the Medibank concept under Labor doing? Labor was doing precisely the same thing in the form of taxes. I think it is a very poor political debating point for the Leader of the Opposition to try to hoodwink the Australian people by saying: ‘Now you have to pay for it. Under the Labor Administration you did not have to pay for Medibank’. I believe that the good sense of the Australian people will regard that as a most absurd proposition and will reject it immediately. Quite often I am not terribly proud to be a politician because of the way some politicians behave. I sat here today a bit sickened to hear 2 Labor speakers criticising the Liberal and Country Party Government at the moment for spending half a million dollars on advertising Medibank.

Mr King:

– Who said that?

Mr CHIPP:

– The honourable member can name them if he wishes. I do not propose to do so. The 2 men who said that, were members of a Ministry which spent almost $2m of taxpayers’ money in publicising their own discredited health scheme. If they wanted to do that, that was fair enough. But after their having done that it makes me a little sick to hear them criticising us for doing the same thing at a quarter of the cost. They complained about the changes that have taken place to Medibank. I compliment the Government for not being intractable on this. The Government brought out a scheme as an amendment to Medibank and then there were strong representations from Mr Hawke and the Australian Council of Trade Unions to change it. The Government did change it. Is the Government going to be criticised for consultation with the trade union movement? That was the reason why the original brochures, whatever they cost, had to be reprinted. If governments continue to consult people like the ACTU I think that is a progressive move and not one to be criticised by the Labor Party.

In passing I make this point not only about Medibank. I am continually pressing that this Parliament be given Green Papers and White Papers to debate rather than having faits accomplis presented to us, as happened with Medibank. If ever there was a classic case for a Green Paper to be presented on a matter and a joint select parliamentary committee to investigate it, it was Medibank. I express my disappointment that this was not done. I believe in this scheme. I believe it will result in economies in health insurance and in health care. I can see nothing wrong with competition. In fact I have been an advocate for competition ever since I have been in the Parliament. The health scheme that I introduced on behalf of the Liberal and Country Party in mid- 1974 had in it the proposition that there should be competition between the private health funds and a government health fund. This has worked extraordinarily well in the airline field.

Is there anybody here who will deny that Trans-Australia Airlines functions more efficiently and more economically because it has competition from Ansett Airlines of Australia, or vice versa? Not a person in this place would deny that proposition. There might have been a few reactionaries way back. Who would deny that the ANZ Bank and the Bank of New South Wales perform more efficiently and economically because they have the Commonwealth Trading Bank of Australia to keep them honest and competitive. Is not that what it is all about? That is what Medibank is now. People have a choice. I believe that the rates announced by Medibank are honest figures. There seemed to be a suggestion from the Leader of the Opposition that they were cooked, that they were deliberately inflated so that the private health funds could undercut them and thus destroy Medibank. But as the Minister asked, why are they knocking Medibank? More than SO per cent of the people- millions of pensioners and millions of people on low incomes- will be served by Medibank. This will give a chance for competition to enter this field.

I would despair if the health insurance field were left to a government monopoly because I am vitally interested in social welfare. I have been publicly critical of some of the cutbacks that this Government has made in social welfare because I believe that from humanitarian and cost benefit points of view cutbacks in some areas are not sound common sense. However, in this area I completely support the Government’s proposal because I believe it will result in economies to the taxpayer, thus allowing the Government to enter those other areas of social reform.

If Medibank had been allowed to continue in its present form, according to the figures I have, it would have devoured about one-tenth of the total money collected by the Government this year. That would have pre-empted any kind of progressive social reforms in other areas for years to come, as has happened in the United Kingdom and in other countries. I therefore commend the Government for what it has done in a most difficult area. I do not believe that the people of Australia would share with the Labor

Party its concern about this matter, and I support the Government.

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

Mr HAYDEN:
Oxley

-With becoming modesty the honourable member for Hotham (Mr Chipp) restrained himself to describing as fantastic the arrangements on Medibank which have been before the Parliament on several occasions and which are being discussed today. He went on to establish beyond any doubt justification for that on the ground that he had originally proposed them. It seems to me to be a particularly appropriate description of the quality of proposal before us, especially if it was associated at some early stage with the honourable member for Hotham.

I quickly looked up the Concise Oxford Dictionary to make sure my recollection was reliable. It gives the meaning of ‘fantastic’ as extravagantly fanciful, capricious, eccentric, grotesque, and so on. I do not like to relate the qualities of the scheme too closely with the honourable member for Hotham, but there it is. We have it right from the horse’s mouth, as it were. I want to say one thing before I move on to the main observations I wish to make today, and that is that although we on this side of the House consistently disagree with the honourable member for Hotham, we respect his integrity and directness with which he puts his case. We also recognise that he is about the only honourable member on the Government side of the House who knows what he is talking about when he says something on this topic. The great tragedy of his political life is that he was sacrificed for being honest. He said that there were many occasions when being a politician made him ill and disgusted. He said that many other unpleasant experiences were his lot. I can understand why that is so, because being honest in the Liberal Party does not pay.

Honourable members will remember, as the public does not forget, that in the election campaign the now Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) gave a firm guarantee that Medibank in its existing form would be preserved. The honourable member for Hotham, because he is a man of integrity, could not comfortably bear with that deception. He bluntly told the Australian public: ‘Return us to office and we will dismantle it’. Medibank is being dismantled and the honourable member is paying the price for being honest during the course of the election campaign. We on this side of the House are sincerely sorry that this unfortunate experience has fallen to his lot. We rather hope that justice in the course of events will see him a Minister again and I sincerely trust that the growing number of back bench members of the Liberal Party who are promoting him as a future, and fairly immediate future, Prime Minister of the present Government have some success in the manoeuvres they are undertaking.

The Minister for Health- or is it Minister for pedestrian affairs; I cannot quite recollect because I am confused as between his description and his performance- likes to refer to Medibank Mark 1 and Medibank Mark 2 as though there is some sort of progress. It is like proceeding from a modern limousine to a clapped-out model T Ford. We are going back in time. The Minister for Health (Mr Hunt) is a man born well after his time. He wants to take us back to the discredited system of private health insurance. He and his Government want to do deals with the Australian Medical Association. Most important of all, what they are really about is the deceitful concealment of nothing more than a substantial increase in personal taxation.

The honourable member for Hotham tried to suggest that because the Labor Government paid for Medibank out of general revenue- we certainly did; we confessed it openly; it was quite apparent- the present Government is justified in doing the same thing. But it is not doing the same thing. It is not reducing taxes in any way at all. It is substantially increasing taxes, and the Medibank levy is, in fact, a Medibank tax. It is a special, earmarked tax which has been introduced for several reasons- as part of the Government’s fiscal philosophy, as an effort to get around wage and tax indexation and as a device to avoid paying the full obligation it would otherwise have to discharge to the States of a proportion of all tax revenue raised in this country. We can reasonably expect, as time goes by, that there will be more of these special, earmarked taxes masquerading under various descriptions which will be excluded from divvying up with the States under the so-called new Federal financial arrangements. The Medibank tax represents a hike of about 9 per cent in personal taxation for the average income earner.

Mr Baillieu:

– Would you explain that to us?

Mr HAYDEN:

– It is a very simple piece of arithmetic I will sit down with you and do it on a piece of paper. I promise to use monosyllables for you and even to say words 3 times to help it seep in. It helps to explain why, although the

Government is projecting, comparatively, only a 12 per cent increase in average weekly earnings and at most a 2 per cent increase in the work force, there will be an increase of at least 25 per cent in net pay-as-you-earn income tax collections. That is the highest rate of increase in revenue collections from personal income tax in my memory. This is the Government that said it would put money back in people’s pockets. This is the Government that even now, in the Budget Speech, is stating that its aim is to give people more command or more control over the money that goes into their pockets. They have less control than ever before. More will go in taxes. There will be less available for discretionary, disposable income purposes. Almost everyone will be worse off as a result of the Medibank levy and the so-called innovations in child endowment. By and large, the innovations in child endowment reach relatively few people. They represent nothing more than a sideways shuffle of a rebate system that the Labor Government introduced. On top of this, the imposition of the Medibank tax means that almost everybody will be worse off as a result of the Government’s proposal.

This tax will have undesirable economic effects. Not only will it provoke industrial unrest in the community as wage and salary earners realise how their disposable income has been substantially reduced week by week from 1 October as a result of the special tax for Medibank being imposed on them, but also trade unions will try to offset its effect on the living standards of their members. In the case of the celling amount of $300 a year- a contribution of nearly $6 a week- this will represent the unions seeking an increase in wages of about $9 a week which will be required before tax to offset the effect of the Medibank levy. It will contract consumer demand because it will reduce the amount of money that people have available to buy goods. This is not good news for business at present. It will aggravate inflationary pressures. The consumer price index in the December quarter will go up by about 4 per cent as a direct result of the emasculation of Medibank and the increases in other health service charges for which the Government has been responsible. The Government says that it is a government that aims to reduce the cost of living for people, to put more money back into their pockets and to reduce the government charges that the public has had to bear. The Government will be nearly $900m better off in a full year as a result of the brutality it has directed against the Medibank program. If it is to be nearly $900m a year better off, someone will be worse off, and we do not have to be very clever to guess who will be worse off. The someones who will have to meet that $900m will be the wage and salary earners in the community.

I find it quite unacceptable that the proposal is not only the restoration of the quite unsatisfactory and totally discredited system of private health insurance, but also that as part and parcel of the resurrection of that unsatisfactory system a $65m subsidy- a generous transfusion of liquid gold into the hardened arteries of the discredited private health insurance system- will start off the system. We will be back on the old roundabout that we were on before where the taxpayers must bear greater and greater burdens to support an increasingly inefficient and unsatisfactory system. What we are really debating, more than anything else, is the credibility of the Government. To gain office, the Government made many promises. Among the many promises it made was a firm guarantee to preserve Medibank and reduce the costs that the public has to bear. It has dishonoured both those promises.

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

Mr LLOYD:
Murray

– It says little for the standard of debate by the Opposition that the closing speaker has to re-state the subject. Before I do so, I suggest that in any future debates on Medibank the Leader of the Opposition (Mr E. G. Whitlam) and the honourable member for Oxley (Mr Hayden) get together beforehand and sort out the level of levy they want and how they would finance Medibank if they were in power. To re-state the subject, it is the Government’s failure to maintain Medibank. What is Medibank? Medibank is universal health insurance. It provides 3 basic things. One is universal cover, the second is automatic cover, and the third is no means test at point of entry to the health care system. Medibank overcomes the previous problems that older schemes had of not being completely universal, of time lags for entitlements and so forth. All of the 3 principles have been retained under the revised Medibank scheme. It is universal. Everyone must belong, either to Medibank or to a private health insurance fund for hospital and medical benefits. That is checked out through the tax system. It is automatic. If a person does not belong to a private fund he is automatically covered or must be covered by Medibank through the tax system. Whether he pays a levy depends on his income level. Many people who belong to Medibank will not pay the levy. I refer to pensioners and people with taxable incomes, on a family basis, of up to $4,300. That is Medibank. All of us agree that those things should remain.

We have maintained Medibank. Not only have we maintained it, we have maintained the Health Insurance Commission, its officers, its agent and its computer. Furthermore, all sides agree on the need for a levy. Even the Australian Council of Trade Unions and the real leader of the debate against the Government in this matter, Mr Hawke, agree that there should be a levy. One suspects that the rather hurried introduction of this matter of public importance today, which has fallen flatter than any pancake I could ever cook, was brought about by the need for the parliamentary Party to regain some of the ground which was lost because of what Mr Hawke was doing during the parliamentary recess.

Mr King:

– He is the real leader of the Labor Party.

Mr LLOYD:

-He is the real leader, I think. The real debate on Medibank is actually on the degree or the percentage of the private and the public shares of the medical and hospital sector, the freedom of choice available to patients, the level of the levy, the cost containment procedures, the correction of anomalies evident in the original scheme and the updating of cost and other procedures due to the passage of time. Any other argument that the Opposition puts forward, other than these degrees of public and private and so forth, is an emotional rather than a factual argument and is hiding the basic situation that Medibank has been maintained. To indicate that this is not a biased or narrow view I want to quote from the summarised Press release of the Australian Hospitals Association, a body recognised by all sides as being independent. Its chairman is Mr Royce Kronborg, who is recognised by both sides as neutral in this matter. This is what the Association says:

The Australian Hospitals Association applauds the Government’s attempt to come to grips with the alarming rise in health costs by challenging the providers of health services to play the major role in this vital area. Failure to do so will inevitably result in diminution of the private sector component and increased government involvement. Such initiatives are long overdue and would have been necessary irrespective of the introduction of Medibank.

The changes to Medibank will have the following effects:

. Preserve the concept of universal health insurance.

Attempt to distribute the costs of health care equitably between those unable to pay and those able to pay.

By introducing a levy promote public awareness of health care costs.

Introduce means to promote cost containment and the removal of the open ended financing arrangements.

Share administrative responsibilities of running health insurance between the public and private sectors.

Allow charges to privately insured patients for diagnostic services in hospitals.

That is the independent affirmation of the point we make. It makes a farce of this debate initiated by the Opposition. Medibank in those 3 basic aspects has been maintained, and I believe we have improved it in several ways. I deal first with the public versus private share of health care. The previous Medibank, by its bias against the private sector, particularly religious and other charitable hospitals, sought to change the balance permanently. This was contrary to the will of the Australian people, 70 per cent of whom maintained private health insurance and showed their confidence in the private health funds. The previous Medibank increased pressure on public beds to the detriment of pensioners and low income earners. It would have required over a period a massive injection of scarce capital into the construction of additional public hospital beds when private hospitals, religious hospitals, were closing when they had beds available.

The second improvement is in the freedom of choice. This is connected with the argument on public versus private share of the health care system. The revised Medibank of this Government provides people with a far more adequate freedom of choice than was previously so. There is Medibank itself, there is Medibank plus hospital cover, and there is complete private health insurance. This is a simple and adequate freedom of choice and is essential for the continuation of the private patient and doctor relationship which is desired by the vast majority of Australians.

One of the worst features of Labor’s version of Medibank was that it allowed open-ended cost escalation. The new version of Medibank, or Medibank Mark II, as the minister called it, will cost $800m less than the original would have cost this year. The actual cost in the Budget papers is $407m more than last year. So if the original Medibank had continued, the cost to the Australian taxpayer would have been frightening. One can criticise the present Medibank for a preoccupation, similar to that of the original Medibank, with trying to fit a health delivery system around a set of health insurance arrangements. What I believe we really should be doing is deciding what type of health care arrangements we really want and building the payment system around that. However, the new Medibank breaks new ground in that for the first time cost containment, competition and accountability are to become part of the system. Medibank Private will be in competition with private funds. Accreditation and peer review systems will operate. These were opposed rather than supported by the private health funds and the Australian Medical Association, but at least to its credit the AMA is now to go along with them. Hopefully health maintenance organisations will be introduced as experiments in alternative delivery systems. Surely Labor cannot oppose the cost containment and review systems which are now part of the new Medibank. It is important that all Australians, as taxpayers, health care consumers or health care providers, be made aware of the true cost of health care services either as contributors to a private health fund, as payers of a levy or payers in a disguised way- in the past it was disguised- through the ordinary tax system. Even with the 2.5 per cent levy there is still a large element of government subsidy involved. Where that subsidy is to provide cover for pensioners and low income earners to receive a complete range of services, there is no criticism.

I return to the basic point of this debate. What is Medibank? Medibank is universal health insurance. Medibank remains. It is automatic; it is universal; it is free of a means test at the point of entry, so why the fuss by the Opposition? I suggest that if the Opposition wants to reassert itself over the leader of the ACTU as the genuine Opposition to this Government, it will have to do better in future.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock:
LYNE, NEW SOUTH WALES

-The discussion is now concluded.

page 295

TIME LIMITS FOR SPEECHES

Mr SINCLAIR:
Leader of the House · New England · NCP/NP

– I move:

  1. 1 ) That, in lieu of the time limit specified in standing order 91 for speeches on the ‘Motion for adjournment of House to terminate the sitting-‘, the following time limit shall operate: ‘Each Member . . . . 5 minutes (no extension of time to be granted):

Provided that, if no other Member rises to address the House, a Member who has already spoken to the motion may speak a second time for a period not exceeding 5 minutes’.

  1. That, unless otherwise ordered, this sessional order shall operate for the remainder of this year.

The motion is essentially a repetition of that which was moved during the last session of this Parliament, that is, a motion which reduces from 10 minutes to 5 minutes the time available for honourable members during the adjournment debate. During the early stages when this procedure was on trial there is no doubt the system did not seem to work too well, but it was my impression that in the latter part of the trial term it was working much better. However, rather than seeking to change Standing Orders at this time, I think it is preferable that we give the 5 minute adjournment speech a further trial. Therefore I put the matter forward in this form. The House will operate in accordance with the motion for the remainder of 1976. I think that should give us any amount of opportunity to examine the proposition in practice and then, if thought fit, the Standing Orders Committee may decide to change the Standing Orders accordingly. I commend the motion to the Parliament.

Mr SCHOLES:
Corio

-The Opposition does not oppose this proposition.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 295

QUESTION

ADJOURNMENT OF SITTINGS

Mr SINCLAIR:
Leader of the House · New England · NCP/NP

– I move:

  1. 1) That, in lieu of the final proviso to the sessional order of 18 February 1976 relating to the adjournment of sittings, the following proviso be substituted: ‘Provided further that, if at 1 1 p.m. the question before the House is-

That the House do now adjourn- The Speaker shall interrupt the debate, at which time- (0 a Minister may require that the debate be ex tended until 11.10 p.m. to enable Ministers to speak in reply to matters raised in the preceding adjournment debate; at 11.10 p.m., or upon the earlier cessation of the debate, the Speaker shall forthwith adjourn the House until the time of its next meeting.

  1. if no action is taken by a Minister under paragraph (0, the Speaker shall forthwith adjourn the House until the time of its next meeting.’

    1. That, unless otherwise ordered, this amendment of the sessional order of 18 February 1976 shall operate for the remainder of this year.

As honourable members will recall, the sessional order of 18 February 1976 gave a Minister an opportunity to speak up to a maximum of 10 minutes after the normal conclusion of the adjournment debate at 1 1 p.m. It was used on very few occasions during the trial period. This proposal means that private members are able to speak on the adjournment rather than their time being taken up by a Minister. I believe the practice was not abused and so I commend the motion and another trial period until the end of this year.

Mr SCHOLES:
Corio

-The Opposition does not oppose this provision. However, I draw attention again to the fact that the Opposition would like written into the proposal a limit on the Minister’s right of reply restricting him to matters raised during the adjournment debate, which fall within his ministerial responsibility. The right of reply by a Minister has not been used greatly, but I feel that under pressure of debate on future occasions a Minister may choose to enter into a political debate rather than use the time for the purpose for which it is obviously allocated, that is, to answer as Minister, questions raised on matters within his ministerial competence. I have raised this question before.

Mr Sinclair:

– The motion contains the phrase ‘Ministers to speak in reply to matters raised in the preceding adjournment debate ‘.

Mr SCHOLES:

-I hope that could be narrowly interpreted. I think it would be broadly interpreted. Any special provision giving a Minister the right of reply should limit his reply to matters within his competence. It should not be a general provision enabling him to talk at a time when honourable members would not have the right to speak even if time permitted.

Mr CHIPP:
Hotham

-I will certainly support the motion at this stage but I am very jealous of the Australian Labor Party’s achievement in adjourning this House at 11 o’clock at night. For years we sat here until midnight or 1 o’clock in the morning. This motion extends the sitting by only 10 minutes but it is the thin end of the wedge. The procedure has worked reasonably well up to this point and we are now voting simply to continue it for the rest of 1976. 1 would need greater persuasion if it is proposed to change Standing Orders permanently in this regard. I think that this House meets at hideous, unnatural and ridiculous hours. They are absurd. Politicians in this place are almost unable to mix with the Canberra community, the diplomatic corps and the public servants or to lead that sort of life. I would need to be persuaded fairly strongly before I would vote for a permanent change to Standing Orders in any further extension to the 1 1 o ‘clock adjournment.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 296

BROADCASTING AND TELEVISION AMENDMENT BILL 1976

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 20 May, on motion by Mr Eric Robinson:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr SCHOLES:
Corio

-The Opposition is not opposing this Bill although I understand that some technical amendments will be moved in the Committee stage and we will be asking the Minister for Post and Telecommunications (Mr Eric Robinson) to explain them in more detail. The Bill covers 2 separate proposals; the first is to place total limitations on the advertising of cigarettes; the other is to permit the establishment of translator stations in areas where broadcasting and television stations would not normally be expected to operate economically. I think that both these matters had been set in train by the former Government.

On the question of the banning of specific types of advertising, it is not unreasonable to say that even though both parties are agreed and have been agreed for some considerable time on this matter it constitutes a peculiar set of circumstances in that we are banning one specific type of advertising- I do not quarrel with that and neither does the Opposition- without even examining the effects of other similar forms of advertising which currently take place. Some rather insidious advertising takes place, especially on television, in regard to certain types of analgesics and some forms of alcoholic beverages, by which people are clearly given to believe that it is something less than normal not to utilise those substances as part of their daily lives. We have all probably seen one advertisement which goes along the lines of ‘Let’s go in and have a certain brand of powder and a cup of tea ‘, as if it is part of a way of life when in fact it is advertising a dangerous product.

Some of the alcohol advertisements almost put forward the proposition that one cannot enjoy oneself and that people are less than normal if they do not partake of certain forms of beverage. There are other advertisements in the same areas which are quite acceptable. I only make the point that we should wonder at the fact that we are dealing with one specific type of advertising, to the total exclusion of other similar forms of advertising. I believe that a set of legislative standards should be set- especially for televisionfor advertising so that both the advertisers and the public know exactly where they stand. At the moment no such standards appear to exist although one can complain about the authenticity or honesty of an advertisement. Some advertisements are of a type that one would not expect to find in one ‘s lounge room.

The other proposal in this legislation relates to translator stations and provides the means by which some of the facilities available in the more populated areas will be available to persons living in remote and semi-remote areas and thus will improve the standard of life of those people. The Opposition supports that proposal. I do not want to pre-empt the Minister but I understand that there are some drafting problems in the Bill which will be dealt with in Committee. The Opposition does not disagree with the concept of the changes which the Minister has put forward but it will obviously want to look at the amendments in their entirety. The Opposition will put forward any alterations which it thinks should be made to those amendments when the Bill is dealt with in another place and members have had proper time to examine those amendments.

The Opposition does not oppose the Bill and hopes that its passage will have the sort of effect which the legislation is designed to have. But in the light of experience in other countries I have very grave doubts that the banning of cigarette advertising will cause great difficulties in view of the ingenuity of the advertising firms which handle those rather large accounts. I do not know whether it is possible under this Bill but in the United States of America other products were given similar names. Massive advertising campaigns then took place for products with names similar to cigarettes- in most cases tobacco- so the advertising continued and only a device was used to avoid actually naming cigarettes as the product being advertised. The other method used is quite obvious to anybody who watches television programs. Advertising signs are placed at rather prominent places at sporting arenas and at functions so that the advertising is conveyed in a passive rather than a direct manner. This is a means by which the bans will be overcome.

As I have said, the Opposition does not oppose the Bill. I repeat that, for consistency if for nothing else, an examination ought to be made of some of the other forms of advertising which are potentially equally harmful. If we are to ban advertising on the basis that it is harmful or injurious to human health or constitutes a threat to society then we should be consistent about it, not select one product and go away wearing a halo, believing that we have done something greater than we have done, whilst ignoring other equally potent problems.

Mr JULL:
Bowman

-The Broadcasting and Television Amendment Bill 1976 refers to the areas of advertising of tobacco and cigarettes on television, the licensing of translator stations, community aerial systems for television and allowing the licensing of radio and television broadcasting translator stations. The decision to ban cigarette and tobacco advertising from radio and television stations goes back to 1973. It was planned that the phasing out of this type of advertising should be taken over a 3-year period to enable stations to develop alternative sources of revenue. Although the stations have had 3 years to look at this situation, all is certainly not rosy within the industry. I look especially to the situation with regard to country radio and television stations. The decision to ban tobacco and cigarette advertising from radio and television will put a considerable strain on the television stations and the radio stations in the country. Meanwhile, it is true that television stations in the capital cities are undergoing somewhat of a boom in regard to advertising revenue. Most of the capital city television stations certainly have made provision to take up the slack caused by this dropout of radio and television cigarette advertising.

We can argue loud and long as to whether the banning of cigarette and tobacco advertising from radio and television will have any appreciable effect on the consumption of cigarettes in Australia. Medical evidence shows that 90 per cent of lung cancer cases causing 4000 deaths a year can be directly related to cigarette smoking. However, from figures I have been able to gain, it would seem that there has been very little appreciable difference in the consumption of cigarettes and tobacco products in countries such as the United States and Great Britain where the advertising of cigarettes and tobacco has been banned for some years.

I took the opportunity to obtain some figures from the Parliamentary Library which show the per capita consumption of tobacco and tobacco products in the United States and the United Kingdom over the last 10 years. In the United States in 1970, the per capita consumption of tobacco and tobacco products was 4.40 kilograms. In 1974 it was 4.25 kilograms. In the United Kingdom in 1970 the per capita consumption was 2.55 kilograms and in 1974 it was 2.71 kilograms. They are interesting figures. I think that the drop in per capita consumption in the United States probably could be more directly related to the anti-smoking campaign than to the elimination of cigarette and tobacco advertising from radio and television stations. The interesting comparison is the position in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics where there have been massive increases in the consumption of tobacco products during the last few years. Of course there is no advertising in the USSR; so maybe we have more of a social problem than an advertising problem.

It is rather discriminatory, I think, that we particularly single out radio and television stations. If we are to be realistic about the whole business of cigarette advertising surely we should be looking a little further than just banning such advertising on radio and television. Under the terms of these amendments to the Bill we will still have the situation of cigarettes being advertised on billboards around sporting grounds. It will be possible for cigarette companies to advertise their products through sponsorships of programs of sporting events, cultural activities and other areas where the Commonwealth does not have any real control.

Admittedly it has been agreed that the Minister for Health (Mr Hunt) will pursue with the State Health Ministers proposals to work towards uniform legislation to control cigarette advertising in areas where the Commonwealth does not have these powers of control. However, it seems to me that there will be very little difference in the forms of cigarette advertising from those which are already in existence. If we are to be realistic in controlling this advertising, then we should be looking to the other areas. I do not think we will ever really see the day when cigarette advertising is eliminated from newspapers, magazines or roadside billboards, or indeed from those sponsorships I previously mentioned. In this respect, this part of the legislation could be considered somewhat discriminatory.

I was interested to hear the comments of the honourable member for Corio (Mr Scholes) in regard to the advertising of certain products, especially on television. I remind him that some rather strict controls have been laid down by the Australian Broadcasting Control Board, the Australian Association of National Advertisers and the Federation of Australian Commercial Television Stations in regard to the content of advertisements that are shown on television stations. One would hope that all those bodies would be showing a very real responsibility in making sure that the advertising did comply with a standard that was acceptable to the general community.

As I said earlier, there are some very great struggles to survive amongst the radio and television stations in country areas at the moment. The second section of the changes in the Broadcasting and Television Amendment Bill 1976 will help this situation because it is this part of the Bill that provides for changes concerning the licensing of television and radio translator stations and the community television aerial systems. This is a far-reaching part of the Bill. These new provisions will help to give Australia a much wider coverage and a much better coverage and, as far as commercial stations are concerned, a much more economic situation than existed previously. It is a fact that commercial television especially is a vital link in our national communications system. It plays a most important role. This is confirmed by the tremendous audiences that commercial television stations receive night after night.

It is interesting to go back through the history of the radio and television industry in Australia. From its very early beginnings until the early 1970s it developed and prospered into one of the finest broadcasting systems in the world. I suppose that government policy in those days could be considered as one of benign neglect. But that benign neglect did have a purpose in that it built up a most viable and enterprising commercial radio and television system and a national system of which we can be quite proud. However, one of the big criticisms that can be made- this can be levelled, too, at the Australian Broadcasting Control Board- is that over the years there has been this lack of planning in respect of technical specifications especially in the radio and television industry.

In many areas there are still some very real problems with regard to good radio and television reception. In regard to television, I think of a situation that exists in my own State of Queensland. I refer to areas such as the Gold Coast where there are problems of reception from the local stations based in Brisbane. At the moment, probably the best television reception that Gold Coast residents can get is from a station based on the mid-north coast of New South Wales. It provides a news service that emanates from Sydney and local areas. This is not to say that the Brisbane stations are missed completely by the Gold Coast but there are some particularly bad areas, especially in some of the major populated areas such as those around Burleigh Heads, where it is virtually impossible to get the local signal from a Brisbane station. It seems to me rather ironic that these people could be watching programs emanating from Sydney or from the middle of New South Wales rather than from Brisbane. Over the last few years there have been big moves afoot to pressure the Government into making provision for a decent television signal to be beamed into the Gold Coast from Brisbane. Similar situations exist in other areas of Australia.

The provisions of the new Bill will make it possible for repeater stations to be established in community of interest areas as well as in areas of difficult television reception. Not only country centres will be affected by the new provisions relating to community of interest. Indeed, in some of our capital cities there are problem areas for television reception. There are some bad reception areas in Sydney and in parts of Adelaide as well as Melbourne. It will be possible now for the signals into these problem areas to be vastly improved to provide the people of those capital cities with A 1 quality television reception.

The situation with regard to radio will be vastly improved as well. As I said earlier, over the past few years, many country radio stations have been experiencing great difficulties, so much so that in 1974-75 some thirty-four of Australia’s 1 18 commercial radio stations failed to make a profit. It is a very sad situation indeed when licensees of some country radio stations come back to the Government with their licence in their hands and say: ‘Please take this from us; we cannot make a profit’. That has almost been the situation over the past few years. These amendments will help to rectify that too. The big advantage that country commercial radio stations have over our national broadcasting system is that they can provide services of a local nature to the far flung areas. That is why in a country such as Australia it is essential that every assistance possible be given to the country radio stations to ensure their survival.

The new provisions will make it possible for repeater stations to be attached to country networks, to provide local service and local information in the far flung areas. They will also assist in opening up new audiences for these remote stations which will provide a more viable advertising market for the stations. Probably in the not distant future we will be able to put up a communications satellite over this nation and from this satellite we will be in a position to beam the length and breadth of Australia radio and television signals of high quality. This would be of great advantage to the Australian Broadcasting Commission. In the long run it could be a major cost saving factor as well, but we will never get this situation as far as country radio stations are concerned. They are there to provide that local service and that is really what the provisions of this Bill are all about- to make sure that the local service is viable and can be heard by the people in our far flung areas.

The same, of course, can be said of the amendments to the Bill concerning the community antenna systems whereby it will be possible to license major reception facilities and to feed these facilities by means of a cable into homes in which reception is difficult. I understand that a system such as this has been undergoing trials for some years now in parts of Adelaide. Australia, because of its very nature, because of its remote and far flung population, relies to a very great degree on an effective, efficient communications system and these new provisions will provide such a system.

I would like to make a further point as regards country repeater stations or translator stations for radio. As I have mentioned, country radio stations do provide a great local service which is of interest to people in these far flung communities. The people in these communities are also subjected to some quite serious situations from time to time. I think of floods and bushfires especially. There should be provision in the Act to enable these new repeater facilities in times of crisis in a given area actually to go on the air from the transmitter in a purely local capacity to provide vital and often lifesaving communications and information.

Another problem that ties in with this aspect of the broadcasting industry in Australia has been in existence for many years now. It is the incredibly high land line costs. People in country areas look to their radio not only for local information but also as a source of entertainment and a source of information about what is happening in the major capital cities. In the far flung parts of Western Queensland the broadcasting of racing services on Saturdays is a very real example of this, yet the cost of land lines to bring this service to the stations, to my mind, is really quite ludicrous. A station in Western Queensland, for example, would have to pay $5,000 to $6,000 a year in land line charges just to broadcast a racing service on a Saturday afternoon. On the amount of revenue that is available to these stations the impact of these high charges is frightening.

The new provisions in this Bill are certainly going to be very welcome indeed to the licensees of Australian country, and in some cases provincial, radio and television stations. I am sure that many honourable members are eager to see just what evolves out of the present departmental inquiry into the electronic media in Australia. One would hope that the results of this inquiry will assist the Government in taking a decision on assistance to the commercial radio and television industry, the ABC and public and access broadcasting, to enable them to become much more efficient and viable enterprises than possibly they have been in previous years. I welcome these amendments to the Broadcasting and Television Act. To my mind they are long overdue and they should be welcomed by virtually all areas of this vital industry.

Dr KLUGMAN:
Prospect

-I would just like to address my remarks very briefly to clause 4 of the Bill which deals with the prevention of the advertising of cigarettes and tobacco. Whilst in my own mind I have philosophical reservations, firstly about whether one is ever entitled to prevent that sort of advertising, and secondly about the efficacy of the prevention of that sort of advertising, I certainly am not going to oppose clause 4 of the Bill. But it seems much more rational to me- and I hope to other members of this House- that the way to persuade people not to use tobacco, not to smoke, or not to do any of the things which a community as a whole feels should not be done, is not by prohibition or by prohibiting the mentioning of them on radio, television, or in other media but by active education, propaganda and advertising against these things. My own view is that it would be much more reasonable and rational and effective to force radio and television stations to use at least part or all of the revenue they receive from advertising tobacco for the purposes of exposing the ill effects of smoking and possibly other things. It was quite depressing for me when I saw, for example, in Appropriation Bill No. ( 1 ) which was introduced last night that no more money would be spent by this Government on anti-smoking campaigns. I am not an expert on those campaigns but the name that comes to my mind is Dr Nigel Gray of the Anti-Cancer Council of Victoria who has done a terrific job. To my mind the Council has spent the money efficiently. It received a lot of free publicity for its campaign because it has been a good and effective campaign. It is a great pity that the Government feels that it should no longer subsidise anti-smoking campaigns. I will return to this topic when we are actually discussing Appropriation Bill (No. 1 ).

In the second reading of the speech the Minister for Post and Telecommunications (Mr Eric Robinson) said:

It has also been decided to amend clause 4 in respect of the provision to ban the advertising of cigarettes or cigarette tobacco on broadcasting and television because the Bill as previously drafted may not have made it possible for anticigarette advertising to be broadcast or televised if it was considered desirable to do so.

My own view is that it is desirable to do so. I therefore support the amendments which have been introduced. I ask the Minister to draw to the attention of the appropriate Ministers in the Cabinet what to my mind is a contradiction or at least something which is being left in mid-air. We decided as a parliament that smoking tobacco is bad. I suppose we must think it very strongly and we must think it is evil otherwise we would not go to what to me is the extreme step of saying that you cannot advertise it any longer or that you cannot mention it on television and radio. Having said that we wash our hands and do not do anything more about it. We are not even going to spend $75,000 which was the amount spent last year to educate people as to why they should not smoke. It does not seem right to me. I would hope that as a result of my mentioning this in the House today it may be drawn to the attention of the appropriate Ministers to see whether they can persuade the Cabinet that if a point is important enough to lead to banning- which should be the very last step in a democratic society- then there must be some intermediate or additional point where rational arguments are used to try to prevent people from doing certain things which are considered to be wrong either in their own interests or in the interests of the society.

Mr WILSON:
Sturt

– I rise to speak in this debate to deal with one particular aspect which was touched upon by my colleague earlier. I refer to cable television. The Broadcasting and Television Amendment Bill proposes an amendment to the principal Act to enable the Australian Broadcasting Control Board to licence television translator stations. The proposed amendment does not go far enough. It is totally inadequate, and its inadequacy is a clear illustration of the inadequate efforts of the Australian Broadcasting Control Board in dealing with the whole policy relating to broadcasting and television. We are told in the second reading speech that the purpose of this amendment is to enable translator stations to be licensed in areas that now receive television signals but which receive those signals from a community different from that in which they live. The illustration is given of people who live in Mount Gambier or people who live east of the South Australian border who would prefer to receive signals from Melbourne rather than from Mount Gambier because the signals from Mount Gambier contain a South Australian community interest.

Under this amending Bill we are planning to give the Board power to licence these translator stations to provide an added service to people who already have a service. Under this Bill we are thinking of putting in translator stations and expecting the Australian Broadcasting Commission and Telecom Australia, with their funds, to give resources to remote communities. Yet we have in the midst of our cities remote communitiescommunities which, because of the humbug and bumbling of the Australian Broadcasting Control Board, have no television signals or inadequate television signals available to them. In fact, in metropolitan Adelaide there are a number of people today who are unable to get signals at all- or if they can get them the signals are inadequate. Some 500 or 600 households depend on cable television- community antenna television services. But the licensees of these services have been making losses.

They have sought over the years to expand their services in order to make the operation viable. But what has happened? They went to the Australian Broadcasting Control Board, but it bumbled around and referred them to Telecom. Telecom then looked at the matter. It does not have the resources to do anything, and the paper war went on. Telecom referred the matter back to the Australian Broadcasting Control Board. The result is that an elector of mine for years has been writing, firstly, to the cable provider who says that he cannot provide the service and then, secondly, to the Australian Broadcasting Control Board who says: ‘It is not us; it is Telecom’. Telecom then says: ‘It is not us; it is the Australian Broadcasting Control Board’. During all of this time that citizen has no television service. Later this year, because of the inefficiencies of the Board, 500 households in Adelaide will cease to have access to television services, because the provider has announced that it will not renew its licence. That provider went to the Board and asked that it be enabled to make its operation more efficient. It asked whether it could be given a guarantee of future operation. But, no, we look at a report. Reports are always being made in the Australian Broadcasting Control Board area. If it wants to put off considering a matter, it has a report. The report says that the Government should take it over. Yet the same reportTelecom 2000, which is the latest one- says that Telecom will not have the resources. Yet private enterprise has demonstrated that it has the resources, and it has put in the network. Now there is no policy, and die reason we have no policy is the inadequacy of the Board to which I have referred.

Sitting suspended from 6 to 8 p.m.

Mr WILSON:

– Before the sitting was suspended I was speaking on the Broadcasting and Television Amendment Bill. I remind the House that this Bill has 2 major aspects. The first seeks to implement the Government’s decision to ensure that cigarette advertising on the electronic media is banned from a little later this year, and I support that proposal. But it was the second aspect of the legislation to which I was drawing attention. I said- I believe this to be the casethat the proposals before this House are inadequate. The inadequacy of the proposals has demonstrated the inability of the Australian Broadcasting Control Board to come up with an acceptable policy with regard to television and radio licensing.

Attention has been drawn in various reports to the fact that there are many people in our capital cities who as a consequence of the physical features of those cities do not receive radiated television, or if they receive it the signal they receive is totally inadequate compared with the best signals in other areas. The Control Board was aware of this difficulty as far back as 1968. But throughout that period there has been a constant battle- a battle of bureaucracies- over this issue, with the Control Board passing the buck to Telecom and Telecom passing the buck back to the Control Board, the consequence being that the only loser has been the citizen, the person who would like to receive television.

The Government in this legislation says that it is doing wonders for people living in remote areas because it is going to permit the Control Board to authorise the establishment of more translator stations. It is going to enable people living in western Victoria to receive through translator stations signals out of Victorian television stations. But these people already receive television signals out of the stations in Mount Gambier. They already have the pleasure and benefit of receiving information that comes over the television media. But there are many people in my electorate in metropolitan Adelaide- from Tea Tree Gully to Darlington and right around the foothills- who are unable to receive a television signal. It was suggested by the Board a number of years ago that community aerial television systems, known as CATV systems, should be established to enable these people to have the benefit of television. Those systems were established. But one of the problems that confronted the operators of those systems was that they were permitted to transmit down the cable only those signals radiated by the television stations. The operator of the cable television system could not offer any extra for the additional licence fee which was formally charged and the only licence fee that is now charged to those people receiving their television signal in this way.

I have urged the Minister for Post and Telecommunications (Mr Eric Robinson) I again ask him to consider this- to expand the legislation now before us so that it is not merely limited to the provision of translator services in circumstances where the community of interest demands that people have a signal other than that received from the normal radiated stations but that in the case of cable television the Board is allowed to have a discretion to consider applications and to recommend, where it believes this proper, that the operator be able to send alternative and additional programs. As a demonstration of its inadequacies, shortsightedness, conservatism and lack of policy the Board, I understand, refuses to accept the responsibility of considering such recommendations. Why does it refuse? Can it not see that as a consequence of its total inadequacy in this area many people are not receiving television signals, and many who now receive signals in metropolitan Adelaide will no longer receive them from later this year. Cablevision, one of the operators, has found it so difficult to get any idea about the future of its cable system from the Broadcasting Control Board or Telecom that it has indicated that it will not renew its licence. Thus a large number of people in the Adelaide suburbs will have their television reception cut drastically in the near future. Some households will receive no signal while others will not receive all the channels or will have very poor reception.

As I mentioned, there are more than 5000 homes from Tea Tree Gully to Darlington which cannot receive a totally satisfactory level of television reception. To overcome this problem a number of people in the worst hit areas have subscribed over a number of years to companies providing television reception by means of cables which run from a large aerial in a good reception area to the homes affected. The CATV system has been established in a number of countries and has been a proven success. Yet its development in Australia is being hampered by lack of initiative on the part of Telecom and the Control Board.

The fact that Cablevision is not renewing its licence places fairly and squarely before Telecom and the Control Board the challenge of doing something about this problem. Provision for a translator station was made when the Telecom building was constructed in Adelaide. This fact has been kept pretty quiet whilst the commercial operator has been led along to the point where he has been losing $16,000 to $20,000 a year. Yet Telecom and the Control Board expects the operator to continue. Now I am told in following representations that the Control Board has asked Telecom whether it will take over the operation of the system. I am told that Telecom is thinking about it; that it is investigating it. Telecom has been investigating this matter for more than a decade, and it is time that its investigations ended and that there was some action. It may be that the Control Board should proceed immediately to recommend to the Minister, and the Minister should announce, that a translator will be established on one of the tall buildings in metropolitan Adelaide. This would provide over 10 000 homes in the Adelaide foothills with a television signal of better quality or a television signal for the first time. The problem in Adelaide is mirrored in Sydney and in other major population centres.

Action should be urgently taken in this matter. If the Control Board is unwilling to allow cable television to develop in a viable fashion it must be willing to enable translator stations to be established, and the establishment of those translator stations should not be left to the whim of the Australian Broadcasting Commission. If Adelaide’s commercial television stations are prepared to invest the $30,000 to $50,000 necessary to establish a translator station, they should be allowed to proceed forthwith. Telecom should be required to make the stand for the translator station immediately available. The Broadcasting Control Board over the years has set its face against the development of cable television. Canberra could have been a cable city and if it had been many believe we would not have that expensive monstrosity on Black Mountain. With the new technologies that are available it would have been possible, with appropriate investment, to ensure that adequate television signals could be delivered to households in this city in a more efficient and more effective fashion than by using the radiated system.

Likewise, in the foothills of metropolitan Adelaide the people of their own initiative, through private enterprise- a private operatorwould have had television available to them. But the humbug that I referred to before the suspension of the sitting for dinner that has existed within the Australian Broadcasting Control Board has resulted in that company and others firstly being unable to extend the operation of their networks to the full licensed area and secondly to develop an adequately viable service. What I have urged upon the Minister- I hope that in the remaining time before we reach the Committee stage he will give it consideration- is that this legislation should be amended further and that it should enable a licensee of a cable television network to deliver to the terminal point signals other than those radiated over the radial networks of broadcast television stations.

The licences could be limited to those households which would not otherwise receive the signals over the airwaves. The system would not come into competition in any way with the radiated signals. It would mean that people who cannot get the airwave signal would be able to receive television. But oh no, the Control Board, Telecom or a mix of the two are so determined to preserve their own little empires, so unwilling to facilitate the services that people are entitled to receive, that they refuse even to allow this Parliament to suggest that they should be given the responsibility of considering applications. It would not cost a cent. It amazes me to think that they are not prepared even to have the power to consider applications where the circumstances warrant. Situations I envisage where applications would warrant consideration would be those cases where they would not be in any way in competition with the existing television and broadcast stations, where a service would be provided to people who would not otherwise get it.

From later this year many of those people who have been receiving a service are not to receive that service unless, to my great surprise, the Broadcasting Control Board receives from Telecom in the next few weeks a delightful little letter that says: ‘Yes, we will operate that cable system. We will extend it at an annual loss rate at the moment of $20,000 a year.’ Alternatively, will the Broadcasting Control Board authorise the establishment of a translator station using the ultra high frequency band on the Telecom building in Adelaide? Is it so jealous of its frequency bands that it will continue to deprive the people of the foothills of metropolitan Adelaide of television services? It is time the Broadcasting Control Board and Telecom faced reality, began to serve people and stopped the bureaucratic hassle that has prevented these people receiving the sorts of services that every Australian has come to expect and most now receive.

Mr KING:
Wimmera

– I sympathise with the honourable member for Sturt (Mr Wilson) in the problem that he has raised and I trust that when the Government, the Minister for Post and Telecommunications (Mr Eric Robinson) or someone else is giving some consideration to further the cause of some of the outlying electorates of Australia we will have his support on that occasion. After all, I know of plenty of areas in which the people receive services equally as bad as those referred to by the honourable member for Stun.

Mr Katter:

– I can tell you of places where they receive no services.

Mr KING:

– I hear the honourable member for Kennedy interjecting. I know that my colleague from Riverina (Mr Sullivan) has the same complaints. Indeed, I represent a Victorian electorate which is small by comparison with the electorates of those honourable members and I know that certain areas of that electorate suffer as a result of poor reception. The Broadcasting and

Television Amendment Bill is to give effect to a government decision, firstly on the banning of advertising of cigarettes and cigarette tobacco on broadcasting and television stations as from 1 September 1976, and secondly to amend the existing provisions of the Broadcasting and Television Act in relation to licensing of television translator stations, community television aerial systems and to extend the provisions of the Act relating to television translator stations to permit the licensing of broadcasting translator stations. In fact, this Bill follows a decision made by the previous Government and we are virtually only completing that original agreement; that is, to phase out the advertising on television and radio of the smoking of cigarettes and those sorts of things.

Basically, as I see it the Bill is divided into 3 parts: Firstly, the banning of cigarette advertising; secondly, giving authority to the Broadcasting Control Board to recommend the licensing of television translator stations; and thirdly, to Ucense community television aerials. At present the translator television stations can be licensed only on technical grounds rather than on practical grounds. These would include areas of difficulty such as those caused by distance and blind spots, as have been mentioned by the honourable member for Stun. It is obvious that distance and isolation create great difficulties. After all, no commercial station will move into an area with a small viewing audience by choice. It prefers a large volume of viewers.

It is the policy of the present Liberal-National Country Party Government to see that as many people as possible, including those residing in bUnd spots, receive reasonable television viewing and radio broadcasts. The Minister has indicated that he intends moving further amendments in Committee later this evening. These amendments will cover the problem that many smaller television stations are worried about. Under the recently introduced legislation it would have been possible for the larger stations to move in and to compete with the smaller stations. The result of such a move inevitably would have crippled the smaller stations and would deprive the local people of local content in their programs. I understand that those amendments will be moved at the Committee stage. I hope and trust that the spokesman for the Opposition will agree to those amendments. I am sure they will because after all the Opposition members were responsible originally for bringing about this legislation.

The Bill allows licensing on a community of interest basis, irrespective of area or distance involved. The same community of interest basis applies regarding aerial systems, so avoiding the multiplication of individual aerials. Television may be classified as a form of luxury on the grounds that x years ago we did not have it. But today, in my mind, if it is good enough for the vast majority, at a cost to the taxpayers, then it is good enough to say that all those who are living a reasonable distance from an area of concentrated population should also be entitled to the privilege of having television viewing. We talk a lot of the rights of people on other issues so why not extend television coverage and broadcasting privileges to these people?

The other major issue in this Bill that is somewhat contentious is the banning of cigarette and tobacco advertising on television and radio. At the outset I should like to say that I not not over happy with this legislation for a number of reasons. It discriminates against a section of the business community. There will be an adverse effect on the income of certain radio and television stations, particularly those in country areas. It sets a very dangerous precedent on the very principle of the rights of the individual person, organisation or company to advertise its respective goods that are readily available to the public. It sets a precedent for the banning of advertisements for all types of commodities that may or may not affect the general health of the people which, of course, naturally would include such things as alcohol, certain types of medicines and foodstuffs. One could well ask: What about the simple Aspro? Surely that does have an adverse effect on some people. Perhaps we ought to consider banning that, too, because if it is good enough to ban one of these types of commodities that are doing damage then it is good enough to ban the lot. I would not go along with this.

Clause 4 of the Bill covers the question of accidental or incidental advertising, including reference to the non-receipt of payment for such advertising. To my mind this makes a complete farce of the whole issue. Charges that are laid down by certain sporting organisations differ and I do not think honourable members would dispute that. I refer to perhaps the greatest sporting arena in Australia, the Melbourne Cricket Ground. The Melbourne Cricket Ground authorities make a higher charge for one side of their oval than for the other side. Are we to ban the advertising of cigarettes on the more important side of the oval? I think the answer is obvious.

I believe also that the Government is cornered with an agreement entered into by a previous government on the understanding that the advertising program will be phased out over the period from 1 September 1973 to 1 September 1 976. 1, and many other Government supporters, as responsible members of this Parliament have no alternative but to accept the legislation on this issue with a great deal of reluctance. However, I give notice that I would be very reluctant to extend any further advertising bans on similar grounds in the future. It is not my intention to go into all the ramifications of television and radio in speaking to the Bill before the House.

Mr Martin:

– Why?

Mr KING:

– I would like to make a brief reference to the question of radio and television licence fees. The honourable member for Banks asks: Why? I have been present in the chamber since the debate on this Bill resumed this afternoon. It is rather a strange thing that I can count only 5 members of the Opposition in the House now. Honourable members will be interested to know that that is the greatest number of members of the Opposition that has been in this House since this Bill was introduced. (Quorum formed.) I am grateful to the honourable member for Corio (Mr Scholes) for calling attention to the state of the House. I will admit that the honourable member for Corio has been present during the whole of the debate on this Bill but he is the only member of the Opposition to do so. I was about to raise the question of television and radio licence fees.

The House will recall that it was the previous Government which removed such fees. I am not arguing whether that decision was correct or not other than to say that it is a different thing to continue a licence fee as distinct from having to reintroduce it. It is my understandig that most of the records that were once held are no longer available. It think most honourable members will appreciate that money must be made available for the continuation of our national stations. The question we must ask is whether revenue should be derived in the form of licence fees or be drawn from Treasury in some other form of grant. It is my belief that the reintroduction of television licence fees is not any easy matter. The cost of administration alone in its implementation would soon eat up a lot of revenue derived from its reintroduction. I come down strongly on the side that we should leave well alone. That is my recommendation to the Government.

I know that a number of other speakers from the Government side would like to make a contribution to this debate. I am prepared to cut short my remarks to allow them this opportunity. Remembering that whilst this legislation could have certain advantages in the long term, it would be better to depend on a straight out grant to make sure that our national stations, both radio and television, are retained. To my mind the best way of financing them is a direct subsidy from Treasury. I conclude as I commenced: I reluctantly support this Bill.

Mr BAILLIEU:
La Trobe

-I am indebted to the honourable member for Wimmera (Mr King) for shortening his remarks so I can make a couple of points. It is typical of the sincerity and the benevolence that the members of the National Country Party extend to their colleagues in the Liberal Party.

The honourable member for Wimmera told the House of certain problems associated with the reception of television signals in outlying areas. I want to take just a couple of minutes to tell the Minister for Post and Telecommunications (Mr E. L. Robinson) and the House that it is not necessary to go into the outlying areasthe remote areas- of Australia to receive a poor television signal. The honourable member for Sturt (Mr Wilson) mentioned poor television reception in the Adelaide Hills. In some areas of my electorate of La Trobe in Victoria within 20 miles of the Mount Dandenong television antenna- which is the main base from which the Greater Melbourne area receives its signal- it is impossible to get a first rate television signal on an ordinary receiver. In 1976, with all the technology we have at our disposal, when a decent, strong signal cannot be picked up within 20 or 30 miles of a television antenna, we should not sit idly by. The sort of reception received in this area is a part vision- it is very difficult to identify what is on the screen. In some instances double vision occurs. As one who has watched some of the personalities who appear on the television screen I can tell honourable members that when we are seeing those personalities double it just makes it twice as bad. I am thinking in particular of some of the political identities who appear on television.

Mr Chapman:

– Do you mean from the other side?

Mr BAILLIEU:

– It seems a lot of these television personalities support those on the other side of this House. I would not be so ungracious as to say that they actually come from the other side of this House. Every now and again we do see on the television screen a well known political personality with big black bushy eyebrows. When we see four of these eyebrows rather than two it is a little too much to take.

Some residents in the town of Warburton, which is at the top of the Yarra Valley and is a very scenic area in the electorate of La Trobe, are going to extraordinary lengths to improve the antennae on the roofs of their houses. They are constructing skyscraper-like antennae systems which are tremendously ugly and in a scenic area like this part of the Yarra Valley are a real intrusion. The antennae are also tremendously expensive. If the money that is going into building these elaborate antennae could be used as a kind of part payment towards a system of cable television in the localised area, it would obviously be to everybody’s benefit. There would be a far better signal and money would be saved one way or the other- whether it be by the Australian Broadcasting Control Board, Telecom Australia or the individual home owner. The point is that, in the final analysis, everybody would be better off. There would be television reception which everybody in the town could receive. Sales of television sets would increase, but, of course, the latter is only a side effect.

This situation has existed for 15 years, to my knowledge. It was not the previous honourable member for La Trobe who raised this matter; it was the honourable member for La Trobe before him, and he represented the electorate for some 12 years. The file on this matter must be 2Vi inches to 3 inches thick. There has been review after review and all the bureaucratic tangle that one normally finds with these sorts of things. I ask the Minister to dig out the file, brush all the dust off it, open it and have a good look at it. I do this in the hope that before very long he will be able to come back to me and say: ‘We can do something for the people at the top end of the electorate of La Trobe who are suffering from this hopelessly inadequate television reception

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

The Bill.

Mr Eric Robinson:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

– The Government has 18 amendments to this Bill. I seek leave to move the amendments together.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr Lucock:
LYNE, NEW SOUTH WALES

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

Clause 2.

  1. 1 ) Subject to sub-section (2), this Act shall come into operation on the day on which it receives the Royal Assent.
  2. Sections 4 and 5 shall come into operation on 1 September 1976.

Clause 4.

Section 100 of the Principal Act is amended-

  1. by inserting after sub-section (5) the following subsection: ‘(5a) A licensee shall not broadcast or televise an advertisement relating to cigarettes or cigarette tobacco and
  2. by adding at the end thereof the following subsection: ‘( 10) A reference in sub-section (5 ), (5a) or (6) to the broadcasting or televising of advertisements or of an advertisement shall be read as not including a reference to the broadcasting or televising of matter of an advertising character as a accidental or incidental accompaniment of the broadcasting or televising of other matter in circumstances in which the licensee does not receive payment or other valuable consideration for broadcasting or televising the advertising matter.’.

Clause 7.

Before section 105b of the Principal Act the following section is inserted in Division 5a of Part IV: - 105AA (I) The Minister may, after receipt of a recommendation by the Board, grant to a person a licence for a broadcasting translator station upon such conditions, and in accordance with such form, as the Minister determines. ‘(2) Subject to sub-section (3), the Board shall not recommend that a licence be granted for a broadcasting translator station if, in the opinion of the Board, satisfactory reception of broadcasting programs from a commercial broadcasting station is being obtained in the area in which the signals from that broadcasting translator station are designed to be satisfactorily received. ‘(3) Where the Board is of the opinion that satisfactory reception of broadcasting programs from a commercial broadcasting station or commercial broadcasting stations is being obtained in an area, but the Board is also of the opinion that those programs do not adequately serve the interests of the community in that area by reason of the fact that they are designed to serve primarily the different interests of a community in another area, the Board may recommend that a licence be granted for a broadcasting translator station to serve the needs of the community in that first-mentioned area. ‘(4) One of the conditions of the licence for a broadcasting translator station shall be that the station is operated only for the reception and transmission of the programs of a specified commercial broadcasting station or of specified commercial broadcasting stations and that those programs are retransmitted without alteration. ‘(5) The establishment, erection, maintenance and use of a broadcasting translator station in pursuance of a licence under this section shall be deemed not to be a contravention of the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1905-1973 or of the regulations under that Act. ‘.

Clause 8.

Section 105B of the Principal Act is amended-

  1. by omitting from sub-section (2) the word ‘The ‘(first occurring) and substituting the words ‘Subject to subsection (2a), the’;
  2. by inserting after sub-section (2) the following subsection: ‘(2a) Where the Board is of the opinion that satisfactory reception of television programs from a commercial television station or commercial television stations is being obtained in an area, but the Board is also of the opinion that those programs do not adequately serve the interests of the community in that area by reason of the fact that they are designed to serve primarily the different interests of a community in another area, the Board may recommend that a licence be granted for a television translator station to serve the needs of the community in the firstmentioned area.’; and
  3. by adding at the end of sub-section (3) the words ‘or of specified commercial television stations and that those programs are re-transmitted without alteration’.

Clause 13.

Section 130a of the Principal Act is amended-

  1. a ) by omitting sub-section ( 1 );
  2. by omitting from paragraph (a) of sub-section (3) the word ‘or’;

  3. by adding at the end of sub-section (3) the following paragraphs: ‘(c) in a case where the Board is of the opinion that satisfactory reception of television programs is being obtained in the area, the Board is also of the opinion that-

    1. those programs do not adequately serve the interests of the community in that area by reason of the fact that they are designed to serve primarily the different interests of a community in another area; and
    2. satisfactory reception of television programs that would adequately serve the interests of the community in that area could be obtained in that area by the means to be authorized by the permit; or ‘(d) in the opinion of the Board, the use of the means to be authorized by the permit to provide a television service in that area is necessary or desirable for aesthetic or environmental reasons. ‘; and
  4. by inserting after sub-section (5) the following subsection: ‘(6) Such fees as are prescribed are payable in respect of the grant of a permit, or the transfer of a permit, under this section. ‘.

Schedule.

FORMAL AMENDMENTS

  1. The following provisions of the Principal Act are amended by omitting any number expressed in words that is used, whether with or without the addition of a letter, to identify a section of that Act or of another Act, and substituting that number expressed in figures:

Sections 4(1) (definition of ‘Commissioner’), 17 (3), 22, 28a, 45(1), 46a, 56 (1) (g), 78 (3) (a), 78a, 87a (1), 90B ( 1 ), 90c (3) and (4) (a), 90D ( 1 ), 90f (3) (b), 90h, 90J(4)(a), 90L (1)(a). 90m (a) and (c), 90q, 91 (2) (d), 91a(1), 92(2), (3)(a)(i) and (3)(b), 92a ( 1 ), 92c (2) (b) and (4) (b), 92E, 92f (4) (a) and (9), 92o(l)(a) and (5)(b), 92H(a) and (c), 92k, 105a, 105l, 108(1), 132 (1a).

  1. The following provisions of the Principal Act are amended by omitting the words ‘of this Act’, ‘of this Part’, ‘of this section’, ‘of this sub-section’ and ‘of this paragraph’ (wherever occurring):

Sections 4(1) (definition of ‘Commissioner’), 16 (2), 22, 27d (3), 28a, 43 ( 1 ), 45 ( 1 ), 46 (4), 46a, 48a (4) and (5), 56 ( 1) (g), 58 (6), 7 ib (3), 74 (3), 78 (3) (a), 78a, 87a(1), 90a(1) and (5), 90b(1), 90c(3), 90d(1), 90F (3)(b), 90H, 90j(4)(a) and (6), 90k (4), 90l ( l ) (a), ( 1 ) (b), ( 1 ) (d), (3) and (4), 90m (a) and (c), 90q, 91 (2) (d) and (4) (a) (iii), 91aa (1) and (5), 9lA(l), 92(2), 92a(1), 92c(2)(b), 92e, 92f(3), (4) (a), (6) and (9), 92fa(4), 92() (1)(a), (l)(b), (1) (d), (3) and (4), 92h (a) and (c), 92k, 105a, 105L, 108 ( l ), 1 1 7a (3), (5) and (8), 132 ( 1a).

  1. The Principal Act is further amended as set out in the following table:
Mr Eric Robinson:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

-I move:

  1. 1 ) In clause 2, sub-clause ( 1 ), omit ‘sub-section (2 ) ‘, substitute ‘sub-sections (2 ) and (3 ) ‘.
  2. In clause 2, after sub-clause (2) insert the following sub-clause:- ‘(3) Section 3a, 12a and 14a shall be deemed to have come into operation on 1 July 1976.’.
  3. ) After clause 3, insert the following new clause:- ‘3a. Section 87a of the Principal Act is repealed and the following section substituted: - ‘87a. Where the Minister has, under section 86, suspended or revoked a licence on or after 1 July 1 976, the licensee may apply to the Administrative Appeals Tribunals for a review of the decision of the Minister to suspend or revoke the licence.’.’.
  4. In clause 4, paragraph (a), omit ‘relating to’, substitute ‘for, or for the smoking of, ‘.
  5. ) In clause 7, omit ‘section is ‘, substitute ‘sections are ‘.
  6. In clause 7, before section 105aa insert the following sections:- 105 aaa. In this Division- ‘metropolitan broadcasting area’ means an area determined by the Board under sub-section ( 1 ) of section 105AAB to be an area appropriate to be served by metropolitan broadcasting stations; ‘metropolitan broadcasting station’ means a commercial broadcasting station situated within a radius of 50 kilometres from the General Post Office in the capital city of a State; ‘metropolitan television area’ means an area determined by the Board under sub-section (2) of section 105AAB to be an area appropriate to be served by metropolitan television stations; ‘metropolitan television station’ means a commercial television station the principal studio of which is situated within a radius of 32 kilometres from the General Post Office in the capital city of a State. 105AAB. ( 1 ) For the purposes of this Division, the Board shall determine an area in each State as the area appropriate to be served by the metropolitan broadcasting stations in the State, being an area that includes the capital city of the State.
  7. For the purposes of this Division, where there are 2 or more metropolitan television stations in a State, the Board shall determine an area in the State as the area appropriate to be served by those metropolitan television stations, being an area that includes the capital city of the State.
  8. The Board may vary a determination under subsection (1) or (2)
  9. The Board shall keep copies of maps showing the boundaries of all areas determined by it under sub-sections ( 1 ) and (2) and any person may inspect, and may make a copy of, such a map. 105AAC. An application may be made to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal for a review of the making of a determination by the Board under section 105AAB

  10. In clause 7, after sub-section (3) insert the following sub-sections:- ‘(3a) In making recommendations under this section the Board shall have regard to the principle that, subject to the necessity of ensuring that the needs of the community in the area concerned are adequately served, it is desirable that a broadcasting translator station licence for the purpose of the re-transmission of programs for reception in an area that is not within a metropolitan broadcasting area should be granted for the purpose of the re-transmission of the programs of a station that is not a metropolitan broadcasting station in preference to a broadcasting translator station licence for the purpose of the re-transmission of the programs of a metropolitan broadcasting station. ‘(3b) The Board shall not recommend the granting of a licence for a broadcasting translator station for the purpose of the re-transmission of programs for reception in a particular area unless the Board has published in the Gazette, and in a newspaper circulating in the area, a notice-

    1. stating that it is considering the need for the grant of such a licence; and
    2. notifying interested persons that they may, not later than a specified date (not being earlier than 2 1 days after the date of publication of the notice in the Gazette), apply to the Board for, or make to the Board written objection to, the grant of such a licence, and the date so specified has passed. ‘(3c) If, on or before the date specified in the relevant notice under sub-section (3b)-
    3. 2 or more applications are duly made for the grant of a broadcasting translator station licence as referred to in the notice; or
    4. the licensee of a commercial broadcasting station makes written objection to the grant of such a licence, the Board shall not recommend the grant of such a licence unless it has conducted an inquiry in accordance with this Act into the applications or objection. ‘
  11. In clause 7, after section 105AA insert the following section:- ‘ 10SAB. ( 1 ) An application may be made to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal for a review of a decision of the Board to make a recommendation to the Minister that a licence under section 105AA be granted for a broadcasting translator station for the purpose of the retransmission of the programs of a metropolitan broadcasting station for reception in an area that is not within a metropolitan broadcasting area. ‘(2) Where the Board makes a decision referred to in subsection (1), the Board shall, before making the relevant recommendation to the Minister, notify, by such means as it considers appropriate, all persons who, on or before the date specified in the relevant notice under sub-section (3b) of section 105AA applied for, or made written objection to, the grant of a broadcasting translator station licence as referred to in the notice. ‘.
  12. In clause 8, omit paragraph (b), substitute the following paragraph:- ‘(b) by inserting after sub-section (2) the following subsections: ‘(2a) Where the Board is of the opinion that satisfactory reception of television programs from a commercial television station or commercial television stations is being obtained in an area, but the Board is also of the opinion that those programs do not adequately serve the interests of the community in that area by reason of the fact that they are designed to serve primarily the different interests of a community in another area, the Board may recommend that a licence be granted for a television translator station to serve the needs of the community in that firstmentioned area. ‘(2b) In making recommendations under this section the Board shall have regard to the principle that, subject to the necessity of ensuring that the needs of the community in the area concerned are adequately served, it is desirable that a television translator station licence for the purpose of the re-transmission of programs for reception in an area that is not within a metropolitan television area should be granted for the purpose of the re-transmission of the programs of a station that is not a metropolitan television station in preference to a television translator station licence for the purpose of the re-transmission of the programs of a metropolitan television station.

(2c) The Board shall not recommend the granting of a licence for a television translator station for the purpose of the re-transmission of programs for reception in a particular area unless the Board has published in the *Gazette, and in a newspaper circulating in the area, a notice-

  1. stating that it is considering the need for the grant of such a licence; and
  2. notifying interested persons that they may, not later than a specified date (not being earlier than 2 1 days after the date of publication of the notice of the Gazette,) apply to the Board for, or make to the Board written objection to, the grant of such a licence, and the date so specified has passed. ‘(2d) If, on or before the date specified in the relevant notice under sub-section (2C)-
  3. 2 or more applications are duly made for the grant of a television translator station licence as referred to in the notice; or

  4. the licensee of a commercial television station makes written objection to the grant of such a licence, the Board shall not recommend the grant of such a licence unless it has conducted an inquiry in accordance with this Act into the applications or objection, ‘; and”.

    1. 10) After clause 8, insert the following new clause:- ‘8a. After section 105b of the Principal Act the following section is inserted: - ‘ 105ba. ( 1 ) An application may be made to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal for a review of a decision of the Board to make a recommendation to the Minister that a licence under section 105b be granted for a television translator station for the purpose of the re-transmission of the program of a metropolitan television station for reception in an area that is not within a metropolitan television area. ‘(2) Where the Board makes a decision referred to in subsection (1), the Board shall, before making the relevant recommendation to the Minister, notify, by such means as it considers appropriate, all persons who, on or before the date specified in the relevant notice under sub-section (2c) of section 105B, applied for, or made written objection to, the grant of a television translator station licence as referred to in the nonce’.”.
    2. 1) After clause 12, insert the following new clause:- “ i 2a. After section 1 19 of the Principal Act the following section is inserted:- ‘ 1 19a. An application may be made to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal for a review, of a decision of the Board under sub-section (2) of section 1 19 made on or after 1 July 1975.’.”
    3. In clause 13, paragraph (c) (c) (ii), after “area” (second occurring), insert “from a nearby television station or television stations ‘ ‘.
    4. 13) Clause 13, paragraph (d), after “area” insert “from a television station the normal range of which includes that area”.
    5. 14) After clause 14 insert the following new clause:- “14a. The Schedule to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1 975 is amended by omitting Part VI. “.
    6. In the Schedule, clauses 1 and2,omit”,87A(l)”.
    7. 16) In the Schedule, clause 4, omit- ‘Sections 87a (1), -Omit ‘Commonwealth Industrial (2) and (4) Court’ (wherever occurring), substitute ‘Australian Industrial Court’. “. substitute- ‘Section 90 ( 1 ) Omit ‘thirty miles’, substitute ‘50 kilodefinition of metres’.”, ‘metropolitan commercial boardcasting station’;
    8. In the Schedule, clause 4 after the item relating to section 9 1 ab (2 ) insert- ‘Section 92 ( 1 ) (c) Omit ‘thirty miles’, substitute ‘50 kilometres’.”.

Honourable members will note that the amendments provide that the Australian Broadcasting Control Board shall have regard to the principle that, subject to the necessity of ensuring that the needs of the community in the area concerned are adequately served, it is desirable that in an area that is not within the normal range of a metropolitan station a translator station licence should be granted to a non-metropolitan station.

It will also be noted that it will be necessary for the Board to publish in the Gazette and a newspaper circulating in the area that it is considering the need for a licence for an area and to notify interested persons who may then apply to the Board or make written objection to the Board to the granting of such a licence. Should two or more applications or an objection be received it will be necessary for the Board to conduct a public inquiry.

Another safeguard provides that should the Board make a recommendation that a licence be granted to a metropolitan station to serve an area that is not within the normal range of a metropolitan station, an application may be made to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal against the Board ‘s recommendation.

This will have the effect that the Board’s recommendation to me will become public at the same time as it is submitted to me and before I make a decision on the matter. Honourable members will also note that the normal range of a station will be as determined by the Board. Areas will be determined and published in its coverage maps.

There will also be an appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal against this determination by the Board. I am sure honourable members will agree that very adequate safeguards have now been included in the Bill. The amendments also provide that in respect of a community television aerial system programs may only be received from nearby television stations. It will not be possible for the systems to transmit anything other than the programs of existing television stations.

It has also been decided to amend clause 4 in respect of the provision to ban the advertising of cigarettes or cigarette tobacco on broadcasting and television because the Bill as previously drafted may not have made it possible for anticigarette advertising to be broadcast or televised if it was considerable desirable to do so. The opportunity has also been taken to include in the Bill amendments relating to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

This particular Act came into operation on 1 July and it will be noted that appeals may be made against a decision I may make in accordance with section 86 of the Act relating to suspension and cancellation of licences and against the Board in respect of section 1 19 of the Act whereby the Board is empowered to take action against performers, producers of programs, etc.

May I also take this opportunity to say that I listened very carefully to the honourable members who took part in this debate from both sides of the chamber. I thank the honourable member for Corio (Mr Scholes) for his courtesy because these amendments were produced at a late hour. I accept his assurance that his colleagues in another place will scrutinise them and I am certain that they will find that the amendments will carry out the intention and the thrust of the legislation. I listened very carefully to what the honourable member for Sturt (Mr Wilson) had to say. I also had the opportunity to talk to him personally about this matter. I am aware of the problems that exist in the foothills of Adelaide and in his electorate. I commend the honourable member for taking an interest in his electorate, and I assure him that the discussions I have had with him will be carried through enthusiastically. The problems that he has raised concerning his electorate will be considered without delay and with a determination to see that they are successfully resolved.

I was not aware until this evening of the problems in the electorate of the honourable member for La Trobe (Mr Baillieu) but the same comments apply in respect to that area also. All Australians should be able to enjoy the facilities of the communications network which this large country enjoys. It is quite obvious, of course, that not only in the rural areas but also in the large metropolitan cities and provincial cities of Australia people are entitled to get television transmission of a high quality. That objective will be worked towards by my Department, by the Australian Broadcasting Control Board, by Telecom Australia and by all those people who are interested in improving the communications network throughout this nation. I take this opportunity of informing honourable members that the inquiry into the broadcasting system is proceeding satisfactorily. We hope to have some submissions to the Cabinet within the next 4 to 6 weeks. The whole purpose and thrust of the inquiry are to improve the structure, to sort out the problems that the honourable member for Sturt has commented upon tonight and to ensure that within the constraints of the Government’s expenditure we will have the most effective broadcasting system in the world available to us.

Mr SCHOLES:
Corio

-At this stage the Opposition is not opposing the passage of the amendments. The purpose for which the amendments have been moved is one which we find acceptable. If there is any possibility in the original Act that, by use of translator stations, country licence holders in television and radio could be forced out of the field by metropolitan operators, I think it is desirable that amendments be passed. The Opposition will be examining the technical effect of the amendments before the Bill is brought forward in another place, and any comments which we have on that will be made at that time.

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

– I commend the Minister for Post and Telecommunications (Mr Eric Robinson) for the introduction of these amendments. I support them strongly. I am sure that it was never the intention of the Government to proceed in the way that the original draft proposed. The technicalities of that became obvious when the Bill was presented in the House and many country television stations quickly became aware and very concerned about what the effect of the original draft may have been. I am sure that the Committee appreciates the Minister’s consideration of submissions that were made to him following the initial introduction of the legislation. In particular there is a great appreciation of the care that was taken both by the Board and the Minister in looking into this problem. The Minister informed the Committee a few moments ago of his clear intention. The amendment, of course, overcomes this problem. It would have been most unfortunate if the technical provisions had permitted metropolitan stations to encroach upon areas normally served by country stations.

Country stations have a very great task in maintaining viability, in meeting escalating costs and in fulfilling their license responsibilities in terms of presenting programs which are of a satisfactory standard, and one might say, quite correctly, a high standard because there is a tendency for country stations to present programs of the highest standard. It would have been unfortunate if there had been transgression which may have interfered with this capacity, but of greater concern was the risk that translators placed in difficult areas for transmission purposes, still to maintain community of interest and the area of service of a country station, may have been put in jeopardy. This would have been unfortunate. I commend the Minister and thank him for the particular attention given to this matter. I trust that the Committee and another place will fully support the amendments now before us.

Mr CREAN:
Melbourne Ports

-My comment is more in the nature of a question to the Minister. I am wondering whether he is protecting the integrity of local stations or the immunity of those stations from outside program intervention. If I may use a simple example, there is always a lot of argument that if one can see a football match called Australian Rules as against locals going to their own match, there is some difficulty economically. I can understand that one program can invade another, but I am wondering about the nature of the programs invading or the integrity of the local areas in relation to that invasion. Perhaps I have not put the point as clearly as I might have, but this seems to me to be a fairly fundamental question. I take the example of Geelong in the electorate of Corio. If one is to develop local drama, or something of the kind, on a regional station and it is suddenly invaded by Power Without Glory- to use the great classic of the moment- is that detrimental? Is that what the Minister is seeking to protect here?

Mr Eric Robinson:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

– We do not want to get into circumstances in which a translator can be used by a large metropolitan television station to the detriment of community interests, influence, integrity- call it what you like- of a local nonmetropolitan television station which has been given a licence to serve that community.

Mr HODGMAN:
Denison

-I do not wish to delay the passage of these amendments. However, I wish to comment on one of them, if only for the reason that it is the first amendment to legislation which I have been able to propose to a Minister and which has been accepted. I particularly thank the Minister for accepting my proposal. The amendment will now become section 100 (5A) of the principal Act. Clause 4 of the Bill provides that a licensee shall not broadcast or televise an advertisement relating to cigarettes or cigarette tobacco. The amendment is very small, but I just mention it in passing because I am grateful to the Minister- I say it publicly- for accepting the proposal as he knew quite frankly that I am bitterly opposed to the legislation. Nevertheless he accepted this amendment. If the Bill had been passed in the form in which it was drafted it could have had the effect of prohibiting advertisements which were not directly related to tobacco and smoking. It could have also have had the effect of banning anti-smoking advertisements. It now puts beyond any shadow of doubt that the advertisement must be for the smoking of cigarettes or tobacco- I emphasise these words- before it comes within the ambit of the prohibition. If it had been left simply on the basis of relating to cigarettes or cigarette tobacco, I believe that injustice and hardship would have been occasioned on both sides of the cancer dispute.

I thank the Minister for the way in which he received the representation. I think the Bill is fairer now to all concerned than it was in its original form because it is clear. If it had pot been clarified, there would have been litigation upon litigation, and those who support the Bill would have found that it had to withstand a number of court cases to test its validity in respect to this section. Now it is clear and I believe it will be much fairer legislation and, for that reason, better legislation when it goes through the Parliament.

Mr WILSON:
Sturt

-I thank the Minister for his assurance that the problem to which I referred will be looked at as a matter of urgency with the aim of finding a solution. I am, of course, disappointed that the amendments we are now looking at specifically limit the power in granting licences for community television aerial systems to programs that may be received from nearby television stations. The problems here arise from a number of factors. We need to ask ourselves whether at any time cable television will be used in this country. If the answer is yes, the next question must be: Who is to provide it? The Australian Telecommunications Commission and the report following the last broadcasting inquiry have suggested that the Commission should own the physical transmission plant, but in Telecom 2000 attention was drawn to the problem of resources. That document said that if the Commission is not able to marshal the resources or for some other reason of policy is not prepared to provide cable television it would be difficult to resist the forces of entrepreneurs and citizens who group together for the purpose of trying to receive a signal that others receive.

So if we are to have cable television and it is to be government operated, the authorities which are to hold the monopolies over it must be given the resources to enable them to provide that service. If private entrepreneurs are to be encouraged into the area, and it has been proven they could do the job from a technical point of view, they must be given the opportunity of running viable alternatives. It is terribly difficult, when all of us pay nothing for our television signal, because there is no television licensing these days, for a cable provider to say: ‘We can provide you with the television signal but you must pay a rent or a licence fee. All I can offer are the same signals that come out of the television station. ‘ Everyone else is getting them for nothing, but the people in difficult areas are having to pay something for them. The Minister has recognised in his assurances to me that there is an inequity in that situation. Just for the record I shall read the amendment I would like to have seen incorporated in this legislation. I think there should have been a provision as follows:

The Minister may, on the recommendation of the Board, grant a permit to a person to use a telegraph line for the purpose of transmitting television programs from a receiving aerial maintained by that person for the reception of television programs to television receivers and for transmitting other services approved by the Board to the television receivers situated in an area specified in the permit.

If, in providing a cable service, the only way to make it viable is to grant permission for the provision of services in addition to those transmitted by the television stations, I see no reason why the legislation should prevent that from being done. I spoke at length earlier in the debate. I still feel as strongly about it. I hope that all the inquiries into the overall structure of our television and broadcasting system will be concerned with not only reconstructuring the system so that we get a more efficient operation of it but also restructuring it so that we can have a policy that ensures the maximum communications for the community at large.

Mr ARMITAGE:
Chifley

-Like the honourable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr Crean) I would really like to direct a question to the Minister for Post and Telecommunications (Mr Eric Robinson). It is supplementary to that asked by the honourable member for Melbourne Ports. I will give a specific example to the Minister. Radio station 2KA at Katoomba wishes to put in a supplementary booster lower down the Blue Mountains so that it can beam into the western suburbs of Sydney and specialise in the problems of those suburbs, which have a particular community of interest We should keep in mind that these areas now range 35 to 40 miles beyond the centre of the city of Sydney and accordingly no longer should be looked upon as an ordinary metropolis. There was a proposal to establish a high powered station in the western suburbs. That seems to have died. Possibly the Minister could inform us as to what is happening with that proposal. I think it went to court. He will know. That is not the issue. The issue here is the lowpowered stations that want to put in boosters to beam around the western suburbs. I am not touting the interests of any group- far from it- but it is simply the principle that the western suburbs should be served by radio stations which specialise in the problems of the area. I refer particularly to news coverage and social commentary on the problems of the outer western suburbs area, which is very much a distinctive area and in many ways divorced from the city of Sydney.

I want to clarify 3 points. Firstly could a lowpowered station such as the one I mentioned put in a booster further down the Blue Mountains, or could some other station established in the future do something similar to serve the area? Secondly, if it is allowed to do that, will it interfere with the existing programs from high powered stations such as 2GB, 2CH, 2SM, and so on in the metropolitan area of Sydney? I think that is the basic question.

Mr Eric Robinson:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

– You are talking about radio broadcasting, are you?

Mr ARMITAGE:

– I am essentially talking about radio broadcasting, not television broadcasting. Thirdly, what impact would this have on community access stations? I know that quite a number of people are interested in establishing such stations in the outer western suburbs mainly on frequency modulation bands, with the object of providing a specialised service to the area but also at the same time providing the best possible reception and music available to the outer western areas of Sydney, where that type of project is very important.

Mr Eric Robinson:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

– I will have to disappoint the honourable member for Chifley (Mr Armitage), because I think it would be very unwise of me to start indicating here tonight what my reaction or my view might be about a particular radio station. There is a sensitive position in the western suburbs of Sydney. In fact I face a couple of sensitive situations. A couple of writs have already been given to me. One of them is concerned with the matter to which the honourable member referred. Could I suggest in broad terms, without responding particularly in relation to a radio station which he nominated, because I do not wish to get myself into a situation where I react in the Parliament about a particular radio station -

Mr Armitage:

– I am not asking for that.

Mr Eric Robinson:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

-I appreciate that and I accept the honourable gentleman’s reassurances. This would be a matter on which any radio station should approach the Australian

Broadcasting Control Board. Then there would be an inquiry. If, following that inquiry, there was an unacceptable decision, the appeals tribunal system could be used. The frequency modulation aspect is one of the reasons why we are having the overall broadcasting inquiry. The Government of which the honourable member for Chifley was a supporter took a tremendous number of initiatives in the broadcasting area during its 3 years in office. Some of them were very desirable but the proliferation was such that there has to be a sorting out. There is even some doubt as to the legality of some of the licence., that have been issued. What I hope to achieve by this inquiry- I say quite genuinely that it is designed to improve the structure of broadcasting- is to see what is in the best interests of the nation as a whole and of areas in particular, and to see that when licences are given they are properly founded on a legislative base and designed to take into account the community which they serve. The answer I have given obviously cannot be satisfactory to the particular station which the honourable member mentioned. If he wants to come and see me privately about a station within his electorate or the problems of broadcasting within his electorate I shall be very happy to have a personal and frank discussion with him.

Mr CREAN:
Melbourne Ports

– I understand that we are taking these amendments in globo. My concern mainly centres on television and not broadcasting. I want to draw attention particularly to new section 105AAC and to amendments Nos (7) and (8). Amendment No. (7) reads as follows:

Clause 7, page 3, after sub-section (3) insert the following sub-sections: ‘(3a) In making recommendations under this section the Board shall have regard to the principle that subject to the necessity of ensuring that the needs of the community in the area concerned are adequately served, it is desirable that a broadcasting translator . . .

I understand that this applies to television and not to broadcasting. I ask: How does the Board decide upon the necessity of ensuring that the needs of the community in the area are adequately served? Amendment No. (9) seeks to add a sub-section which reads: ‘(2a) Where the Board is of the opinion that satisfactory reception of television programs from a commercial television station or commercial television stations is being obtained in an area, but the Board is also of the opinion that those programs do not adequately serve the interests of the community in that area by reason of the fact that they are designed to serve primarily the different interests of a community in another area, the Board may recommend that a licence be granted . . .

How does the Board decide where there is a conflict between 2 towns, for example between Ballarat and Geelong, to take the State which I know best, or between Lismore and Grafton? The Bill refers to television. I think that everybody accepts that there is a difference between television and broadcasting. A broadcasting station can almost be set up in a back room but a television station cannot be set up in a back room and a commercial television station cannot be set up unless it has an assurance of advertisers. I ask again: How does the Board decide between what I referred to earlier as the immunity of the area from an invasion of programs and the integrity of the local area to maintain its own programs? This seems to me to be something which is essential in each of these amendments. I do not know the reason why, after due deliberation, the Government had to make these amendments but now that they are before the Committee I think that we are entitled to know on what sort of grounds the Board will decide in these very intricate situations.

Mr BAUME:
Macarthur

-I would like to ask the Minister for Post and Telecommunications (Mr Eric Robinson) a very simple question.

Mr Armitage:

– Not to do with Patrick Partners?

Mr BAUME:

– I would expect that kind of helpful comment from the western suburbs.

Mr Armitage:

– Be careful; you are out there, too.

Mr BAUME:

– The south west has a far greater capacity for intellect, at least in selecting its members of Parliament. I suggest that there is a degree of problem- the officers of the Minister’s Department have assured me that it is not a problem- in the wording of various sections which say ‘such a licence ‘ or ‘recommending that a licence be granted’. The word is repeatedly used in the singular. I believe that in the initial Act the words ‘licence or licences’ appeared. I am concerned, for example, that in clause 7, in sub-section (3), given various conditions the Board may recommend that a licence be granted for a broadcasting translator station to serve the needs of the community in the first mentioned area. I wondered why it was specifically limited to ‘a licence’ rather than to ‘a licence or licences’ in the sense that there may well be 2 neighbouring areas and a degree of choice may need to be allowed to the people in the dead reception area. Despite the assurances I have received from the Department some legalistic views are that the expression ‘such a licence ‘ limits to one.

Mr Eric Robinson:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

_First of all I will answer the honourable member for Macarthur (Mr Baume). I am interested to hear his view but my understanding is that it is not limited in any way and that it includes the plural sense. When the honourable member was speaking to me earlier this evening I noted his concern. In my view and the views of the Board and the Department, his fears are unfounded and the plural of the word is encompassed. I turn now to the remarks of the honourable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr Crean). The Australian Broadcasting Control Board has had the legislative authority for many years- I cannot remember how long but I know that it goes back for a long time, for many years before I came into the Parliament and maybe since the honourable member has been in the Parliament- in connection with broadcasting licences in the commercial area.

Mr Crean:

– We have had television since 1957.

Mr Eric Robinson:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

-Yes, but it still goes back a considerable number of years. When we first brought in this Bill we sought to change the Boards authority from purely mechanical or engineering needs to community needs. If the honourable member for Melbourne Ports is concerned as to whether the Board has the competence to decide what is in the community needs I think the safeguard is contained in the amendment because it simply says that where there is need for it the Board will first of all advertise in the Gazette and in a newspaper circulating in the area that it is considering the need for the grant of a licence in an area, and interested persons may then apply to the Board or make written objection to the Board about the granting of a licence. If two or more applications or objections are received the Board will conduct a public inquiry. I think that that is the safeguard, so that the public can be convinced that the Board is operating for the good of the community. When a decision is made and submitted to me there are further safeguards in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. I do not know whether the honourable member was here when I was speaking earlier and I referred to the publishing of coverage maps. A person will be able to appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal against any determination by the Board.

I sense that the honourable member for Melbourne Ports is concerned that the needs of the community are adquately and fairly reflected in the Board’s decision, and that is the reason why we are bringing in these amendments. We felt that the original Bill did not cover that safeguard completely and we became very concerned least we have a situation in which large, successful, highly profitable metropolitan television stations could enter areas where we had previously given a licence for a non-metropolitan station. I think it is in everybody’s interest that we have a range of stations serving the community, particularly in the provincial areas and the rural areas, and which reflect the community and safeguard it against intrusion. I cannot remember the relevant mileage but there is a delineation as to what is metropolitan and what is nonmetropolitan.

Amendments agreed to.

Bill, as amended, agreed to.

Bill reported with amendments and with an amended title.

Report- by leave- adopted.

Third Reading

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

page 314

AUSTRALIAN HERITAGE COMMISSION AMENDMENT BILL 1976

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 4 June, on motion by Mr Malcolm Fraser:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr UREN:
Reid

-The Australian Heritage Commission was established by a Labor Government after the receipt of the report of the Committee of Inquiry into the National Estate which was chaired by Mr Justice Hope. The establishment of this Commission was one of the more important recommendations contained in that historic report. The central theme of the report was quite explicit. It was set out in this brief extract:

The Australian Government-

That is, the Labor Government- has inherited a national estate which has been down-graded, disregarded and neglected. All previous priorities accepted at various levels of government and authority have been directed by a concept that uncontrollable development, economic growth and progress and the encouragement of private as against public interest in land use, use of waters and indeed every part of the national estate was paramount.

That theme embarrassed members of the then Opposition. It now embarrasses the current Government. It highlighted their 23 years of neglect.

It now highlights their attitude to both the Australian Heritage Commission and the preservation of the National Estate. The previous Liberal-Country Party Government was a growth for growth’s sake government. In other words, it was a government of a bulldozer mentality. After last night, it appears that things have not changed very much.

The amendments now proposed to the Australian Heritage Commission Act, an Act introduced by the Labor Government with the apparent support of honourable members opposite, to prevent the desecration of our heritage and to overcome those years of neglect are destined to make that statement come true again. The Australian Heritage Commission, the establishment of which was proposed and enacted by the Labor Government, was to be the tool to achieve the fine aim of giving substance to the concept of the National Estate- a fine concept which was identified by the Australian Labor Party and which was enshrined by Mr Justice Hope and his colleagues in their fine report. The aims enshrined in the Labor legislation and the report were:

  1. Set up an Australian Heritage Commission on a broad and representative basis- a basis which ensured that all interests, interests of the various States and Territories and the public and private sectors as well as the interests of concerned Australians- to advise the Government and the Parliament on the condition of the National Estate and how it should be protected.
  2. Establish and maintain a register of the things that make up the National Estate.
  3. Require that the Australian Government departments and agencies and those acting on its behalf respect the National Estate and do all they can to preserve it.
  4. Finally, in this broad statement of aims, to work in cooperation with the States to ensure that complementary legislation and actions were implemented on behalf of the future generations in Australia.

Against this broad statement of the aims enshrined in the Labor Government’s legislation I shall set out again briefly the history of the legislation, as it is obvious that the Fraser Government has forgotten the good principles and philosophies it espoused when it was in Opposition last year.

In April 1973, the Labor Government set up a committee of inquiry under Mr Justice Hope. This committee was given the task of investigating and reporting to the Government on the nature and condition of the National Estate and the ways in which all bodies in Australia, both government and non-government, could work together to preserve and enhance it. I played a part in devising and publicising the concept of the National Estate when I was the Labor spokesman on the environment and urban and regional affairs between the years 1969 and 1972. During that time, in both the Parliament and the countryside I expressed our wish to preserve for posterity those things that were created by man and nature and that are unique and beautiful.

In those years we put particular emphasis on identifying the National Estate and promoting it as a key pan of the Labor Party’s policy. In our Party’s policy speech in December 1972 we promised that a Labor government would enhance and preserve the National Estate. As a government we acted swiftly to discharge the mandate given to us to identify, conserve and preserve the National Estate. Our first action was to set up the Hope Committee. This Committee was asked to view the National Estate as comprising such things as national parks, nature reserves, historic buildings and structure of architectural merit, areas of special scientific interest, the coastline, inland waters, our wetlands and urban parks. The Labor Government sought from the Committee for the first time in Australian history an inventory of our natural and man-made heritage. In accounting terms, this Committee set out the great assets of our heritage and balanced them against the liabilities that have debased their value. As well as this inventory, the Committee reported on the present condition of the items listed and made recommendations as to how they might be protected and enhanced. In itself, the Committee’s report could be said to form the basis of the register that the Heritage Commission was asked to prepare under the legislation currently being amended.

The Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) has stated publicly as has the Minister for the Environment, Housing and Community Development (Mr Newman) who is now sitting at the table, that no money will be spent by this Government until the register to be established by the Commission is well advanced. I ask the Minister sitting at the table: Has he any idea at all of the amount of work in establishing a national register? Has he had dialogue or discussion with those agencies particularly those in Britain that have set out to compile a national register? Has he made any detailed investigation? It takes years to compile a national- register and even when one is compiled that is only the first round. There is always the second round. It takes a good many people to compile a national register and it takes a long time.

The forces which sit on the treasury bench today have proved by their failure to preserve the National Estate that they cannot be trusted.

They have decided that no money will be spent on the National Estate until this yet to be established register is well on its way. In adopting this attitude they have ignored 2 things. They have ignored the fact that an informal register is already in existence in the report of the Hope Committee. I commend the report to all honourable members on the Government side. It is well worth reading. They should be aware that the Hope Committee dealt with this matter in great depth. Arising out of that inquiry the Hope Committee made its first recommendation to the Government in that report. Registers have already been compiled by the National Trust, by conservation groups and by historical societies. There is information on this matter within the Department of Environment, Housing and Community Development. There is an enormous list of things that need to be done now.

We on the Opposition side do not want this phoney deal which says that we are not going to spend any money until such time as a national register is under way. We know why a smokescreen has been created. I know there are men of goodwill on the Government side of the House. Does the Minister not recall that I was a Minister in the Labor Government? Does he not realise that when the squeeze comes our friends in Treasury say that if there is one place in which they can really use the knife it is environment and urban and regional development? In fact, on one occasion when Labor was in government, they made an impact on urban proposals and also on the National Estate but fortunately in the second round in Cabinet I did them like a dinner. At least I did not stop fighting. When the Treasury bureaucrats cut our programs back I kept on fighting. Unfortunately the bureaucracy of the Fraser Government is controlled by Treasury and there is no appeal. There is no justice when it comes to Treasury decisions unless of course the Prime Minister Fraser has a pet subject when he then says: ‘Look, I will have that. ‘ Unless you can get him on side you have got Buckley’s chance of defeating Treasury.

Mr Newman:

– Do not get carried away.

Mr UREN:

- Mr Minister, I well know that you inherited the finest group of people in the Australian bureaucracy. When we were in office we created a new department of urban and regional development. We drew people from all over the world, from the private sector, from the public sector, from universities, from planning authorities and from State departments. They were outstanding Public Servants. What has happened? The fact is that because of the fear of the economic power of your Department, because they were an alternative economic body in your Department, Treasury has made your Department null and void. It has conspired to deprive you of the opportunity to sit on any economic committee of Cabinet and to have any real say in the economic policy and decision making processes of this nation. Your Department, as it was formed by me as the then responsible Minister, had a say in the whole spectrum of the economy and dealt in a more detailed and humane way with aspects of the economy because the human problems that are involved are in urban affairs.

For 23 years the conservative governments of this nation excluded the human and social problems that built up in the urban community and a crisis situation occurred in Sydney and Melbourne. It was only when the Whitlam Labor Government came into office in 1972 that we were able to commence to do something about the problems, to try to rectify many problems and those fine young public servants or, as I call them, young bureaucrats came in to help us change the face of our urban community. They are being frustrated now. I know they are being frustrated because the Treasury bureaucracy is laying down the dictum. Might I say- I can say it now because it is already a matter of public discussionthat probably one of the finest economic minds that ever joined the Australian Public Service, Dr Michael Keating, in fact helped to break that Treasury bureaucracy budget strategy in 1974- that bureaucracy which would have created unemployment of vast proportion even at the time when Labor was in office. He has now returned to the OECD in Paris. There is no real right of alternative economic policy thought in the Australian bureaucracy and you have to toe the line of Treasury bureaucracy- not the Treasurer but the Treasury bureaucracy.

These matters are all interconnected. As it is said, everything is connected to everything else. As in the environment, as in urban affairs and as with our national heritage, everything is connected to everything else. Everything is interrelated. We are now talking about this important body, the Heritage Commission. For so long it was disregarded by these people sitting opposite. It was only we on this side who started to open up this new world. Those who sit opposite also ignored the fact that, in the interim period when no finance is to be made available, many parts of our heritage could be lost forever. This Government is opting out of its responsibilities to the nation and to our future generations. All political parties not only supported this legislation when it was introduced but also supported the actions of the Labor Government in appropriating $ 17.2m in the last 3 years to be used for the preservation and enhancement of the National Estate.

When Labor was in office the then Opposition spokesman on environment, the current Minister for Health (Mr Hunt) and the honourable member for Sturt (Mr Wilson), both publicly stated in the debate last year on the Heritage Commission that it was necessary to appropriate funds before a formal register was completed to preserve those immediately threatened areas of our national estate. This was referred to as crisis financing and was applauded by the then Opposition spokesman who today sit on the Government side. We could not wait for the register to be completed like this Government is now doing. It this a smokescreen? That is what I want to ask honourable members opposite. Even before the Hope report was completed we had appropriated in our first Budget $2m for the preservation of areas of the National Estate that would otherwise have been lost forever. If that type of funding had not been available to us as a government, many fine things would have been lost to all Australians. I ask honourable members opposite to recall Blackburn Lakes in Victoria, Hallett Cove in South Australia, the Palace Hotel in Perth, to name just a few.

The honourable member for Evans (Mr Abel) interjects. The Commonwealth Bank owned the Palace Hotel in Perth. Does he think that the Government of the day or the bureaucracy of the day, prior to the Labor Party taking office and making the decisions that it did, would have protected the Palace Hotel from destruction by the Commonwealth Bank even though they had the power to do so? It was not until we came to government that action was taken to protect the Palace Hotel. Of course, the pressure will still be on back benchers opposite to ensure that that commitment is met, because all we have done to date is buy the internal fittings of the Palace Hotel, which in fact are in the custody of the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development.

The Palace Hotel premises are still owned by the Commonwealth Bank, and the Commonwealth Bank still has a grand design to develop that area in the name of so-called progress by replacing with glass and concrete high-rise office buildings that lovely old hotel which has a special gentleness and an aura we will never be able to create again.

There are other buildings about which we should be doing something now. One is the Queen Victoria building in Sydney. Do honourable members think that any city council can protect, preserve and restore a building such as the Queen Victoria building without assistance from the national Government? There has been a great deal of the bulldozer development mentality in Sydney. The protection and maintenance of the Queen Victoria building, the Sydney Town Hall and St Andrews Cathedral, which is a unique area in a city which has a policy of growth for growth’s sake, can be done only with the cooperation of the national Government. It is too costly to be restored by a city council. It can be done only by co-operation between the Australian Government, the State Government and local government, as well as with the pressure and support of community organisations. That is the only way in which it can be done.

I mention also to the House and the honourable member for Parramatta (Mr Ruddock) that a building such as the Elizabeth Farm Cottage should be preserved. For the information of honourable members, Elizabeth Farm Cottage, the oldest residence in Australia, is situated in the electorate of Parramatta. It was situated in my electorate before the redistribution of 1969. That building was erected in 1793, 5 years after Governor Phillip arrived in this land. Until the Labor Party came to office not one penny of Australian Government funds was ever made available to try to restore and rehabilitate Elizabeth Farm Cottage. I made representations time and time again to the governments of the day, and they refused me on each occasion. The only man who did give me some consideration and understanding was a former Minister for Tourism, now a back bencher, the honourable member for Hotham (Mr Chipp). But how long can these things wait? The honourable member for Parramatta can tell honourable members that Elizabeth Farm Cottage is in awful disrepair and we could lose if for ever unless rehabilitation work commences soon.

Similarly, it is possible that with the mentality of the present Government some of the scarce tropical rain forests and mangrove swamps in north Queensland could be lost for ever. We know of the bulldozer mentality which exists in Queensland at present and which espouses the policy of growth for growth’s sake. The Australian Government is refusing to appropriate funds for this necessary form of preservation in a time of crisis. It is refusing to do those things which, a mere 12 months ago, it applauded the Labor Government for doing. While the Hope Committee was still conducting its inquiry the Labor Government took positive measures in accordance with its mandate- a mandate best exemplified by the statement that the Australian

Government should see itself as the curator and not the liquidator of our national heritage. We embarked on a series of what were new policiespolicies which are now being dismantled and destroyed by this Government, policies which had an important impact on the National Estate.

The Budget which was introduced into the House yesterday is a major step towards the destruction of those programs. Let me cite those programs to the Minister at the table, who in fact is the Minister responsible for them. The Minister needs a bit of a lecture, and I wish to goodness his young bureaucrats would educate their Minister a little better as to bis responsibilities. The programs include the development of growth centres, such as Albury-Wodonga and BathurstOrange, and the setting up of land commissions. Do honourable members know that it was the responsibility of the land commissions to protect and to buy areas such as the escarpment of the Blue Mountains and many other places of natural beauty such as the foreshores of the Port Phillip Bay peninsula and many other areas? Our programs were interconnected with our sewerage programs which have been almost destroyed by a reduction in funds from $115m to $50m. Area improvement programs which have assisted local governments were also interconnected with the National Estate. Those programs have been completely destroyed. We initiated the setting up of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority and the National Parks and Wildlife Service, apart from ensuring that conservation organisations and groups received financial assistance to obtain technical advice on controversial issues of general community interest. What of the Glebe estate which we acquired and which we were rehabilitating. The Glebe estate contained a townscape extending over a period of 100 years. What is happening? The fact is that since 1 January this year not one penny has been spent on rehabilitation of that estate. A deputation will be meeting with the Minister tomorrow because since 13 December the project has been neglected and work has not been carried out. All these things are interconnected.

Recently the Minister had a look at the Woolloomooloo program, another related part of the Australian Heritage Commission. That area forms part of the history of Sydney and part of the history of Australia. That area was acquired under the Labor Administration for the purpose of being protected, preserved and enhanced, but the project has been sabotaged by this Government. The programs to which I referred earlier also include endeavours to ensure that environment protection forms the key part of the decision-making process of government. That was done by the enactment of the environment protection legislation, and the appointment of permanent heads of departments that had special environmental significance to the Interim Committee on the National Estate, apart from conditions embodied in the legislation currently being amended. I would not be surprised to see legislation introduced into this Parliament shortly to amend the environment protection legislation. If that occurs, it will be just another example of the Government’s mentality.

The Labor Government also started a wide range of programs for the rational management of Australian water and biological resources. All of these programs, many of which have been dismantled by the Fraser Government, involved land use strategies and all had a crucial bearing on the National Estate. The Labor Government made a definite commitment and with real determination to protect our heritage. The Fraser Government has failed to meet this commitment.

I have already said that the legislation now being amended received the full support of the Liberal and Country parties at the time that the Labor Government proposed it. But where is the financial support, the muscle, to support this legislation? The Government must increase that financial commitment. It must meet its commitment now. The Government has increased the financial commitment to the arts. Why cannot the Government if not increase at least make the necessary financial commitment to the National Estate similar to that made to the Arts Council. A commitment has been made to the arts and we know that the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) wants to out do Prime Minister Whitlam’s contribution to the arts.

The Australian Heritage Commission was an example of co-operation and accommodation between the major political parties at the federal level and also was the result of continuous spontaneous co-operation and consultation with the States, the private sector and groups over a very wide area. The people were consulted and drawn from the grass roots. It is their environment and that is why we wanted to work together- the Australian and State governments, local government, the private sector, the people’s sector, people’s organisations and the people themselves.

The legislation that was enshrined as the Australian Heritage Commission Act 1975 was an example of open government and participation in the decision making process on a level unprecedented in Australian history. I want to give credit to David Yencken, the present chairman of the Heritage Commission. David Yencken was a member of the Hope Committee inquiry into the National Estate. He has great tenacity and a great commitment and involvement. I am sure that he will do a fine job as Chairman. We do not oppose the Bill but we will be opposing certain amendments when we get into the Committee stage- in particular clauses 4 and 6 relating to sections 7 and 12 of the principal Act.

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

Mr SIMON:
McMillan

-We heard expressions from the honourable member for Reid (Mr Uren), who has just resumed his seat, such as ‘23 years of neglect’, ‘a growth for growth’s sake government’ and reference to Albury-Wodonga and other growth centres. I am at a loss to understand what those subjects have to do with the legislation we are now debating. We are debating the Australian Heritage Commission Amendment Bill 1976. Honourable members will recall the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) introducing this Bill into the House on 4 June last. It may also be worthwhile recalling the terms which the right honourable gentleman used in introducing this Bill and in particular the following words. They are words which the honourable member for Reid could well recall. The Prime Minister said:

The Government has repeatedly declared its support for the objectives of the Heritage Commission. We are committed to the protection of the National Estate. With the cooperation and goodwill of other spheres of government and the community, we are determined to ensure that the principles set out in the report of the committee of inquiry on the National Estate are honoured.

They are hardly words aimed at creating a smokescreen. I would like briefly to remind the house of the history of this legislation and of the necessity for us all to fix in our minds the responsibility we have to the National Estate. Why was this legislation introduced into the national Parliament? In 1963 J. F. Kennedy, then President of the United States of America, emphasised the need for his Government and the people of United States to recognise the National Estate of his country when he said:

We must expand the concept of conservation to meet the imperious problems of the new age. We must develop new instruments of foresight and protection and nurture in order to recover the relationship between man and nature and make sure that (he National Estate that we pass on to our multiplying descendants is green and flourishing.

Those words were uttered 13 years ago. They are even more important in their intent and application in Australia in 1976.

November 1972 saw the general conference of the United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organisation- I remind honourable members that this was in 1972 and not 23 years ago- adopting the Convention for the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural National Heritage. The preamble of that convention emphasised the threat to the cultural or natural heritage of all nations of the world. It highlighted the growing awareness that our National Estate was under threat. The preamble stated, inter alia:

That deterioration or disappearance of any item of the cultural or natural heritage constitutes a harmful impoverishment of the heritage of all the nations of the world, that protection of this heritage at the national level often remains incomplete because of the scale of the resources which it requires and of the insufficient economic, scientific, and technical resources of the country where the property to be protected is situated.

The terms of those clauses are relevant to Australia. It is interesting to note that the convention was not adopted until November 1972.

It was in 1973 that Australia established a committee of inquiry to ascertain the nature and state of the National Estate and the role which the Australian government could play in the preservation and enhancement of the National Estate. Honourable members will be aware that the committee of inquiry report on the National Estate was presented to the House in September 1974. On tabling that report the honourable member for Reid, previously the Minister for Urban and Regional Development, said:

No future government will be able to ignore the impact of the report and its implications for the careful planning of future public policy to safeguard the National Estate.

Those words, I respectfully suggest, have equal relevance today. It is important that we now note all parties recognise the findings of that committee of inquiry. The present Minister for Health (Mr Hunt), who represents the electorate of Gwydir, reflected this Government’s view of the Australia Heritage Commission Bill when as the then Opposition spokesman for the environment he said:

The Opposition welcomes the legislation which gives legislation expression to the major recommendations of the report on the National Estate . . .

The environment and for that matter the National Estate surrounds all of us. It belongs to all of us. It is not the monoply of any one man. It is not the monopoly of one generation, one group, one party, one government.

That Bill was therefore supported by all parties and by both Houses and received royal assent in June 1975. The co-operation of all parties and recognition of the importance of the Australian Heritage Commission was further evidenced in the intermin report presented by the Chairman, Mr David Yencken, in May 1975. Mr Yencken stated:

We have been heartened by the co-operation, interest and support we have received from governments at aU levels from different political parties and from many private groups and individuals.

These are words which should be noted by the honourable member for Reid. There are many others who have spoken in support of the Australian Heritage Commission. There should be no doubt that this Government has reiterated its firm and unequivocal commitment to the preservation and maintenance of that part of our environment, our National Estate, having asthetlc historical, scientific and social significance for future generations.

Honourable members will be aware of the Government’s policy of restraining public spending having regard to the extremely difficult economic conditions facing us at this time. However, the restriction of expenditure to the Australian Heritage Commission can be justified only if by so doing the National Estate is not thereby prejudiced. If any commitment of the natural environment which would form part of the National Estate and appear on the register in accordance with the terms of the Act is in danger of destruction, despoliation or is in any way adversely affected, the Government must take immediate and urgent steps, on the advice of the Commission, to preserve or maintain that component. To talk of economic restraint whilst part of our heritage is being destroyed is tantamount to vandalism at a national government level.

There unfortunately has been a tendency of late to label those in our community who support conservation or express concern for the protection of the environment- our National Estate- as freaks. That notion must be rejected. Many honourable members will recall examples from their electorates of prehistorical archaeological sites, Aboriginal sites, historical archaeological sites, individual historic buildings, historic structures, and other natural features and areas which must under no circumstances whatsoever be destroyed or in any way damaged by the hand of man. There are many examples where people have expressed concern and interest. The feeling of those concerned with the National Estate should be respected if not applauded. There are too many of us today who are prepared to categorise those who support the conservation of our heritage as being on one side or the other of the political spectrum. Such irrelevant assessments ought to be abandoned. The majority of people in Australia are concerned with the quality of their environment and are able to make assessments of the environmental aspects of any project likely to threaten that quality.

The primary intent of the Bill, as amended, is to establish a commission able to advise the Government on matters of policy affecting the National Estate. The Commission is also charged with a responsibility to identify places to be included in the National Estate and to prepare a register. In one sense the register of the National Estate will never be complete in that from time to time it may be necessary to add or delete places of national heritage interest. It will be a resource available to all government departments, to the State governments, to local government authorities and to interested individuals in our society. In that sense the register can be used as a planning tool for the future. The compilation of the register will be the most important task ahead of the Commission.

I should like to refer briefly by way of example to the United States of America. In that country the National Register of Historic Places, as its name suggests, is concerned only with a register of historic places. It was designed for a federal government system and has subsequently been recommended by Heritage Canada as a model for the Canadian National Estate system. In the United States of America the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 empowered the Secretary of the Interior to delegate responsibility for administration of the Historic Preservation Grants-in-Aid Program. Under that Act the Federal Government could pay matching grants to the States and to the National Trust. A detailed and explicit plan has been formulated to ensure that American heritage of historical and prehistory sites is preserved. An historic property under the United States program may be acquired with Federal Government assistance only if it is listed in the National Register and if the acquisition conforms with the state historic preservation plan. There is much to be learnt from the United States experience and it is pleasing to note that the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser), the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development (Mr Newman) and the Commission have examined this and other overseas examples and are very well aware of the requirement and work necessary to establish the register.

The 1975 report of the Interim Committee of the Australian Heritage Commission further emphasised the need for close co-operation between Commonwealth Government, and respective governments of the States and local government authorities. It is stated on page 19 of that report that ‘the most effective conservation movement will be one which has deep roots in local communities’. Accordingly it is seen that the protection and management of heritage sites will best be developed with the co-operation and assistance of 3 tiers of government. I would argue that any preservation or maintenance of heritage components should not depend on the completion of the register. Whilst I have no doubt that the Australian Heritage Commission will act quickly and compile the register as soon as possible, it would be unreasonable for us to expect completion of the register at an early date having regard to the Commission’s present restrictive financial allowance. It accordingly becomes extremely important that the Government be in a position to act on the advice of the Australian Heritage Commission and to have funds available should the Government wish to adopt the advice and take steps to preserve or to maintain that part of Australia’s heritage which appears on the register.

The amendments contained in this Bill are intended to improve the 1975 legislation. Only time will prove the effectiveness of these amendments. Should the Commission find that it is frustated in any way in carrying out its functions I would trust that further amendments will quickly be introduced into this House to facilitate the practical application of this legislation. The Commission must suffer no disability caused by lack of finance or by government inactivity. The very nature of the legislation, its purpose and intent demand a total commitment from this Government to the protection, maintenance and preservation of our National Estate.

In conclusion I briefly make the following points: Firstly, I hope that in the not too distant future the successful National Estate grants program can be reintroduced; secondly and finally, that reference throughout the principal Act and the amending Bill to ‘ aboriginal ‘ be spelt with a capital ‘A’ and not a small ‘a’ which presently appears in the definition clause and other clauses in the amending Bill. I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-On 14 May 1975 the present Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Uren) introduced the Australian Heritage Commission Bill which was designed to give legislative substance to the concept of the

National Estate. Prior to this initiative historical buildings, sites and relics as well as parks, waterways, rain forests and areas of scientific interest were at great risk. In fact, much of our heritage has already been plundered by developers, by mining companies and by governments and the destructive effects of expanding tourism. Authorities and organisations concerned with preservation have lacked the financial resources, staff and general logistics effectively to fulfil thenobjectives. Without redressing these serious deficiencies Australians would continue to be deprived of the benefit of their sparse but important history and generations to come would be even more disadvantaged.

Under that 1975 legislation the Commission was to be the effective vehicle to enhance and preserve the National Estate. It was to establish and maintain a register of the components of the Estate and broadly was to give effect to the recommendations of the committee of inquiry established under Mr Justice Hope in April 1973. That Committee, with its 8 members, set out to prepare an inventory of the National Estate. Each of these inventory items was to be evaluated in terms of its condition and the steps which would need to be taken to ensure its protection and enhancement. As a mark of its good faith and the seriousness of its resolution the Government, even before the Hope Committee had completed its work, approved grants of more than $2m to organisations and State and local governments. The main theme of the Hope Committee report which was presented in April 1974 can probably be conveyed in a brief extract from the report.

The Australian Government has inherited a National Estate which has been downgraded, disregarded and neglected.

All previous priorities accepted at various levels of government and authority have been directed by a concept that uncontrolled development, economic growth and progress and the encouragement of private as against public interest in land use, use of waters, and indeed in every part of the National Estate, was paramount.

An interim committee was appointed in September 1974 and that interim committee had a very large membership- some 17 members. They were representative of the areas of expertise involved with the consideration of the National Estate and its preservation. They included environmentalists and anthropologists. I think there were 7 Commonwealth departmental heads. There were scientists and architects and very distinguished public servants representative of all the States in Australia.

I have heard talk tonight about federalism. This was a genuine effort in support of the concept of federalism because all the States were involved and these people worked to give effect to that far-reaching set of recommendations contained in the Hope report. The broad nature of the Committee structure was a tremendously significant factor. I cannot over-emphasise that tonight. In June 197S the Australian Heritage Commission Bill was presented to Parliament. The concept of appointing a permanent commission was approved by way of legislation in this Parliament. The Chairman was appointed and the other members- some 18- were to be appointed subsequently. These appointments had not been made when the coup occurred on 11 November last. Honourable members can gain the understanding that the Whitlam Government- the Labor Government- was well and truly on the way to giving effect to the Hope Committee recommendations. The Interim Committee certainly has done a very great job. I should like to mention its terms of reference. It was to advise the Ministers- that was the Minister for Urban and Regional Development and the Minister for Environment- on legislation to create an Australian heritage commission, on grants from the 1974 National Estate financial assistance programs and on any other matters related to National Estate issues.

The objectives of that Interim Committee were along these lines: The identification and classification of sites; the legal protection of designated sites; the physical protection, including maintenance, restoration, management and preservation of sites; professional and technical training; community education and information; and support for community groups concerned with protection of the National Estate. The first 3 objectives which I have mentioned were given the highest priority by the Interim Committee. It is interesting to note that the Committee was active in advising on the distribution of grants under 3 major programs within the Government’s National Estate allocations. The program of the Department of Urban and Regional Development in 1974-75 received $8m as a result of those recommmendations for historic buildings and sites, urban and open space and for National Trusts. The Department of the Environment’s program on grants to conservation bodies, amounting to $448,000 was a recommendation of the Interim Committee as was the program of the Department of the Environment for acquisition of land for nature conservation. This involved expenditure of $9m.

On 4 June 1976 the Australian Heritage Commission Amendment Bill 1976 was introduced. The main issue in this Bill involves a reduction in the size of the Commission. The Commission will be reduced to 6 members- a reduction of some 12 members. Of course, this will have the effect of excluding from the smaller body the States, certainly local governments and many other interest groups including environmentalists and people concerned about Aboriginal affairs, possibly the National Trust bodies and lots of other representatives who hitherto would have been on that bigger body. The Government’s talk about federalism just does not carry any weight in this situation. The number of Permanent Heads of departments on the Commission are to be reduced in numbers as well. The sequel will be a lack of co-ordination between the Federal departments that have some kind of involvement in matters relating to the National Estate and the whole of the Heritage Commission’s work will be affected. The Commission will be disadvantaged and so will the Parliament and the people.

The Commission also is to lose the responsibility of advising on grants and financial assistance. It seems to me that the Government does not want anybody- no matter how representativeexposing the potential of work that should be done by the Heritage Commission. The Government just does not want to receive any recommendations because undoubtedly it will not be prepared to fund the recommendations of the Commission. The Government will find all this very embarrassing. So, we find that the new Commission is virtually limited to setting up a register of components of the National Estate. It is certainly an innocuous and relatively ineffective body compared with the body which was sponsored by my colleague, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Uren), when he was Minister for Urban and Regional Development.

In respect of the current situation I should like to mention the funds which have been allocated. In 1975-76 the National Trusts were funded effectively so that in each State grants were made of $30,000. In addition, $125,000 was appropriated for the Territories under the National Estate’s program. In 1976-77 the National Trust will receive the same amount as in the previous year and that is equal to a 1 3 per cent drop in real terms over the previous Budget allocation. The inflationary factor applied to the same amount gives that 13 per cent diminution in effective value. The Government has really cut into the ability of the National Trusts to serve this concept. Similarly, the National Estate program for the Territories has been adversely affected. Their allocation has been deleted altogether. The National Park and Wildlife Service has had its budget cut by an effective 78 per cent from $lm in 1975-76 to $240,000 in 1976-77.

The next matter that causes me concern is the number of commissioners to operate in respect of the Heritage Commission. This Bill reduces the number of part-time commissioners from 19 to 7 and removes the requirement that up to 6 Permanent Heads of Government departments or authorities may be appointed to the Commission and states that no more than two may be so appointed. So much for co-operation between departments in order to protect our heritage which was so importantly stressed by the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) in his second reading speech. As I mentioned earlier- I want to emphasise this point- the Opposition has moved that each State be represented on the Commission. But this, despite the new federalism policy of the Government, has been put into limbo. The real result is that, whereas the principal Act allowed for wide ranging representationa wide ranging Commission, if you likerepresenting not only the States but all the interested organisations such as the National Trust organisations, Aboriginal groups and environmental protection groups, this Act limits the range of expertise available to the Commission and increases their workload to such an extent that the program of saving the National Estate will be put back many years.

I should now like to refer to the question of sacred sites because I believe that one of the most important parts of this Bill relates to the amendment of section 23 of the principal Act. The amendment in this Bill will effectively eliminate the protection of sacred Aboriginal sites from Federal jurisdiction. This amendment removes from the Commission the authority to place on the register Aboriginal sacred sites unless, firstly, they are already classified under State or Territory Acts or ordinances or, secondly, recommendations are accepted by the Minister from approved persons or organisations. When this legislation is read with the Nothern Territory land rights legislation that has been introduced into this Parliament, with the new proposal to hand back to the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly the power to regulate sacred sites, and when the record of that Assembly is viewed by the Parliament, we will see why the Hope Committee of inquiry was so definite in recommending that this area be placed under Federal control. Commenting on the legislative protection afforded by the States, the Hope Committee stated that the State legislation allowed for the declaration of a temporary sacred site, effective immediately, and for 6 months after the negotiations were entered into. The report, in part, stated:

Regrettably this is not the case in the Northern Territory where the Ordinance provides that acquisition with compensation must occur before a site may be designated or protected in any way. Thus a landholder or lessee, if he is so disposed, may destroy a site with impunity as no offence is committed until the site has been acquired and declared.

The Northern Territory ordinance is clearly ineffective and needs to be brought with all urgency at least to the standard generally accepted in the States if not improved on.

The words that I have been reading are not mine; they are the considered words of the Hope Committee of Inquiry. They contain a firm, unequivocal and high principled recommendation to this Government which has so little concern for Aboriginal people and their sacred sites that it has completely disregarded that very firm and forthright recommendation from this Committee of Inquiry. It is no wonder that the Aboriginal budget has been slashed by something like 33 per cent or 34 per cent when the Government can ignore such a recommendation relating to Australia’s culture and the heritage of the indigenous people of this country.

Under the Ordinance only 6 sites have been declared between 1955 and 1973. In addition to the transfer back to the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly of power over Aboriginal sacred sites the Institute of Aboriginal Studies budget for 1976-77 has been severely reduced. This will have a wide ranging effect on Aboriginal programs, one of the most important being the training of Aboriginals as site recorders, site wardens and guardians of Aboriginal sacred sites. Another aspect of the Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies program has been the funding of specific programs administered by the State and Territory authorities and agencies into the recording of Aboriginal sacred sites. The effect of the Budget cuts will be to limit such studies and funding of studies to approximately 60 per cent of the 1975-76 Budget allocation. In relation to Aboriginal sacred sites, the Hope Committee of Inquiry into the National Estate recommended:

  1. that the Australian Government introduce legislation to give uniform protection on a national basis to Aboriginal sites of significance throughout Australia;
  2. that the provisions of the legislation be drawn into discussions with the State authorities who have the present responsibility for tile conservation and preservation of these sites, and
  3. that the Aboriginal people be afforded every opportunity for full and effective consultation throughout the process of drafting.

It is clear that the recommendations of the Hope Committee of Inquiry into the National Estate with regard to sacred Aboriginal sites have been totally ignored by this Government. The Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development (Mr Newman) must accept responsibility for this.

The functions of the Heritage Commission have been undermined. The Fraser Government has removed parts (b) and (c) of the principal Act relating to the functions of the Commission. That is, it has removed the powers to recommend expenditure on programs of preservation and conservation and has abolished the Commission’s right to authorise grants for research through the States or through their own efforts. The effect of such a deletion may well be that the Heritage Commission will become yet another lame duck commission acting in name only, and that the Australian heritage, sought to be protected by many thousands of Australians and acted on by the former Labor Administration, will now take second place to the industrial, mining and pastoral development of Australia.

The party of speculators is back in government. The well being of the ordinary people and the indigenous people of this country, and the preservation of our National Estate can take second place, it seems for the period- the limited period, I hope- that this Liberal-National Country Party Coalition will be in office.

Mr CALDER:
Northern Territory

– Before dealing with the Bill I wish to make some observations on the comments of some of the previous speakers. The former Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, the honourable member for Hughes (Mr Les Johnson), spoke at length about Aboriginal sites and deplored the fact that the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly may have some authority with regard to assisting the Aborigines in declaring and having declared sacred sites. What does he know about the Northern Territory and what the Aborigines themselves know about their own law, whether it is their land law or their Aboriginal sites? He was the man who produced a nonsensical Bill about Aboriginal land rights. He gets up in this House and attacks the members of the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly- people who have been born in the Northern Territory, and who have worked in the Northern Territory and who would know far more than the whole of his former Department put together, about land rights, Aboriginal sacred sites and Aboriginal law. That will be proved before very long. He and his colleagues rise in this place and, in their complete and utter ignorance, parrot remarks of that kind.

The Legislative Assembly has fought for the Aborigines. Members of the Australian Labor Party wished to have the right of entry- the permit system- thrown out so that all their left wing mates could go through the settlements in Arnhem Land. Year after year the Liberal and Country Parties fought for the right of Aborigines to decide who went into these parts of the country.

Mr Garrick:

- Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. The honourable member’s remarks do not relate to the Bill before the House.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Bonnett:
HERBERT, QUEENSLAND

-I think there has been a little licence so far in the debate. There is no substance in the point of order.

Mr CALDER:

– I was provoked to say that because the former Minister spent a lot of time on this subject. I thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for your indulgence.

Mr Garrick:

– Get back to the Bill.

Mr CALDER:

– I am coming back to the Bill, but I am discussing the remarks of previous speakers. The former Minister then said that the budget for the Department of Aboriginal Affairs has been slashed by 34 per cent, but he neglected to say that the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Viner) and the Treasurer (Mr Lynch) have assured the Parliament that after the interdepartmental committee report and the Hay report on the tremendous wastage which occurred when he was the Minister -

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– You have not even seen the Hay report.

Mr CALDER:

– Of course I have not seen it, and neither has the honourable member- nor should he have seen it.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Then what are you saying?

Mr CALDER:

-All right, I refer to the interdepartmental committee report on the shocking waste of money under the Labor Government. The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and the Treasurer have said that money will be provided for Aboriginal enterprises. The former Minister went on to say that the speculators had now arrived on the scene and that the Aborigines would get nothing out of it. For Heaven’s sake, if the place is not developed the Aborigines will not get anything out of it, anyhow. I ask honourable members to remember that. In many areas Aborigines are getting quite a lot of money out of these enterprises, whether they be on Groote Eylandt, at Yirrkala or anywhere else. The former Minister knows only too well that the Aborigines are getting millions of dollars out of these projects for their own enterprises; and so they should.

Now I come to what was said by the former Minister for Urban and Regional Development, the honorable member for Reid (Mr Uren), in a most emotional speech. He said that the national heritage had been downgraded by years of neglect and that this would continue under the Liberal-Country Party Government. I find that in the 1974-75 Budget proposals he and his Department were asking for $73m to set up the Australian Heritage Commission.

Mr Uren:

– How much?

Mr CALDER:
NORTHERN TERRITORY · CP; NCP from May 1975

– In that year there were grants of $5. 8m. I am led to believe that the present Government is voting $ 1.35m to get the Commission under way. I see that the honourable member nods his head. Then he said that this Government cannot be trusted. That is absolute and utter nonsense. He was terribly emotional on the whole subject. I refer to an article concerning the Heritage Commission which appeared in the Canberra Times of 28 July last. The Government is spoken of as having the unpopular task of administering the National Estate while trying to maintain strict Budget restraints. That fact having been acknowledged at the first meeting of the Commission, the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development (Mr Newman) said that the Commission had no doubt that the Government was committed to policies which would protect the environment. He said:

All commitments arising from programs in previous years will be met.

The Government has been subjected to a tirade about it intending to do nothing about the National Estate. The Minister has said exactly the opposite. The previous Minister kept on fighting- of course he would- for these high ideals and for money which his Government and Australia could not produce. All of us could do the same thing- we could have these great ideals. Let us face facts. There is nothing wrong with that, but we must pay for them somewhere along the line. Honourable members opposite must remember that. It is no use their coming into this place tonight or at any other time and making a great noise about what would have happened if only they had the money. They had these fine ideals.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Why are you opposing the Commission?

Mr CALDER:
NORTHERN TERRITORY · CP; NCP from May 1975

– I am not opposing it at all. The former Minister blamed the Treasury. He blamed this Government. We cannot have the stars. Let us look up to them, by all means. I am not slamming him for introducing the original legislation. He said that the programs were destroyed by this Government. What he and the Australian Labor Party forget, and what I hope the Australian public does not forget, is that the previous Government nearly destroyed Australia. It gave Australia and this Government no chance to carry out ideals of that sort. The previous Government left us with no money whatever. It nearly broke the country.

Mr Innes:

– Tell us what you intend to spend on defence. Tell us your priorities.

Mr CALDER:
NORTHERN TERRITORY · CP; NCP from May 1975

– Since you are so keen to raise the matter, the previous Government ran down the defence of this country. It did so in its socialist manner, in the hope that at some time in the future there would be no one left to defend it, the same as in Chile. The former Minister, in his emotional tirade, said that the ALP was the curator, not the liquidator. He said that the policies were dismantled by this Government. The Chairman of the Commission, Mr David Yencken, said:

The future of the Heritage Commission, which was being established by the Labor Government before its dismissal, had been in doubt for months because of uncertainty about its acceptance by the Fraser Government.

The former Minister has been hammering that. Mr Yencken also said:

Amendments to the Act introduced by the Prime Minister 2 weeks ago had not removed or affected any of the important roles or powers of the Commission.

Why all this emotionalism? Why all these false attacks? If the previous Government had paid more attention to keeping down inflation and unemployment, to supporting the primary industries and the exports which earn the money, which would have given it the means to pay for these high ideals, instead of supporting the Coombs report, company bashing, business bashing, private enterprise bashing and so many of the long-hairs, bludgers, no-hopers and nonworkers around the country, it might have had the money and it might still be in government. If it had done that in government we would have had the money to do all these things.

I return to the Bill. The original Bill received assent in June 1975. 1 note that there were 12 to 19 members of the Commission. I note that now there will be one Chairman and 6 commissioners. Looking at their names, I think they would be commendable people. I am sure they are.

Mr Innes:

– There are 6 States. Will each State be represented?

Mr CALDER:

– I hope they will work with the States and the Territories. We have had so much misinformation about the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly this evening. I hope the commissioners will work with the thousands of private citizens, including myself, who are more than interested in this sort of thing.

Mr Innes:

– I H bet you are interested.

Mr CALDER:

– Look up my record, you mug.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock)Order! The honourable member for the Northern Territory will withdraw that remark

Mr CALDER:

– It is probably true, but I withdraw it.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– I suggest that the honourable member for Melbourne allow the honourable member for the Northern Territory to make his speech on his own.

Mr CALDER:

– I have been subject to constant harassment. In the next 12 months a register will be established. It will take a long time and a lot of money. Why does the Labor Party and the former Minister think they are the only people in Australia interested in these things? It is a mammoth job. It is a job for all Australians. I commend the Government on the appointment of a private citizen as chairman. I am sure he will be a very good chairman.

The former Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and other people seem to think that the most significant part of the National Estate concerns Aboriginal sites. These issues can be quite complex. Where are these sites? Did I hear an interjection earlier that there should be a member of the Commission from each State? I am not criticising the members of the Commission. They probably know something about the national heritage. I do not know what they know about Aboriginal sites. I have no complaints about them. If the Commission is to have a lot to do with sacred Aboriginal sites, let us see on the Commission someone from the Northern Territory, someone from the north of Western Australia, someone from South Australia or someone from Queensland. I would like the Government to look at that suggestion.

I deal now with clause 3 of the Bill. When discussing the original Bill a former member referred to the fact that the word ‘aboriginals’ is used. That word strikes me as being the adjective, not the noun. I do not think it should be ‘aboriginals’. I think it should be ‘Aborigines’. The definition that appeared in the Aboriginal Lands Fund Bill, the Aboriginal Councils and Associations Bill and Labor Bills of that ilk appears again in this Bill. I want to know why this definition keeps on appearing. That definition is not acceptable to Aborigines in the Northern Territory or in Western Australia. There should be a definition which does not allow people who have never been to the Territory to go there and claim rights from people who were born and bred there or who have lived there for many years. So I ask this Government- the previous Government took no notice- to look very closely at the definition. It could cause great strife among traditional Aborigines when the matter of sacred sites or traditional land rights is dealt with. Alter the definition before it is too late.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

page 326

ADJOURNMENT

Australian Opera Company- Shipbuilding Industry- Tourist Industry in Queensland

Mr SPEAKER:

– It being 10.30 p.m., in accordance with the order of the House of 18 February 1 976, 1 propose the question:

That the House do now adjourn.

Mr GRAHAM:
North Sydney

-It is my privilege this evening on behalf of the organisation known as the Friends of the Australian Opera to bring before the Parliament the problems of the Australian Opera Company. I would like the Parliament to know that there is great distress at the seriousness of the financial position of the Australian Opera Company. I wish to bring attention to the urgent need for immediate action to avoid jeopardising the future of what has become a major national institution in the relatively short period of 20 years. We may feel here in Australia that we are unable to afford an opera company at this stage. If that is the case I think we ought to consider the fact that this may well mean that we will never have a viable opera company. Twenty years ago numerous

Australian singers had to go overseas to gain fulltime employment as singers. They could obtain only three or four months employment in a year in Australia at that stage. Many of these singers, as honourable members would know, have attained world renown and some have now returned to the Australian Opera Company because they want to live in Australia and to sing on a professional and full-time basis. With the present structure of the Opera Company these would be reasonable expectations for these internationally famous Australians to hold. If the Opera Company should now have to revert to part-time activity many of these singers will have no choice but to return overseas. I can well foresee that if this occurs they will never again accept a contract in Australia as their expectations at this stage in 1976 have been so very much disappointed.

I would like to bring to the attention of the House of Representatives a number of points in relation to this matter. The Australian Opera experienced an increase of 4S.8 per cent in ticket sales between 1970 and 1976, a rise from 224 900 to 328 000 paid attendances. In addition to this, all Australians have the opportunity of enjoying the Company’s work through radio and television broadcasts of its performances. Its subsidy level is drastically below subsidies generally received by overseas opera companies. In Australia it is approximately 42 per cent of expenditure, and generally in Europe these figures are as high as 80 per cent in countries where opera companies have been established over a long period.

The Australian Opera Company is an ensemble company that carries a responsibility for long-term employment for most of Australia’s finest artists in the field of opera. Their continuity of employment ought not to be jeopardised, nor should we allow them to be lost to overseas companies. The 12 musicians recently dismissed from the Elizabethan Sydney Orchestra have had to be employed by the Australian Opera Company, since it is impossible to present opera to the standard which we now expect from the company with an insufficient number of players. This employment has placed an additional financial burden on our Opera Company. In spite of the small number of opera productions it holds in stock because of its short history, the Australian Opera spends much less each year on new productions than do most of the overseas companies.

I bring this matter to the attention of the House in the hope that it will be brought to the attention of the Government and that in due course we in Australia can look forward with pride to the sustenance, development and further progress of the great Australian company. I know that there are many people in Sydney now who have come from other parts of Australia to watch the opera in the Sydney Opera House. As the company travels around the other capital cities, many Australians have the opportunity to enjoy the wonderful professional performance of artists like Joan Sutherland who is, of course, internationally known, and others of whom all Australians including, I am sure, all members on both sides of the House are very proud.

Mr WALLIS:
Grey

-Tonight I take the opportunity to raise a matter of vital importance in my electorate in its effect on the largest city in that electorate, the city of Whyalla. The Federal Liberal-Country Party Government has decided in the last few days that the Australian shipbuilding industry must go to the wall. Despite vastly changed circumstances in the industry, the Government has decided to refuse any extra assistance to it. The decision was taken despite the policy adopted last year by the coalition parties. That policy stated:

An Australian shipbuilding and repair industry is essential to the national interest. The Liberal and Country parties believe Australia must maintain an independent capacity to provide and service the relevant requirements of our commercial shipping and our defence forces. A federal Liberal and Country Parry government will pursue policies which ensure the ship building and repair industry operates as competitively and efficiently as possible. In this we will provide a building subsidy to protect our relatively small but vital industry.

Yet despite this statement of policy, the Government has taken the decision announced last Friday. The Minister for Transport (Mr Nixon) has endeavoured to explain away the decision by blaming the former Labor Government. The Labor Government did not give any authorisation for the four 15 000 ton Australian National Line ships to be built overseas. The Liberal Country Party Government has given that authorisation. It is now considering giving authorisation for the importing of a further 4 ships, all of which could be built in Australian yards. Included in these 4 ships are two general cargo vessels for Broken Hill Pty Ltd, itself the owner of the largest shipyard in Australia. Of course, where dollars count values such as loyalty to the nation and to one’s own employees get short shrift. If BHP receives permission from this Government to import these 2 ships instead of building them in its own yard the employees of the Whyalla shipyards will have a very bleak future to look forward to.

Whyalla is a large decentralised city that relies on its 2 main secondary industries, namely ship building and steel works, for its very existence. With the possible close down of the shipyards because of the lack of orders, one-third of the main work force can look forward to a very gloomy future. Because of Whyalla ‘s comparative isolation 245 miles from Adelaide, alternative employment opportunities are just nonexistent. In one trade alone over 800 employees will be made redundant. In making the decision it has made, what plans does the Government have to relocate these people? What of those who have purchased houses in the city? Are they all to be thrown to the wolves?

Quite recently a statement was made by Sir Ian McLennan of BHP that if the ship building industry was not profitable BHP did not feel that it had any responsibility for Whyalla. Is this a natural reaction in a society such as the one we live in? When we look at the real situation at Whyalla we can see how irresponsible such a statement is. The shipyards are outside local boundaries, so they escape many normal responsibilities to local government. The whole infrastructure of Whyalla- housing, water and all the other essential services- has been provided by the South Australian government. The majority of its work force has been recruited overseas, with the Federal Government making the major contribution to the cost through the Department of Immigration. It operates under the Whyalla Indenture Act, which was considered a gift from the South Australian Playford Government with its many advantages to BHP. In view of this can it be said that BHP has no responsibilities to Whyalla? Can it withdraw from the shipyards leaving behind a large pool of unemployment and a host of social problems? It appears that the industry in Whyalla is to receive no further consideration from either the Government or BHP and will be allowed to grind to a standstill.

Much has been said by Government supporters and the Minister for Transport regarding industrial relations. They have placed the blame on the employees in the industry. But it is a fact that there has been no major industrial dispute at Whyalla for a number of years. Those who saw the television program concerning Newcastle, on This Day Tonight, know that there has been no dispute there for quite some time.

From my own knowledge of industrial relations at Whyalla, the dogmatic approach of the major employer has been one of the main contributing factors in many of the earlier disputes that have taken place. If time allowed I would give some details. However, for a number of years there has been a realisation by the unions that some rationalisation would assist the industry, with unions and employers agreeing to come to some suitable arrangements. In 1974 the previous Australian Labor Party Government sent a delegation overseas to see what was going on. Rank and file members were included in the delegation. However, this Government’s decision, if carried out, will not allow those discussions and examinations to show any results.

In making comparisons between the output of Australian and Japanese yards, the Minister should also examine the more modern equipment in Japanese yards and the much less modern equipment in Australian yards- a legacy of the previous 23 years of Liberal-Country Party rule. The more labour intensive Australian yards have to compete with the more capital intensive yards of Japan.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable gentleman ‘s time has expired.

Mr JULL:
Bowman

– On a previous occasion in this House I mentioned just how diversified were the activities in my electorate. It is a very big electorate and part of the area that it covers are the islands of Moreton Bay.

Mr Martyr:

– It is a beautiful bay.

Mr JULL:

– Indeed it is a most beautiful place. For many years it has been visited by hundreds of tourists every year, and that is the reason for my speaking in this adjournment debate tonight. The tourist industry that has been built up in the Bay islands area- I think especially of North Stradbroke Island and Point Lookout- is undergoing tremendous pressures at the moment and it looks as though the tourist industry in that area of Queensland could come to a grinding halt. I think that we should go back in time a little and have a look at just what effect the tourist industry has had on this part of Queensland. The tourist resort of Point Lookout was begun in 1934 by the Kennedy family and, as a result of their venture on this island, the first post office, the first accommodation, the first shop and the first transport across an old bush track to this area of the island were established. The resort was taken over by the defence forces during World War II and was re-established after the war. Consequently a special barge service was set up between the mainland and the island to provide the first transport to the island.

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– Do not forget the Claytons.

Mr JULL:

– Since then a number of different organisations have been established there and, as the honourable member for Griffith reminds me, we have the Claytons guest house, the Headland Chalet, Samarinda resort and the Stradbroke Hotel set up there. But now costs are overcoming them. In the last few years the wages factor has resulted in a big downturn in the service that has been provided to the visitors to that pan of the world, so much so that it has become completely a family concern, with families running these individual organisations.

The Point Lookout-Stradbroke Island Tourist Development Association is appealing to the Government at the moment for some long term loans at low interest rates to help them get over their particular problem. Indeed this is a problem facing the whole of Queensland and many other areas of Australia. I think that this remedy could get the tourist industry back on its feet again.

The responsibility for this aspect of the tourist industry should not be left only to the Federal Government. I believe that State governments have a very real role to play in the rebuilding of the tourist industry, as has local government. Let me give an example of some of the problems facing the operators of resorts on islands off the coast of Queensland. In the case of Point Lookout on Stradbroke Island a particular organisation is seeking to develop new facilities to attract more tourists. This will cost quite a deal of money. In addition, the local council asked the organisation to provide a 100 per cent bitumen car parking facility for every cabin in the complex. That in itself would cost between $60,000 and $70,000. On top of that the local authority wanted the organisation also to provide $10,000 towards the cost of making a new road. So that project was shelved because, with the total costs heading to well over $100,000, it was not a viable proposition. So we need understanding from State and local governments as well.

I will continue with what I was saying about the need for long term loans at low interest rates for rebuilding the tourist industry at a later date. It is a matter that I think should be brought to the attention of the Government and one which should be acted upon very quickly before the vital tourist industry in Queensland and other parts of Australia comes to a grinding halt.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I call the honourable member for Grey.

Mr WALLIS:
Grey

-I would like to finish the remarks I was making earlier when I referred to the comparison between the Australian and Japanese shipyards. The Minister for Transport (Mr Nixon) should also examine the more modern equipment in Japanese yards and compare it with the much less modern equipment of the Australian yards.

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– I rise to order. My understanding of the Standing Orders is that there must be no other prospective speakers before an honourable member who has already spoken in the adjournment debate can rise to speak again. On my understanding even if 2 members on the same side of the House were to follow one another this would exclude a member who has already spoken. Mr Speaker, would you please tell me whether I am under a misapprehension or whether my understanding is clear and precise?

Mr SPEAKER:

– I think that the honourable member for Griffith is clear and precise but there was nobody standing. I looked around the chamber carefully and saw only the honourable member for Grey. I called him. I now call the honourable member for Grey to continue.

Mr WALLIS:

-Thank you, Mr Speaker, for a wise decision. I was talking about the difference between the more modern Japanese yards and the less modern Australian yards. Our yards are a lot more labour intensive but we have to compete with the more capital intensity yards of Japan. Added to that is the fact that with the much larger volume of production in that country, economies of scale can be achieved. As a maritime nation and a great trading nation, it will be a blot on our conscience if we allow the shipyards at Whyalla and Newcastle to close and leave ourselves to the mercy of overseas shipbuilders. It is not too late for the Government to reverse its decision- a course I would recommend and a course I hope it will adopt. The Liberal-National Country Party Government has been in office now for 9 months. It is too late for it to blame all its ills on the former Labor Government. This Government has had time to make its own decisions and it should take the blame for what it has done.

A couple of months ago the Government set up a committee to examine the shipbuilding yards. Some of the members of that committee listened to what they were told- some of them have made remarks to me- and they have shown concern about industrial relations at Whyalla. They were probably shocked to learn that the Broken Hill Pty Co. Ltd does not recognise the senior trade union body in that city, the Whyalla Combined Union Council. It is essential if we are to achieve industrial harmony in these areas that the trade union organisations be represented. It would be very interesting to know- we will probably never know- what that Liberal committee which visited the shipyards recommended to the Government and whether it recommended the course of action that was taken. I repeat that it was not a good decision by the Government. It is not too late for the Government to reverse that decision. The Opposition certainly hopes that it will do so in the interests of the Australian nation and the people in the shipyards of Australia.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

House adjourned at 10.49 p.m.

page 331

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

The following answers to questions were circulated:

Public Service: Staff Ceilings (Question No. 218)

Mr Uren:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) What was the individual staff ceiling for each Australian Government Department and Authority in existence as at 30 October in each of the years 1972, 1973, 1974 and 1975, and as at 29 February 1976.
  2. What was the actual number of people employed by each of those Departments and Authorities on the same dates.
  3. What is the estimated individual establishments for the Departments and Authorities currently in existence as at 30 June 1976.
  4. What is the difference between this estimate and the staff ceilings recently set by him.
Mr Fraser:
Prime Minister · WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

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

  1. 1 ) It is not the practice to publish the individual ceilings set for each department and authority.
  2. See attached tables A to E inclusive in respect of Public Service Act employment.

Staff numbers in respect of non-Public Service Act employment for 29 February 1976 are listed in table G. NonPublic Service Act staff numbers for the other dates in question are not centrally recorded nor, in all cases, would they be readily available. However, figures of staff numbers at 30 June 1 975 are listed in table F.

  1. The establishments at 30 June 1976 for Departments and those Authorities whose employment is under the Public Service Act are listed in table H.

In respect of non-Public Service Act employment, the Public Service ‘establishment’ concept is not universalsome bodies do not have an ‘establishment’, and others have one in a limited sense only, which makes their establishment not comparable with that of other authorities or departments. Establishment figures have therefore not been provided in respect of non-Public Service Act employment.

  1. See(l) above.

Former Department of Urban and Regional Development: Establishment and Staffing (Question No. 219)

Mr Uren:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) What was the (a) establishment and (b) staff ceiling of the Department of Urban and Regional Development as at 30 October in each of the years 1973, 1974 and 1975.
  2. What effect did changes in Administrative Arrangements Orders prior to December 1 975 have on the establishment and staff ceilings of that Department.
  3. What number of positions gained by the Department in the latter half of 1975 was the result of transfers of functions to that Department from other than existing Departments or the result of the abolition of certain statutory authorities.
Mr Malcolm Fraser:
LP

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

  1. (a) The establishment of the Department of Urban and Regional Development was 200 in October 1973; 267 in October 1974; and 1731 in October 1975. (b) It is not the practice to publish the individual ceilings set for each department and authority.
  2. The two major relevant changes in the Administrative Arrangements Order prior to December 1975, as they affected the Department, were the transfer of responsibility for the Australian Housing Corporation from the Minister for Housing and Construction, and the absorption of the functions and staff of the Cities Commission into the Department of Urban and Regional Development. The changes involved increases in establishment of 1231 and 121 respectively.
  3. 1352 positions.

Scrutiny of Members of Parliament (Question No. 229)

Mr Scholes:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice:

Who is entitled to authorise police or security scrutiny of members of the parliaments of Australia and the States.

Mr Street:
LP

– The Minister for Administrative Services has provided the following reply to the honourable member’s question:

If circumstances were to arise that required either police or security scrutiny of a member of parliament, the person entitled to authorise scrutiny would, as in the case of the scrutiny of other citizens, be an appropriate police officer or (in security matters) the Director-General of the Australian Security Intelligence Organization. In so far as the scrutiny would involve the interception of a telephone service, the warrant of the Attorney-General issued at the request of the Director-General would be required under the Telephonic Communications (Interception) Act 1 960.

Business College Subsidies (Question No. 285)

Mr Stewart:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES

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

  1. How many private business colleges are receiving a subsidy for students under the Tertiary Education Assistance Scheme, and how many have had applications for subsidy rejected.
  2. What are the (a) names of, (b) locations of, and (c) amounts received by the approved colleges.
  3. What are the (a) names and (b) locations of the rejected colleges.
  4. What are the criteria applied in considering applications.
  5. 5 ) What is the future of the Tertiary Education Assistance Scheme.
Mr Viner:
LP

– The Minister for Education has supplied the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

  1. Fees assistance in respect of students at certain non profit making private institutions is not provided under the Tertiary Education Assistance Scheme. This assistance is provided under a separate program. It is true however that all the full-time courses approved for fees assistance are also approved for living allowance payments under the Tertiary Education Assistance Scheme.

In 1975 there were ten private business colleges receiving fees assistance on behalf of their students. In November and December 1975 an additional eight institutions were approved for fees assistance for 1976. However, in view of the economic situation it was decided between November and December that no further institutions would be approved. Since 13 December 1975 eleven business colleges have been advised that no further courses or colleges will be approved for fees assistance. There is also a number of other colleges (exact numbers are not known) which have generally inquired about the possibility of gaining approval and what steps were involved. They too have been advised that no further colleges will be approved for 1 976.

  1. In 1975 the following colleges received fees assistance:

non profit making were approved for fees assistance for

These were:

Mercury College, Sydney

Cambridge Secretarial College, Sydney

Metropolitan Business College, Sydney

Stotts Secretarial College, Melbourne

Pride Business College, Adelaide

Hartill-Underwood Business College, Perth

Olympia Business College, Perth

Mitchell College, Hobart The amounts of fees assistance to be paid to these and other institutions in 1976 are not yet known since accounts have not been received for the full year in all cases. The maximum assistance payable is an amount per student up to the level of the 1975 enrolment calculated according to the fee charged in 1973 plus 44 per cent If the course commenced in a year later than 1973 a similar formula is applied.

  1. Names and locations of colleges which were advised that no further colleges were to be approved:

Dacomb College, Melbourne, Victoria Riddell Commercial College, Melbourne, Victoria Highfield College, Caringbah, New South Wales Campsie Business College, Campsie Civic Nu-Way Business College, Newcastle, New South Wales

National Business College, Crows Nest, New South Wales Northern Business College, Pymble, New South Wales Parkes Secretarial College, Ashfield, New South Wales B. A. Chown Pry Ltd, Chatswood, New South Wales Central Coast Secretarial College, Gosford, New South Wales

Stotts Secretarial College, Perth, Western Australia

  1. Prior to the decision not to approve any further colleges under this scheme, for a college to be approved it had to become non profit making in accordance with the appropriate regulations under the relevant sections of State legislation. Articles of Association and the Memorandum of each institution were submitted for advice by the AttorneyGeneral’s Department for confirmation of non profit status.

In addition, an examination of the course was made by the Department of Education. The criteria applied included whether or not the courses were full-time, their equivalence to other approved courses, the absence of a religious entry test, and the nature of the qualification obtained.

  1. The Government has stated that the Tertiary Education Assistance Scheme will be maintained.

Qantas Finance (Question No. 290)

Mr Hyde:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice:

  1. What was Qantas’ profit or loss in the financial year 1974-75.
  2. What are Qantas’ borrowings and at what interest rates are the outstanding loans.
  3. Were these funds obtained at commercial interest rates.
  4. If not, by how much was each loan above or below the current commercial interest rate at the time of borrowing.
  5. Were the terms of any loans more generous than would have been obtained by a normal loan subscribed by the public.
  6. Is Qantas a signatory to any restrictive agreement relating to fares, if so, what is the name of the agreement, what are its broad terms, and who are the other signatories.
  7. Are some airfares to Australia higher than they would be if Qantas were not a signatory to a restrictive agreement, if so, by how much from: (a) Singapore; (b) Honolulu; and, (c) Auckland.
  8. Are some airfares from Australia higher than they would be if Qantas were not a signatory to a restrictive agreement, if so, by how much to: (a) Singapore; (b) Honolulu; and, (c) Auckland.
  9. Are airfares to and from Australia higher than they would be if other international airlines which are not signatories to a restrictive agreement were encouraged to fly routes in and out of Australia.
  10. If so, has any estimate been made of the cost to Australia ‘s tourist trade resulting from these higher fares.
  11. Would the terms of any agreement to which Qantas is a signatory be acceptable if entered into by two or more Australian domestic companies.
  12. If not, which Act would be offended by the agreement, and in what manner.
  13. 13) What are the specific benefits to Australia of a flagcarrying airline.
  14. 14) Are any routes flown by Qantas unprofitable, if so, which routes.
Mr Nixon:
LP

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

  1. For the financial year 1974-75 Qantas showed an operating profit, after realised gains and taxation, of $534,000. In addition, there was an extraordinary item arising from the sale of aircraft and other costs of $5,826,000 after tax.
  2. Qantas’ outstanding loans as at 31 March 1976 totalled $ 173.41m.

The interest rates currently prevailing on such outstanding loans range from 5.25 per cent to 11.5 per cent as listed below:

  1. In accordance with Acts of Parliament loans amounting to $ 158.23m outstanding at 31 March 1976 were borrowed by the Australian Government and were made available to Qantas for purchase of aircraft. Loans amounting to $15. 18m also outstanding at 31 March 1976 were borrowed directly by Qantas at commercial rates of interest.
  2. The loans of $158.23m initially by the Australian Government on behalf of Qantas came from the following broad sources:

Loans obtained from the Export-Import Bank of the United States were negotiated at interest rates prevailing at the time for loans to the Australian Government for the funding of American manufactured aircraft purchased for export from America. Overseas bank loans were negotiated on a competitive basis, the final selection of the lender being generally determined from an evaluation of the terms and conditions of the various offers as enunciated in the competitive quotations at the time.

  1. The Export-Import Bank of the United States was established, inter alia, to provide United States funds to foreign governments and corporations for the purchase and export of U.S. manufactured equipment. The Export-Import Bank usually sets its interest rates at a competitive level to encourage the export of U.S. manufactured equipment. The Australian Government has normally availed itself of this finance for its transport authorities. It is unlikely that such interest rates would have been matched by public loans although this would depend upon the particular overseas country in which there was a public loans market.
  2. As a member airline of the International Air Transport Association Qantas is a signatory to LATA agreements relating to fares which have been approved by the Australian Government. These LATA agreements establish, subject to Government approval, passenger fares, cargo rates and associated conditions of carriage and agency rules on international scheduled air services, including routes to and from Australia. Currently there are 109 member airlines of LATA. The air services agreements that the Australian Government has concluded with twenty-four other countries require Qantas, as the Australian designated airline, to reach agreement with the designated airline of the other party on the tariffs to be charged on the route concerned. Whenever possible such agreement is to be reached through LATA and, in all cases, the tariffs agreed by the airlines are subject to the approval of the Australian and the other Government.
  3. and (8) In view of the above-outlined procedures governing the establishment of tariffs on scheduled international air services, it is not considered that air fares between Australia and, as instanced, Singapore, Honolulu and Auckland are higher than they would be if Qantas was not a member of LATA. The Australian Government considers that the approved fares to and from Australia are the lowest that are economically viable in current circumstances having regard to the requirements of all airlines and governments concerned.
  4. and (10) All airlines operating scheduled services to and from Australia are required to abide by the tariffs and conditions approved by the Australian Government. These include agreements adopted by LATA and fares otherwise agreed by the airlines concerned. Thus any additional non.IATA airline which might obtain rights to operate scheduled services to and from Australia would be bound by the same requirements. The Australian tourist industry has been one of the major beneficiaries of the various low fare schemes, such as excursion and package tour fares, which have been introduced in recent years by the international airlines operating to and from Australia with the approval of the Australian Government.
  5. and (12) Qantas is the only Australian company issued with a licence under the Air Navigation Act and

Regulations to operate international air services. Accordingly, under LATA rules, it is the only Australian airline eligible to participate in the negotiation of tariffs within LATA.

  1. The benefits to Australia of having a flag-carrying airline are numerous. To name the most important Qantas provides an essential transport link for a country like Australia with its somewhat isolated geographical position. In 1975 the airline carried 1 134 987 passengers and 27 268 tonnes of freight and mail to and from Australia. Qantas is able to participate in the procedures through which air fares to and from Australia and in other areas of the world are established. As one of Australia’s largest employers (over 13 000 employees as at 31 March 1976) Qantas provides employment opportunities in a wide-range of skills. The airline makes a substantial contribution towards the nation’s balance of payments position. In this regard, it has been estimated that, if Qantas’ services had not been available to the travelling public in 1974-75, the net loss to Australia’s balance of payments would have been about $ 1 75m.

Qantas’ fleet of eleven B747 and nine B707 aircraft and its pool of trained aircrew and technicians constitute a valuable defence reserve. Qantas also undertakes engine and instrument maintenance for the Services.

  1. The international air transport industry has been operating for some years in very difficult economic conditions arising from a significant reduction in traffic growth and substantial increases in airline operating costs. While these conditions prevail all airlines find it extremely difficult to operate profitably. Qantas has withdrawn from certain uneconomic routes in recent years, which after vigorous promotion by Qantas provided little prospect for improvement in the future. There are many other routes operated by Qantas where the yields at a time in which the international airline market is depressed are somewhat less than desirable, but which are maintained because they are considered essential, not only from the point of view of the interests of the travelling public, but also with respect to Qantas’ commercial requirements having regard to longer term prospects.

Applications for Australian Citizenship (Question No. 304)

Mr E G Whitlam:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

am asked the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice:

How many persons over 16 years of age in each nationality are residentially qualified to apply for Australian citizensnip but have not done so.

Mr MacKellar:
Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs · WARRINGAH, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– In reply to the honourable member’s question, the following table shows the estimated number of aliens 16 years of age and over who are residentially qualified, by virtue of three years residence in Australia, to apply for the grant of Australian citizenship but who had not done so as at 3 1 May, 1 976:

The table excludes nationals of countries of the Commonwealth of Nations who, under Australian law, have British subject status and are not required to register on arrival in Australia in the same way as other settlers. It will not be possible to estimate accurately the number of such people who are eligible until the next census of population.

Albury-Wodonga (Question No. 468)

Mr Uren:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. Will the total amount of financial assistance made available to New South Wales and Victoria under clause 10 of the ‘Agreement in relation to the provision of financial assistance to New South Wales and Victoria for Urban Expansion and Redevelopment (Albury-Wodonga)- 1975-76’, signed by the Prime Minister and the two State Premiers, be made available to the States in accordance with the Agreement
  2. If not, will he state what amount will be made available, and explain why the total amount will not be made available.
  3. In what way is this Agreement different to that proposed by the Labor Government, and what were the reasons for any changes.
  4. On what dates has the Ministerial Council met since 1 July 1975, and who were the Ministers present
  5. On what dates have officer consultations taken place since 1 July 1975, and which Australian and State Departments were represented.
  6. On what dates have programs received approval under this Agreement since 1 July 1975.
  7. What were these programs, and what was the total financial assistance to the programs approved on each of those dates.
Mr Malcolm Fraser:
LP

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

  1. and (2) The Commonwealth is seeking to make savings. My answer to Question No. 395 is relevant. I would add that the then Acting Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development announced that $9m will be provided in 1976-77 to meet forward commitments. The provision of Commonwealth funds over and above that amount is under urgent consideration.
  2. It is not different.
  3. 14 August 1975 and 23 September 1975. The Ministers present were the Hon. Tom Uren, Commonwealth Minister for Urban and Regional Development; the Hon. J. C. Bruxner, New South Wales Minister for Decentralisation and Development and the Hon. Murray Byrne, Victorian Minister for State Development and Decentralisation.
  4. 13 August 1975, 22 September 1975, 3 February 1976, 1 8 June 1 976, 22 June 1 976 and 23 June 1 976. The State Departments represented on each occasion were the Victorian Department of State Development and Decentralisation and the New South Wales Department of Decentralisation and Development. The Commonwealth Department of Environment, Housing and Community Development (or the relevant predecessor Department of Urban and Regional Development) was also represented on each occasion. At the first two meetings the Commonwealth and State Treasuries were represented as was the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. The State Treasuries were represented at the fourth meeting and the Commonwealth Treasury was represented at the sixth.
  5. 17 July 1975, 25 November 1975 and 23 June 1976. The second program incorporates the activities in the first program and is the operative program for the current financial year. The third program comprises commitments for the 1 976-77 financial year.
  6. Program approved 25 November 1975:

Facepieces (Question No. 557)

Mr Bungey:
CANNING, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) How many facepieces or gas masks are on hand at each port in Australia and what type is each facepiece.
  2. Is it Departmental policy to arrange a personal fitting of all facepieces; if so, who does the fittings in each State.
  3. Have personal fittings been done in respect of each officer and employee likely to use a facepiece; if not, why not.
  4. Has advice been received from the Department of Defence that facepieces should be personally fitted.
  5. 5 ) How frequently are facepieces required to be serviced.
  6. Are these requirements met; if not, on what occasions have the requirements been neglected or overlooked.
Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: (l)-

  1. and (3) No. For officers based in Melbourne facepieces and gas masks are personally fitted at the Materials Research Laboratories, Maribyrnong, Victoria. However, where this is impracticable, for officers in other States and the Northern Territory, fittings are made by the Quarantine Inspector or by the officer using the equipment

All officers are instructed in relevant safety procedures and serviceability of the equipment. It is mandatory for routine checks of the equipment to be made prior to use.

  1. No.
  2. The Materials Research Laboratories recommend that facepieces be referred to them for servicing at intervals of 6-12 months. In addition Departmental instructions state that all facepieces and masks should be examined for the occurence of defects at least once in every three months.
  3. The requirements were not observed for periods in Port Fremantle previous to February 1974 and Port Adelaide previous to March 1973.

page 340

IPEC

(Question No. 564)

Mr Morris:
SHORTLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice:

  1. Has IPEC sought permission for the import of 2 Argosy aircraft to be used on its freight service to Tasmania.
  2. Has a decision been made on the application, if so, when will it be announced, if not, when will a decision be made.
  3. Has he noted claims made by IPEC in its circular letter to clients of 10 March 1976 that it could provide a more efficient and cheaper air freight service to Tasmania using Argosy aircraft than is provided by the other airlines under existing conditions, if so, are these claims inconsistent with the recommendation of the Nimmo inquiry that a subsidy should be paid on air freight to and from Tasmania.
Mr Nixon:
LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. No. The import of additional freighter aircraft into Australia would aggravate the problems of excess capacity within the industry. Other aircraft are available within Australia and, I understand, IPEC is negotiating with the owners of those aircraft.
  3. ) Yes. The IPEC claims would, of course, be disputed by other operators. I expect that Mr Nimmo would have reviewed his recommendations if it were demonstrated that a more efficient and cheaper air freight service were available. No doubt the extent of the review would have depended upon the extent of the efficiency and the cheaper rates. I note from the Nimmo report that IPEC did not participate in its public hearing or make a submission.

Staff Ceilings (Question No. 569)

Mr Stewart:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. What were the current staff ceilings, establishment strengths and numbers of operative and inoperative second and third division staff in the Public Service Board, Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet and Treasury (excluding Taxation) on 31 October 1975 and 30 April 1976.
  2. How many unattached second and third division officers are currently on duty with but not on the establishment of the Public Service Board, the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet and the Treasury (excluding Taxation).
Mr Malcolm Fraser:
LP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: (l)-

  1. Unattached second and third division officers currently on duty but not on establishment:

Staff Recruitment (Question No. 592)

Mr Macphee:
Minister for Productivity · BALACLAVA, VICTORIA · LP

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Industry and Commerce, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) How many persons are employed by the Department of Industry and Commerce or by agencies responsible to the Minister or his Department in a staff recruiting capacity and what amounts are chargeable to that Department or such agencies in respect of their annual salaries.
  2. To what extent does the Department of Industry and Commerce or any such agency engage private employment agencies to assist in the recruitment of staff.
  3. What sum was spent by the Department of Industry and Commerce or any such agency in engaging private employment agencies in the financial year 1 974-75.
  4. To what extent does the Department of Industry and Commerce or any such agency engage or otherwise obtain assistance from the Commonwealth Employment Service in the recruitment of staff and what sum has been paid to the Commonwealth Employment Service in respect of such assistance.
Mr Howard:
LP

– The Minister for Industry and Commerce has provided the following reply to the honourable member’s question:

Bulk Carriers (Question No. 581)

Mr Morris:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) What progress has been made in the construction of the 4 bulk carrying ships which the Government has on order from overseas shipyards.
  2. When does the Government expect to take delivery of the first of these ships.
Mr Nixon:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) and (2) Four bulk carriers are being constructed overseas for the Australian National Line. The first, ‘Australian Pioneer’ which was built by Gotaverken AB of Sweden and is 120 000 tonnes deadweight, was delivered on 12 August 1976. Construction of the remaining three is proceeding slightly behind original schedules. The latest forecast delivery dates are as follows:
  1. No persons in the Department of Industry and Commerce, or in agencies responsible to the Minister, are engaged full-time on the recruitment of staff. However, if the term recruitment is broadened to include the processing of promotions and transfers of staff from within the Service, the filling of internal vacancies on a higher duties basis and other routine tasks associated with staff movements, the Department has the equivalent of eight people, with annual salaries totalling about $79,000, engaged in staff movement activities.
  2. The Department does not utilise the services of private employment agencies. The Australian Tourist Commission however, does use private agencies to obtain its staff. Twelve people were recruited through private agencies in the 1974-75 financial year.
  3. The Australian Tourist Commission spent $7,960 in the 1974-75 financial year, engaging private employment agencies.
  4. Limited use has been made of Commonwealth Employment Service mainly to recruit critically needed Supply and Development Act staff at Departmental establishments.

The Department’s Public Service Act staff recruited from outside the Service are normally provided by Public Service Inspectors’ offices, the Commonwealth Employment Service being used only where the Inspectors’ offices cannot meet our requirements. No payment has been made to CES for staff recruitment.

Department of Transport: Staffing (Question No. 593)

Mr Macphee:
LP

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) How many persons are employed by his department or by agencies responsible to him or his Department in a staff recruiting capacity and what amounts are chargeable to his Department or such agencies in respect of their annual salaries.
  2. To what extent does his Department or any such agency engage private employment agencies to assist in the recruitment of staff.
  3. What sum was spent by his Department or any such agency in engaging private employment agencies in the financial year 1974-75.
  4. To what extent does his Department or any such agency engage or otherwise obtain assistance from the Commonwealth Employment Service in the recruitment of staff and what sum has been paid to the Commonwealth Employment Service in respect of such assistance.
Mr Nixon:
LP

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

In the following answer, ‘Staff Recruiting’ has been taken to indicate appointment to the Service.

1 ) Department- Thirty, current salary rate $302,500 per annum.

Australian Shipping Commission- Three, current salary rate $58,500 per annum.

Australian National Railways Commission- No staff employed full time on recruitment. These activities are carried out when required, by twelve officers. Current equivalent salary rate $ 15,000 per annum.

Commonwealth Bureau of Roads- No staff employed full time on recruitment. These activities are carried out when required by three officers. Current equivalent salary rate $5,000 per annum.

Qantas- Five staff are engaged 60 per cent on recruitment. Current equivalent salary rate $3 1 ,000 per annum.

Australian National Airlines Commission- No staff employed full time on recruitment. Total time spent in these activities amounts to approximately two full-time positions with current equivalent salary rate of $22,000 per annum.

Private employment agencies are not used by my Department or the Australian National Airlines Commission, and only on rare occasions by other Statutory Bodies under my portfolio. Such occasions would concern appointments to management level and temporary staff to cover leave, and abnormal work loads.

Department-Nil.

Australian Shipping Commission- Approximately $3,000.

Australian National Railways Commission- $82 1 .

Commonwealth Bureau of Roads- Approximately $1,000.

Road Safety and Standards Authority- Nil.

Qantas-$7,690.

Australian National Airline Commission- Nil.

  1. Use of the Commonwealth Employment Service varies considerably. Qantas advise CES of vacancies weekly. On the other hand my Department, and other bodies use the CES when necessary, to assist in filling vacancies, often in difficult areas away from large business centres.

No payments were made to CES in 1974-75.

National Employment and Training Scheme (Question No. 649)

Mr Chipp:

asked the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) How many persons were receiving NEAT allowances at 1 March 1976.
  2. How many tertiary students were receiving NEAT allowances at 1 March 1976.
  3. How many (a) males and (b) females were receiving NEAT allowances at 1 March 1976.
  4. How many (a) male and (b) female tertiary students were receiving NEAT allowances at 1 March 1976.
  5. How many persons were receiving NEAT allowances at 1 April 1976.
  6. How many tertiary students were receiving NEAT allowances at 1 April 1976.
  7. How many persons have failed to take up NEAT allowances since 1 April 1976.
  8. 8 ) How many persons ha ve left the NEAT scheme since 1 April 1976.
  9. How many (a) males and (b) females have left tertiary study since cuts in their NEAT allowances started on 1 April 1976.
  10. 10) What amount had been paid to NEAT students who left tertiary studies without completing courses, from the commencement of their training until 1 April 1 976.
  11. How many persons have applied for re-training since 1 March 1976.
  12. How many persons have been granted the NEAT allowance since 1 March 1976.
Mr Street:
LP

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

  1. I) to (12) A total of 7 534 persons were supported in training under the NEAT system at March 1 976. Some 5 300 of these were in receipt of various allowances. The remainder were in-plant training where the employer is paid a subsidy and the trainee receives at least the award wage for the job.

I am not able to give the precise numbers of trainees who were students at tertiary institutions. However, the vast majority of trainees undergoing formal courses of training under NEAT would be doing so at a post-secondary level.

The following table details the number of trainees in the different categories of training as at 1 March and 1 April.

Airline Flights (Question No. 689)

Mr Macphee:
LP

asked the Mininster for Transport, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Is it a fact that the 2 major airlines cancelled their midday flights from Melbourne to Canberra on Tuesday, 18 May 1976.
  2. Were many persons who travelled to Canberra for the 2.15 p.m. sittings of the House of Representatives inconvenienced by being obliged to leave Melbourne at approximately 8.30 a.m. to keep relatively short appointments with Members of Parliament in mid-afternoon.
  3. Is a service of early morning and late afternoon flights from Australia’s second largest state capital to the national capital adequate during the sittings of Parliament
  4. If not, is he able and willing to require the 2 airlines to rationalise cancellations to that one of them has a midday flight from Melbourne to Canberra when Parliament is sitting.
Mr Nixon:
LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. 1 have not heard of any persons being inconvienced on that day. If the Hon. Member has such information I would be pleased to receive the details from him.
  3. and (4) The pattern of services during the sitting of Parliament caters for the demands of the majority of travellers.

Australian National Railways Commission (Question No. 690)

Mr Wallis:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) What reductions in staff have taken place in the Australian National Railways Commission as a direct result of the Governments policy.
  2. What reductions have taken place in respect of (a) salaried and (b) wages staff in each of the Branches of the Commission.
  3. Have reductions taken place in line maintenance gangs; if so, what are the details.
  4. Are line maintenance gang numbers being maintained at a level that will ensure safe railway operations.
Mr Nixon:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Staff on the former Commonwealth Railways section of Australian National Railways have been reduced in numbers from 4208 to 4056 since staff ceilings were introduced.

While ceilings were not set by the Government for the South Australian or Tasmanian sections of Australian National Railways, the Commission directed that these system endeavour to reach target ceilings imposed by the Commission by 30 June 1976 of 8000 and 2000 respectively. On 1 May 1976, staff levels had reached 8240 in South Australia and 1 990 in Tasmania.

  1. Detailed information is not available for the South Australian and Tasmanian systems which are at present administered by the State authorities on behalf of Australian National Railways and the following detailed information relates to the former Commonwealth Railways system.

Reductions in respect of (a) salaried and (b) wages staff for each Branch of the former Commonwealth Railways system are as follows:

  1. The number of employees in line maintenance gangs has been reduced from 562 to 513 since staff ceilings were introduced.
  2. The first consideration is to ensure safe operation of trains and maintenance gangs will be maintained at a level to ensure this is done. ANR has resumed recruiting of staff to essential positions.

Local Telephone Calls (Question No. 698)

Mr Short:
BALLAARAT, VICTORIA

asked the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) What would be the capital cost involved in adapting or introducing telephone equipment to have local calls charged on a 3 minute unit basis.
  2. What would be the increase in annual revenue to the Telecommunications Commission if local calls were charged on a 3 minute unit basis at the present local call rate for each 3 minute unit.
Mr Eric Robinson:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

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

  1. Telecom Australia advises that initial studies show that capital expenditure of at least $50m would be involved in modifying existing equipment to provide for timed local calls. Importantly, the necessary modifications could take quite some years to effect bearing in mind the many other major capital works necessary to expand the network to meet traffic growth as well as to provide improved facilities and replace obsolescent equipment.
  2. Reliable estimates are not available. Studies made some time ago showed that the average duration of local calls in predominantly business areas was below 3 minutes and the average for calls in predominantly residential areas was above that period. However, the untimed local call system has been so long established in Australia that it is extremely difficult to estimate the effect which timing would have on residential subscribers’ local calling habits and hence the additional revenue that might accrue. Studies on this and related aspects are in hand.

NEAT Scheme (Question No. 701)

Mr MacKenzie:
CALARE, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Is a career in farm management, either as an owneroperator or as an employed manager, recognised as an appropriate occupation for training under the NEAT Scheme.
  2. Are courses in farm management offered by agricultural colleges recognised as appropriate retraining courses for persons wishing to enter the rural industry.
  3. How many applications for farm management training under the NEAT Scheme were (a) received and (b) rejected in 1974, 1975 and 1976, and what were the main reasons for rejection.
Mr Street:
LP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: ( 1 ), (2) and (3) Assistance with training towards employment as a farm manager is available subject to the following conditions which apply to all those seeking assistance under NEAT; first, the applicant must be a person who is unable to obtain employment with his or her current skills; second, there must be a strong labour market demand for the occupation in which training is to be provided.

As to the second condition, research by my Department indicates that newly qualified farm managers can expect to face a selective labour market, although this is somewhat less the case in Victoria.

Regrettably I am unable to answer the honourable member’s statistical questions in the full detail that he requires. However, 1 1 1 persons were approved for training in farm management between 1 October 1974 and 31 December 1975.

In the period 1 October 1974 and 30 June 1975 some 76 persons who had applied for assistance with such training did not pursue their applications or were not approved for assistance.

Training under NEAT has been undertaken at various agricultural colleges throughout the country, both private and Government funded institutions. Preference has normally been given to the latter, but the needs of the individual are taken into account.

Applications for Telephones (Question No. 708)

Mr Wilson:

asked the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice:

  1. What reduction could be made in the backlog of deferred applications for telephones if the construction staff and resources allocated to the giant co-axial cable project announced by Telecom in a press statement dated 5 May 1976 were diverted to providing telephone services to those who have applied for them or are likely to apply for them in the immediate future.
  2. How many and what proportion of the deferred applications for telephones are there in each of the States.
  3. How many and what proportion of the deferred applications for telephones are there in (a) Adelaide, (b) Brisbane, (c) Canberra, (d) Hobart, (e) Melbourne, (f) Perth and (g) Sydney.
  4. What steps are being taken to reduce the number of deferred applications, particularly in those States and cities where the proportion is higher than average.
Mr Eric Robinson:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

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

  1. 1 ) Telecom Australia as well as meeting current demands for new subscriber telephone services has an obligation to extend the telecommunications network to improve its services for existing subscribers. The Commission advises that the Ceduna-Cobar coaxial trunk cable project is being undertaken to: cater for the increasing trunk traffic between the Eastern States and South Australia and Western Australia and for international calls connected over the Indian Ocean satellite provide route diversity, and thus more security, for EastWest trunk traffic and international calls, and incorporate Broken Hill in the national STD network.
  2. and (3) The number and the percentage of the national total of deferred applications in each State as a whole and in the respective State capital cities and Canberra at 3 1 May 1 976 were as follows:
  1. Special efforts are being made to reduce the number of applications for service deferred because of cable or equipment shortages, particularly in those areas where the numbers are unusually high. For example, additional funds and physical resources were recently diverted to South Australia to help reduce the heavy backlog of outstanding applications for service in the Adelaide area.

The number of deferred applications throughout the Commonwealth at May 31 is the lowest since 1970 and represents about 3.5 per cent of the applications received for telephone service in the last 12 months.

Higher Degree Students: Foreign Students (Question No. 711)

Mr E G Whitlam:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

am asked the Minister representing the Minister for Education, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) How many persons who hold a first degree are studying now for second and higher degrees.
  2. How many foreign students are attending (a) universities, (b) colleges of advanced education and (c) technical and further education institutions.
Mr Viner:
LP

– The Minister for Education has provided the following reply to the honourable member’s question:

Statistics quoted in this answer relate to 1975, the latest year for which statistics are available.

16 988 persons were enrolled in higher degree courses. Statistics on the total number of persons enrolled in second degree courses are not available. However statistics show that approximately 2000 persons commencing bachelor degrees had already obtained a degree.

–

No official statistics are available. My Department estimates that approximately 1000 overseas students are attending these institutions.

Sporting Grounds (Question No. 723)

Mr Stewart:

asked the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) What is the number and location of the major sporting grounds in (a) each State and (b) the Territories.
  2. ) What is the estimated number of spectators per annum at each of these sporting grounds.
  3. What is the annual subsidy paid to each sporting ground by (a) each State and (b) the Australian Governments.
Mr Newman:
LP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: (1), (2) and (3) The information requested is not available within my Department and initial approaches to State Departments have indicated that they do not hold this information either. Apart from the definitional problems of what constitutes a ‘major sporting ground’, ownership of these grounds is often vested in either local government or sporting associations. I am not convinced that any real purpose would be served by my approaching all such bodies to obtain the information required.

Country Mail Services (Question No. 729)

Mr O’Keefe:

asked the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice:

  1. Has a considerable number of representations been made concerning excessive charges now operating for country mail bag services.
  2. Have charges been increased considerably to $15 per year for 3 day week services and $60 per year for 5 day week services.
  3. Has a considerable number of cancellations taken place in mail bag services and are mail contractors faced with additional servicing and delivery work.
  4. Has the mail bag problem been investigated; if so, can he say if the charges for these services will be reduced to a more reasonable sum.
Mr Eric Robinson:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

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

  1. 1 ) Some representations have been received concerning the charges for private mail bag services.
  2. Charges for private mail bag services were increased in line with other tariff increases announced in July 1975, which were introduced with the aim of covering costs and breaking even. For private bag services, the increased tariffs were effective for new services from 1 September 1975 and for existing services from 1 April 1976.

However, in view of the trading surplus which Australia Post expects to record this financial year, the Postal Commission has decided to reduce the charges for private bag services.

The following table shows the new charges compared with the charges applicable prior to the increases announced in 1975 and the charges applicable subsequently.

  1. I am aware that some private bag services have been cancelled.
  2. See (2) above.

Offshore Quarantine Station (Question No. 749)

Mr Lloyd:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) What is the present situation concerning the establishment of an offshore quarantine station on Cocos or some other island.
  2. What arrangements have been made with the ruler of Cocos for the actual establishment of the facility.
  3. What stage has been reached in the planning for the type of animals to be imported and the implementation of a priority system.
  4. What are the proposed financial arrangements for the station and the animals which will be imported.
Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

  1. The establishment of an offshore animal quarantine station is currently under active consideration.
  2. None
  3. It is intended that cattle, sheep, goats and horses, if necessary, would be accommodated at the station. A Committee will be established to consider applications for accommodation at the station. Priority would be given to the importation of stock of the greatest benefit to Australia in developing its genetic pool.
  4. This matter is currently receiving consideration. Final decisions have not yet been reached.

Australian Broadcasting Commission: Programs (Question No. 752)

Mr Lloyd:

asked the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice:

How many (a) Federal Government Ministers and (b) shadow Ministers were interviewed on the ABC programs AM, PM and This Day Tonight in each of the periods (i) July-December 1974, (ii) January-June 1975, (iii) 1 July-1 1 November 1975 and (iv) January 1976 to date.

Mr Eric Robinson:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

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

It should be noted that the figures for This Day Tonight include all separate state editions of This Day Tonight, and that any one interview is counted separately for each edition of This Day Tonight in which it may have been used.

Public Service: Counter Staff (Question No. 770)

Mr Ruddock:
DUNDAS, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister in Public Service Matters, upon notice:

  1. What are the classifications prescribed by the Public Service Board for officers of the various Departments and other agencies who have counter contact with the public
  2. Which Departments or agencies require their officers, when dealing with the public across a counter, to wear an identification badge.
  3. Which Departments or agencies require their officers, when dealing with the public at other times, to identify themselves.
  4. Does the Government intend to ensure that all officers identify themselves when dealing with the public
  5. Which Departments or agencies require their officers to undergo some degree of relevant training before dealing with the public.
  6. What is the nature of the training given.
Mr Street:
LP

– The Public Service Board has provided the following information for answer to the honourable member’s question:

  1. 1 ) The Public Service Board recently conducted a survey of Departments for relevant information on counter staff employed in Departments and agencies under the Public Service Act. The answers provided are based on the results of that survey and relate only to staff employed under the Public Service Act.

The classification of positions which have counter contact with the public in the various Departments and other agencies is determined in the light of a number of factors including the range and complexity of the issues likely to be raised by the public, the effective use of staffing resources and the observance of administrative economy. Positions vary widely in their duties and responsibilities and therefore in the classifications they are accorded. In some situations, positions of higher classification may have counter contact with the public as a second stage when complex issues are raised at the primary contact level.

The following table provides a guide to the range of classifications and duties of positions in departments and agencies which have counter contact with the public:

Examples of Typical Duties for Counter Staff

  1. Primary Contact

Reception and direction of visitors; Primary contact point for information on services available;

Simple inquiries on limited range of facilities and services;

Receive applications and examine for completeness; Give information on a wide range of benefits, facilities or services; Cashier/Collector of Public Monies;

Guide visitors; answer simple queries about production processes;

Counter supervisor; deal with complex enquiries; Receive applications; assess fees and collect payments; Taxation enquiries;

Examine passenger and crew baggage and effects. Interview passengers and crew members; Direct passengers for processing of baggage; Take passengers’ declarations.

  1. ‘Second Stage’

Subject matter specialists at various levels.

  1. The Departments of the Northern Territory and Immigration and Ethnic Affairs require some of their officers, when dealing with the public across the counter, to wear an identification badge. These include counter officers with the Electricity/Sewerage Counter of the Public Utilities and Housing Branch of the Department of the Northern Territory and Migration Officers with the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs.

While other departments do not require identification badges to be worn, the Department of the Capital Territory, the Department of Social Security (Queensland Branch) and the Department of Education (New South Wales Branch) provide badges and encourage their counter officers to wear them. Counter staff in some departments wear badges on their own initiative.

Desk name plates are a more common means of identification for counter staff. Most State Branches of the Department of Social Security provide desk name plates for use in counter areas, and most relevant staff of the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations and receptionists in the Departments of Aboriginal Affairs and Industry and Commerce display desk name plates.

  1. The Departments of Social Security, Transport, and Capital Territory require their officers to identify themselves when dealing with the public on other occasions. Arbitration Inspectors from the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations, Migration Officers with the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, officers from the Loans Promotion Sub-Section of the Treasury and some staff of the Australian Institute of Marine Science, Department of Science are also required to identify themselves in these circumstances.

Certain categories of staff from other departments, are required to carry identification cards, but are under no compulsion to use them. The departments in this category are Employment and Industrial Relations, Environment, Housing and Community Development and the AttorneyGeneral ‘s Department.

  1. The responsibility for any direction to staff on identifying themselves to the public rests primarily with the Permanent Head of each department. The Report of the Royal Commission on Australian Government Administration has, however, made several recommendations regarding the improvement of counter service, and a suggestion regarding the use of identification badges is included in an attachment to this report. It is envisaged that the issue of the public identification of counter officers will receive consideration at the same time as the wider recommendations of the Royal Commission on the provision of counter services.
  2. Counter staff employed by the Departments of Education (Victorian, South Australian and Queensland Branches), Employment and Industrial Relations, Environment, Housing and Community Development, Capital Territory, Social Security, Repatriation, Business and Consumer Affairs and Immigration and Ethnic Affairs receive some relevant training, although this does not necessarily precede public contact.
  3. The Department of Social Security provides a six weeks formal course for counter officers. The Departments of Repatriation, Environment, Housing and Community Development, Employment and Industrial Relations, Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, Business and Consumer Affairs, Capital Territory and Education (Victorian, South Australian and Queensland Branches) provide shorter courses which vary substantially both in content and in length. The Department of Social Security also sends some counter officers to a residential training course.

While the emphases of these courses differ, they are generally designed to instruct counter officers in personal communication, interpreting and directing enquiries and interviewing and telephone techniques.

Schools Commission (Question No. 774)

Dr Klugman:

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

  1. 1 ) What government and non-government schools and systems in the Electoral Division of Prospect have received assistance from the Australian Government through each of the various programs operated by the Schools Commission.
  2. How much did each organisation receive in the year 1974-75.
Mr Viner:
LP

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

The only direct assistance paid to government schools in the Prospect electorate by the Schools Commission was under the Innovations Program. One school, Greystanes High School, received a grant of $4,680 in 1 974.

It is not possible to supply further information in respect of payments to individual government schools. The Commonwealth Government provides bulk funding to the New South Wales Government for government schools programs to disburse on a needs basis as it sees fit. Payments to nongovernment schools in the electorate are set out in the attached table.

Hospital Accreditation Procedures (Question No. 781)

Mr Lloyd:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

  1. What progress has been made with the voluntary introduction of hospital accreditation procedures throughout Australia.
  2. ) Are any of the States resisting the concept in favour of State bureaucratic structures.
  3. Has he publicly indicated his support for the concept; if not, will he do so.
  4. Is the present proposal for hospital accreditation a good example of the type of professional self regulation he is requiring with peer review procedures in the medical profession.
Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) Significant progress has been made with the voluntary introduction of hospital accreditation procedures in Australia. In the year ending 30 June 1975, the Australian Hospital Standards Committee, a joint Australian Medical Association and Australian Hospitals Association Committee, was restructured and retitled the Australian Council on Hospital Standards. The Council has four major goals:
  2. to develop and publish standards for Australian hospitals;
  3. to introduce and maintain a program of hospital accreditation;
  4. ) to liaise with Government with regard to the needs of hospitals; and
  5. to investigate and research new ways of assessing patient care.

The Council has developed ‘The Accreditation Guide for Australian Hospitals’ in consultation with the relevant professional bodies. It has been assisted in its work by grants allocated by the Hospitals and Health Services Commission of $85,000 since 1973.

  1. I understand that the Australian Council on Hospital Standards is now applying its system of hospital accreditation in acute general hospitals in Victoria and that discussions are underway with Health Authorities in New South Wales and South Australia. Other States will be approached as resources permit.
  2. Systems of review which will ensure maintenance and improvement of health care standards in Australia have my support The hospital accreditation program of the Australian Council on Hospital Standards is one such system.
  3. The present proposal for hospital accreditation is an example of peer review procedures involving the medical profession.

Membership: Medical Associations (Question No. 799)

Mr Lloyd:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) What is the financial membership of the ( a ) Australian Medical Association, (b) General Practitioners Society and (c) Doctors Reform Society.
  2. How were the Australian or Federal Presidents or chief spokesman of each of these bodies elected or appointed.
  3. How many persons attended or voted at the meetings at which these positions were filled.
Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

My Department does not have the information sought by the honourable member. The three bodies to which he has referred are of course, independent organisations.

Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission: Report (Question No. 804)

Mr Brown:
DIAMOND VALLEY, VICTORIA

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Has the Minister seen the statement in the Report of the President of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission for the year ending 13 August 1975 that accommodation for the Commission in Brisbane is completely inadequate and quite unsuitable.
  2. Has the Government taken any action to provide the Commission with adequate and suitable accommodation in Brisbane; if so, what action.
  3. Has the Government any plans to provide the Commission with adequate and suitable accommodation in Brisbane; if so, what are they.
Mr Street:
LP

– The Minister for Administrative Services has supplied the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

  1. Yes.
  2. and (3) Yes. The Commission is to be relocated in alternative premises in Brisbane. Because of the nonavailability of space at present, it is not expected that a move will be effected before the next financial year.

The State Office of the Commission is aware of the plans for relocation and has indicated that it can cope until the alternative space becomes available.

Official Opening of Post Offices (Question No. 806)

Mr Brown:

asked the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) In what manner is the policy of the Australian Postal Commission relating to the official opening of new Post Offices applied.
  2. What is the practice of the Commission with respect to the actual person who officially opens new Post Offices.
  3. ) Was it the practice of the former Postmaster-General ‘s Department that the Member of the House of Representatives within whose Electoral Division a new Post Office was situated should officially open the Post Office.
  4. Has that practice of the former Postmaster-General’s Department been abandoned or altered; if so, in what way and for what reason.
Mr Eric Robinson:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

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

  1. 1 ) and (2) It is the official policy of the Australian Postal Commission to ask the Minister for Post and Telecommunications to officiate at the opening of official post offices and other Commission facilities. If the Minister is unable to attend, then the Chairman is invited to officiate and, in the event that the Chairman is unavailable, one of the remaining Commissioners is invited- the local Commissioner where this is possible.

At each opening, the local Federal Member is invited to attend and to speak, as is a Senator from the other Political Party.

  1. Generally speaking, yes.
  2. Yes, the practice of the former Postmaster-General’s Department has been altered. As indicated in (1) and (2), the local Member of the House of Representatives is invited to attend the opening but the ceremony is performed by the Minister or, when he is unavailable, by one of the Commissioners. This arrangement is regarded as more appropriate to the changed form of administration of the postal service and reflects the more independent charter given to the Commission by the Parliament.

Official Opening of Post Offices (Question No. 807)

Mr Brown:

asked the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice:

  1. How many new Post Offices have been officially opened since the inception of the Australian Postal Commission.
  2. What is the location of each of these Post Offices.
  3. What actual person officially opened each of these Post Offices.
Mr Eric Robinson:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

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

  1. Six.

  2. –

    1. Unanderra, New South Wales.
    2. Forster, New South Wales.
    3. Gympie, Queensland.
    4. Warren, New South Wales.
    5. Shepparton, Victoria. (0 Sunshine, Victoria.

  3. –

    1. Senator Mulvihill (on behalf of Postmaster-General)
    2. D. M. Bright (Deputy Chairman, Australian Postal Commission)
    3. and (d) J. J. Kennedy (Chairman, Australian Postal Commission)
    4. G. Slater (Commissioner, Australian Postal Commission) (0 A. F. Spratt (Managing Director, Australian Postal

Commission)

Motor Vehicle Production (Question No. 813)

Mr Yates:
HOLT, VICTORIA

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Industry and Commerce, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) What is the generally accepted economic production run of a motor vehicle model.
  2. What is the maximum run of models from existing plants.
  3. What is the variable cost of producing a car, excluding fixed overhead.
Mr Howard:
LP

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

  1. As part of its report of 10 July 1974 on Passenger Motor Vehicles, the Industries Assistance Commission included a section on cost studies of the motor vehicle industry in Australia and other countries. The IAC uses the concept of minimum efficient scale (m.e.s.) which is where doubling of scale of production would not reduce costs by more than 2 per cent. The IAC found that the m.e.s. of stamping was 600 000 p.a. and of engine manufacture 3S0 000 p.a., and concluded that to take full advantage of economies of scale a manufacturer would need to fully utilise a plant with a capacity of 400 000 p.a. However, it appears that once 200 000 p.a. is reached, the cost savings from additional output are greatly reduced.
  2. The IAC found that total Australian capacity (for the three manufacturers) was 430 000 p.a. for stamping and 440 000 for engine manufacture. Details of capacity on a plant by plant basis are not available as this information is regarded by vehicle manufacturing companies as confidential.
  3. According to figures produced by the IAC in its 1974 report, the variable cost of producing a vehicle (excluding fixed overheads) ranged from $2,200 per vehicle at a production run of 30 000 p.a. to $1,790 at a production run of 500 000 p.a.

Freight (Question No. 815)

Dr Klugman:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice:

How much Australian Government freight between (a) Sydney and Canberra and (b) Melbourne and Canberra is carried by (i) Commonwealth road transport, (ii) private transport and (iii) rail.

Mr Street:
LP

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

The Transport and Storage Division of my Department, as the Central Transport Authority in the States, is the central source for forwarding Commonwealth freight, but other Departments also move quantities of freight to and from Canberra by road and rail. To compile figures in respect of all Departments would be expensive and time consuming. The amount of freight forwarded by the Central Transport Authority and carried by Commonwealth road transport between 1 July 1975 and 30 June 1976 was as follows:

Some small amounts of freight would have been forwarded by rail or private road transport, but figures are not available.

Commonwealth Savings Bank Insurance Scheme (Question No. 819)

Mr E G Whitlam:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

am asked the Treasurer, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) How many houses have been insured under the Commonwealth Savings Bank insurance scheme at the end of each financial year since the scheme commenced.
  2. What has been the (a) total operating income, (b) total operating expenditure and (c) surplus or deficit in operations for each financial year.
  3. How do premiums charged under this scheme compare with those charged by insurance companies.
Mr Lynch:
LP

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

  1. and (2) The Commonwealth Savings Bank’s insurance scheme is a commercial operation in a highly competitive field. Its competitors operating under the Insurance Act 1973 are not required to publish information of the kind sought in relation to an individual class of insurance business and, if the Commonwealth Savings Bank were required to provide such information, it could be used to its competitive disadvantage.
  2. The Managing Director of the Commonwealth Banking Corporation has advised that since inception of the scheme premium rates have been among the lowest available in Australia. Furthermore, the Commonwealth Savings Bank makes contributions to fire brigade and bush fire authorities on the same basis as ordinary insurance companies and appropriate stamp duty is collected and paid to State Governments.

Land Development Costs (Question No. 826)

Mr E G Whitlam:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

am asked the Minister for the Capital Territory, upon notice:

What is the comparative cost of land development by the National Capital Development Commission and authorities in other capitals and provincial centres.

Mr Staley:
LP

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

The honourable member is referred to his questions on notice Nos 824 and 825 which specifically relate to this question.

The average cost of development of land for detached dwellings in Canberra is estimated to be in the order of $6,500 per block at December 1975. The cost covers the full servicing including water supply, stormwater drainage and sewerage reticulation, roads, kerbs and gutters, footpaths, entrance drives and certain indirect costs such as land resumption and acquisition and survey, consultants fees and NCDC administrative overheads. It does not include the cost of water supply and sewerage headworks or major internal roads and highways.

Land development operations in other capitals and provincial centres are not comparable with Canberra because of the different scale, context and timing of individual land development programs. Land sales prices do not necessarily reflect land development costs. The difficulties concerning comparative cost figures were recognised by Mr Uren in his answers to similar questions from Mr Snedden on 12 November 1974 (PQ 390) and Mr Hunt on 10 April 1975 (PQ1196).

Cadet Corps (Question No. 827)

Dr Klugman:

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) How many full-time personnel in each of the 3 armed services were involved (a) part-time and (b) full-time in activities associated with (i) the school cadet corps (ii) the air training corps and (iii) the naval reserve cadets corps in each of the last 5 financial years.
  2. What was the (a) direct and (b) indirect cost of providing personnel and facilities to service (i) the school cadet corps, (ii) the air training corps and (iii) the naval reserve cadets in each of the last 5 financial years.
  3. How many ex-members of the cadet corps or reserve cadets went on to join the armed services in each of those financial years.
  4. What proportion of the membership of each of the defence services is comprised of ex-cadet corps or ex-reserve cadet personnel.
Mr Killen:
Minister for Defence · MORETON, QUEENSLAND · LP

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

  1. Full-time Personnel Involved in Full-time and Parttime Activities with Cadets
  1. Cadet Scheme Costs
  1. Ex Cadets Enlisted in the Permanent Forces

Army- This information for the Army cannot be obtained without a substantial clerical effort. However, some indication may be inferred from the Report on the Army Cadet Corps, June 1974. Pointing out that cadets probably contained no more than 5 per cent of the total number of youths of the relevant age group, the Report indicated that more than 50 per cent of entrants to the Royal Military College Duntroon and 4 1 per cent of members of the Citizen Military Forces were ex-cadets.

  1. Available records do not disclose the total numbers of serving personnel who are ex-cadet corps or ex-reserve cadet personnel.

Quarantine Procedures (Question No. 837)

Mr Lloyd:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Does the treatment of Mr Toomer indicate that it is the general policy of the Department not to tolerate any public comment or criticism of quarantine procedures or personnel by a quarantine official.
  2. If so, does this policy cover both permanent and temporary quarantine officials.
  3. If not, what is the Departmental policy on this matter.
Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

– The answer to the honourable member ‘s question is as follows: (1), (2) and (3) Public Service Regulation 35 determines that ‘except in the course of official duty, no information concerning public business or any matter of which an officer or employee has knowledge officially shall be given, directly or indirectly, nor shall the contents of official papers be disclosed, by an officer or employee without the express authority of the Chief Officer. ‘

It is Departmental policy to permit an officer or employee to publish or deliver papers at seminars or conferences.

When an officer or employee is to be interviewed on television he would be expected to discuss and receive Departmental approval for the contents of the proposed talk.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 18 August 1976, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1976/19760818_reps_30_hor100/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant