House of Representatives
16 September 1976

30th Parliament · 1st Session



Mr ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Lucock) took the chair at 10.30 a.m., and read prayers.

page 1107

PETITIONS

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

Tasmanian Shipping Service

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

That the decision to withdraw the Australian Trader from the Tasmanian service:

  1. is a great injustice to the State of Tasmania,
  2. has delivered a severe blow to the Tasmanian Tourist Industry, and
  3. has caused grave concern that this is the commencement of the dismantling of the Australian National Line.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled will move to restore the Australian Trader to the Tasmanian service.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr James, Mr Les McMahon, Mr Martin, Mr Morris, Mr Stewart and Mr Antony Whitlam.

Petitions received.

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;

  1. Subscribe to the view that the Australian Broadcasting Commission belongs to the people and not to the government of the day whatever political party.
  2. Eschew all means, direct or indirect, of diminishing the independence of the Australian Broadcasting Commission.
  3. Reject all proposals for the introduction of advertising into ABC programmes.
  4. 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.
  5. Ensure that any general enquiries 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 enquiry.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Dr Cass, Mr Hurford, Mr Les McMahon and Mr Antony Whitlam.

Petitions received.

Budget 1976-77

To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that; the Budget will increase unemployment to unprecedented and crisis proportions at a time when hundreds of thousands of Australians, especially school-leavers, young workers and apprentices, are without work; the Budget completes the dismantling of Medibank as a simple, effective universal health insurance scheme, providing basic coverage for the total community; the Budget, by its heavy cuts in urban and transport programs, will worsen the quality of life available to many Australians; the Budget will compel state governments to reduce their services and increase charges; the Budget reduces spending on Aboriginal affairs by 30 per cent and returns expenditure on Aborigines to pre- 1972 days; the Budget seriously disadvantages migrant groups, most notably in employment and health, and leaves room for concern over the future of ethnic radio; the Budget, despite the government’s earlier rhetoric about defence threats to Australia, continues to hold the size of the armed services at present levels; and the Budget, despite all the above, still cannot be expected to reduce Australia’s annual inflation rate below twelve per cent; Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the 1976 Budget be redrafted to provide for economic recovery within the guide-lines laid down by the Australian Labor Government’s 1973 Budget.

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

Petitions received.

Chiropractic Services

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

  1. Whereas the West Australian State Government has seen fit to register Chiropractors licensed under the provisions of the Chiropractors Act, 1964. This unique and specific branch of the healing arts is utilised by an everincreasing cross section of the public who can neither gain compensation nor make claim for expenses so incurred under existing Income Tax provisions.
  2. Whereas your petitioners respectfully request that action be taken to provide legislation to cover both of these matters in the States or Territories where Chiropractic is recognised by the administrative powers.
  3. Whereas your petitioners respectfully request consideration be given to:

    1. Adequate cover by Federal Health Insurance schemes.
    2. That fees payable to a Chiropractor, qualified under States or Territories Chiropractic registration acts be made a full tax deductible item. Both of the above being without the prerequisite of referral by a medical practitioner.

Therefore your petitioners pray your honourable House to legislate accommodation of these matters under the provisions of Federal law.

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

Thalidomide Foundation

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;

  1. Honour the undertaking of the previous Government with regard to taxation of the monies due to the Thalidomide Foundation Limited, and the income therefrom.
  2. That this action be taken with the utmost despatch.

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

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:

  1. 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;
  2. reaffirm Australia’s commitment of Overseas Development Assistance being a minimum of 0.7 per cent of GNP, and
  3. establish a fully independent statutory authority to administer Australia’s official Overseas Development Assistance.

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

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 Government will take steps to see that the aforesaid limitation is removed entirely or substantially increased.

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

Petition received.

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 in contravention of a 1 968 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 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 Groom.

Petition received.

Mr Ignazio Salemi

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.

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

Petition 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 Jenkins.

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 uponlow 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. byDr Jenkins.

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 50 000 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 employment 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.

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 Shipton.

Petition received.

page 1109

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

page 1109

QUESTION

TELECOM LOAN: CHAIRMAN’S INVOLVEMENT

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

– I ask the Minister for Post and Telecommunications a question. Is the Chairman of Telecom a director of Hill Samuel Australia Ltd, which recommended that Bain and Co. should test the market for loan funds for Telecom? Is the Chairman also a member of the legal firm which acts for Bain and Co.? If these are the facts, is the Minister satisfied as to the propriety of these circumstances?

Mr Eric Robinson:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

– My understanding is that the reference by the Leader of the Opposition to the positions held by the Chairman is correct. As to the second part of the question, I am satisfied in every way that the matter was conducted in a proper manner.

page 1109

QUESTION

GATEWAY BRIDGE

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– I direct a question to the Minister for Transport. I ask: Has the Minister seen a newspaper article in which Mr Hinze, the Minister for Local Government and Main Roads in Queensland, blamed the level of Federal funds received by the Queensland Government for making it impossible for it to go ahead at this time with the construction of the proposed Gateway Bridge at the mouth of the Brisbane River? Has the Queensland Government in fact made a submission, or sought assistance from the Commonwealth Government, concerning the building of the Gateway Bridge or is this but another example of that Minister’s ever-increasing capacity to take a swing at the Commonwealth and its Minister every time he seeks a scapegoat as a cover for what may be in fact his own shortcomings? Is the Minister for Transport’s patience on the ebb?

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

-Mr Hinze, the Queensland Minister, is what I would describe as a dear fellow. I am very fond of him, but I sometimes think that his mouth is as big as his body. I did see the Press report. In fact I have it with me by chance. I was surprised to see that he is blaming the Commonwealth because he has not been able to proceed with the construction of the Gateway Bridge. I notice that he has not put up to me or, indeed, to the previous Government a firm proposal for the use of Commonwealth funds on the construction of the Gateway Bridge. Mr Hinze knows as well as I do that a State has to recommend to the Federal Government where Commonwealth funds ought to be spent and that it is normally the tradition and practice to accept the recommendations of a State. I think that Mr Hinze must be playing a bit of local politics, to take up the point that the honourable member has made. It is not the first time that he has played a bit of local politics, either. He does seem to have the facility to blame the Federal Government when he cannot find funds to undertake some of the grandiose schemes that he wants to undertake. My understanding is that even his own Department is a bit doubtful about the viability of this project. Therefore I think that there is much more politics than engineering in the whole of Mr Hinze ‘s approach.

Mr Young:

– To what Party does he belong?

Mr NIXON:

– He is a colleague of mine and a very dear friend and he will remain so. But I must advise him that if he is very serious about this Gateway Bridge project he ought to follow the normal practice of* putting it in the program that comes to me so that it can be included in the works program for Queensland.

page 1110

QUESTION

PRICE OF BEER

Mr WILLIS:
GELLIBRAND, VICTORIA

– I address a question to the Prime Minister. The question concerns the actions of the Victorian Government in eliminating the discounting of packaged beer prices, thereby substantially increasing the cost of such beer to Victorian consumers. I ask: Is not this action by a Liberal Government totally contrary to the Prime Minister’s stated policy of giving first priority to defeating inflation? Does the Prime Minister see any contradiction in a State Liberal Government stifling competition for customers at the same time as his Minister for Industry and Commerce is urging retailers to compete for customers ‘boots and all’? Does the Prime Minister intend to take action to stop the Victorian Government undermining his policies by either persuading it to reverse its decision or amending the Trade Practices Act prohibit

State governments from limiting competition in this way?

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

-The Commonwealth Government has shown very plainly that it has a pre-eminent interest in overcoming inflation and in keeping costs and prices down. Apart from that, I think that the honourable gentleman’s question is an interesting one.

page 1110

QUESTION

ETHNIC RADIO

Mr SHIPTON:
HIGGINS, VICTORIA

-I ask the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs a question. I refer to the recent Government announcement concerning ethnic radio. Has the Minister seen the untrue comments on the Government’s decision by the Leader of the Opposition and the honourable member for Melbourne? Does the Minister regard comments by these honourable gentlemen such as ‘the decision to thrust ethnic radio into the ABC system must be viewed with concern’ as an attack on the Australian Broadcasting Commission itself? Are these comments totally without foundation? Does he agree that the Government’s decision takes into account the real interests of ethnic communities?

Mr MacKELLAR:
Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs · WARRINGAH, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– I did see comments by the Leader of the Opposition and the honourable member for Melbourne about the Government’s decision permanently to fund ethnic radio and to make it a part of but a separate entity within the Australian Broadcasting Commission. I think the comments by the honourable gentlemen were a little wide of the mark, to say the least. In fact, the Government considered some 250 submissions from individuals and ethnic groups which, with very few exceptions, recommend that ethnic radio be funded by the Government and that ethnic communities be given access to the programming and the direction the programs should take. The Government took these submissions into very close consideration. The decision announced means that ethnic radio will be put on a permanent basis. It will be funded totally by the Commonwealth. There will be opportunities for ethnic communities to influence the direction of programming. A Commonwealth advisory council and State advisory council will be set up. On each of those councils there will be a majority of members of the ethnic communities. The Government’s decision means that ethnic radio, as I have said, will be put on a permanent basis not only to the benefit of ethnic communities but to the benefit of all Australians.

There have been some comments about political bias in programs beamed from station 3ZZ in Melbourne and the experimental stations 2EA and 3EA. The Government, in its consideration of ethnic broadcasting, has made it absolutely plain that political partisanship must be avoided. We have sought to do this by putting ethnic radio in the hands of an independent organisation such as the ABC but have suggested that ethnic broadcasting should be a separate unit similar to Radio Australia. I believe the Government’s decision reflects very largely the majority of views as expressed by members of the ethnic community and I believe permanent ethnic radio, as decided by the Government, will be beneficial for ethnic communities and the Australian population as a whole.

page 1111

QUESTION

ETHNIC RADIO

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

– I ask the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs a supplementary question. Is it a fact that he himself sought to have ethnic radio established under his ministerial authority instead of that of the Minister for Post and Telecommunications? Is it not also a fact, as I would have thought proper, that he would have preferred ethnic radio to be part of an independent statutory corporation?

Mr MacKELLAR:
LP

– As I have already mentioned, a committee was set up comprising both staff of the Minister for Post and Telecommunications and staff from my Department. That committee received submissions from about 250 individuals and organisations. As a result of the report of that committee, the Minister for Post and Telecommunications and I put in a joint submission to the Cabinet. It was considered by the Cabinet, and the decision has been publicly announced. I strongly support the decision as it was announced.

page 1111

QUESTION

INDUSTRIES ASSISTANCE COMMISSION REPORTS

Mr KELLY:
WAKEFIELD, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs. I read in yesterday’s Press that the Government had rejected the Industries Assistance Commission report on storage batteries, which indicates that the Press must have been notified of the rejection on Tuesday. Why has Parliament not yet been notified of the Government’s decision? Does the Minister realise that by not making a statement in this House he has denied the House the opportunity to examine and criticise the Government’s action? Does the Minister realise that the Press have been given copies of the IAC report on this subject while members of Parliament have not yet received their copies? Will the Minister assure the House that he will not again handle similar matters in such a way?

Mr HOWARD:
Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs · BENNELONG, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– It is true that copies of the report were made available to the Press contemporaneously with a joint Press statement made by Senator Cotton and myself announcing the Government’s decision. It is also true, as the honourable member has said, that the copies were made available to the Press in advance of tabling. I accept the comment implicit in the honourable gentleman’s question that this should not occur in the future. I can assure him that it will not occur in the future. The honourable gentleman raised the quite legitimate point that when the Government makes decisions to reject Industries Assistance Commission reports and therefore there are no variations to current tariff levels, no immediate opportunity is available for parliamentary debate of those decisions. I will consider the honourable gentleman’s request that some means be made available for decisions of the Government to reject IAC reports to be debated in the same manner as decisions to accept IAC reports.

page 1111

QUESTION

CONSUMER PRICE INDEX

Mr CREAN:
MELBOURNE PORTS, VICTORIA

– My question addressed to the Treasurer concerns page 26 of that famous Budget Statement No. 2, which I am sure he keeps in his head in the same way as my colleague keeps it under his pillow. Under the heading ‘Prices and Incomes’, reference is made on the one hand to increases in the consumer price index and on the other hand to increases in more broadly based price indices. The document expresses the hope that these might move by similar orders of magnitude in the year as a whole. I ask the Treasurer, firstly, will he indicate whether he is dissatisfied with the CPI as a measure of inflation? Secondly, what are the other more broadly based price indices? Thirdly, does he believe that the other more broadly based price indices give a better or a worse or even a different indication of the rates of inflation in Australia?

Mr LYNCH:
Treasurer · FLINDERS, VICTORIA · LP

– In response to the honourable gentleman, who I might say was more respected in the position of Treasurer than any other Treasurer in the Labor Administration, in the first place I should like to congratulate him on maintaining his seat against a certain marginal attack in the Victorian area. Whilst we are delighted that the honourable gentleman is to continue on in this Parliament I am sure he will understand that the Government has some sense of disappointment that a certain notorious gentleman is apparently unable yet to enter the Parliament. As to the information the honourable gentleman has sought, in the first place I would accept his view that the CPI is subject to a number of qualifications in its representation movements in price indicators. I think Medibank is the most notable example pointing to the problems of measuring general price changes on the basis of the CPI, both as to last year and as to the prospective December period, because of the artificial hump which the Medibank levy will give to that particular period.

So far as the broadly based deflaters are concerned, we are thinking here, as the honourable gentleman would know, of a number of deflaters, such as the consumption deflater and the investment deflater that are elements of the gross national expenditure. They are in fact, in my view, a more accurate reflection of what will be happening to prices during the period ahead. The statement which the honourable gentleman has referred to indicates that, on the basis of those broadly based deflaters, inflation will certainly fall during the period ahead. I accept the honourable gentleman’s general inference which is inherent in his question. I will not bother to read out that section of Statement No. 2 to the House at the present time, except to say generally that inflation is on the way down regardless of the way in which it is measured. But the broadly based deflater concept would certainly be, in my view, a more effective way of measuring general price change.

page 1112

QUESTION

DROUGHT RELIEF

Mr HOLTEN:
INDI, VICTORIA

– My question, which is directed to the Prime Minister, is related to the continuing serious drought situations throughout a large part of Australia. I refer the Prime Minister to answers to questions asked in this House by the honourable member for Riverina and the honourable member for Wimmera in particular in which reference was made to an offer made to the States to change the formula for drought assistance to a $1 for $1 basis if any State so wished. Has the Prime Minister received any response to that offer, apart from statements made by some Victorian State Government Ministers and members that Commonwealth aid for drought is a confidence trick? Is it fair and reasonable to describe the Commonwealth’s offers and assistance for drought relief as a confidence trick? Finally, will the Prime Minister urge the State governments, particularly that of Victoria, to treat the drought situation as a matter of urgency?

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
LP

-What the Commonwealth has done in relation to drought assistance is realistic and useful. As the Minister for Primary Industry had indicated, the decisions so far made do not necessarily indicate an end to the Commonwealth’s intentions in relation to this particular matter. The honourable gentleman would know that the Minister mentioned the fact that possible support for the purchase of feed grains is a matter which is under examination. So far as the matters which have been put to us from the States are concerned, overwhelmingly we have lent them our support. Traditionally that support used to be in the form of the States providing a base expenditure up to a certain minimum and then the Commonwealth picking up the total expenditure for agreed measures beyond that minimum. In Victoria’s case for example, the agreed minimum is $3. 3m, and in the case of New South Wales it is $5m. These sums were in fact set many years ago when the value of the dollar was much greater, and many years ago those base sums would have represented a greater burden on the States than they do now. Probably in real terms those base amounts represent only about half of the value they represented when they were originally set; it might not even be that much.

It was because of some concern that Victoria’s support for the natural disaster, the drought, was not going to get to $3.Sm in this instance, and therefore that it would not be gaining funds from the Commonwealth in this instance on the agreed measures, that we came to the decision to offer the States an alternative form of finance, namely marching with the States dollar for dollar from the first dollar spent on the agreed measures. From the Commonwealth’s point of view, we believe that that is a very fair offer as an alternative to the present method of support. What has happened is that the State believes that its total expenditure will not reach $3. 5m and therefore that it will not be calling on the Commonwealth to give additional expenditure beyond $3.5m. If that is so, there is another alternative available, and it is up to the State to decide whether to take up that alternative if it wants to do so. I think that is a matter for the States to decide. But what was realling happening, I think, was that Victoria had wished the Commonwealth to take a position quite out of conformity with any past practice and, regardless of how much the State had spent, to spend additional sums. I think there have to be some order and method in relation to these matters and there have to be some general guidelines which are acceptable to all governments. The guidelines had been acceptable in the past in relation to natural disasters. They appeared to be not acceptable to Victoria in this instance, so we offered the Victorian Government an alternative. I have not yet heard from any of the States whether they have accepted that alternative.

page 1113

QUESTION

AIR NIUGINI

Dr JENKINS:
SCULLIN, VICTORIA

– My question is addressed to the Minister for Transport. Has the Papua New Guinea Government sought a rearrangement of the Australian shareholdings in Air Niugini that would enable Ansett Airlines of Australia to increase its shareholding to 25 per cent or an even more substantial amount to the exclusion of Trans-Australia Airlines and Qantas Airways Ltd? has the Government rejected the request? If not, why not?

Mr NIXON:
LP

– As the House would know, there is an agreement between the Australian Government and Papua New Guinea Government about the shareholding of Air Niugini. At the moment Papua New Guinea has 60 per cent of the shares, Ansett has 16 per cent, TAA has 12 per cent and Qantas has 12 per cent. The situation is that the Prime Minister of Papua New Guinea has written to the Prime Minister of Australia saying that the Papua New Guinea Government wants to take up the option that is in the agreement between the 2 governments for it to purchase the shares held presently by TAA and by Qantas. So far as the Australian Government is concerned, this matter is under consideration. I point out that there could be implications for both the 2-airline policy and for Qantas as Australia’s international carrier. I must also point out that Papua New Guinea is an independent nation and the agreement provides for the takeover. I therefore have to weigh that factor as well. In due course the Papua New Guinea Government will be informed of the attitude of the Australian Government.

page 1113

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN LABOR PARTY

Mr NEIL:
ST GEORGE, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I direct a question to the Leader of the House. Will he consider using the provisions of standing order 108 to give the House an opportunity to discuss early next week the extent of left wing influences in the Australian Labor Party? Is he aware that some of these left wing influences have multinational associations and are actively opposed to the security and living standards of Australia? Has the strength of these influences been demonstrated by the denial to the President of the Australian Labor Party of the chance to contest a safe seat in this Parliament in spite of the humiliating concessions which he has made to them in the hope of currying favour with them?

Mr SINCLAIR:
Minister for Primary Industry · NEW ENGLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES · NCP/NP

– The answer to the first part of the honourable gentleman’s question is yes.

The answer to the second part of the honourable gentleman’s question is yes. The answer to the third pan is in the affirmative and I add as an extension to the response given to an earlier question in this House today, that there has been some interest demonstrated by a gentleman from Victoria in becoming a member of this chamber. Any opportunity we might give for a discussion of the circumstances of his candidature I think would be welcomed, particularly by honourable members on this side of the chamber.

page 1113

QUESTION

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENCE

Mr ARMITAGE:
CHIFLEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Minister for Defence. In view of the AuditorGeneral’s report on the extraordinary looseness of the financial administration of the Department of Defence which has resulted in $34m in spares for Mirage aircraft being lost and defence supplies from overseas paid for in advance never being received, will he institute a full inquiry into the financial administration of the Department of Defence, including all the Services. I refer the Minister to the public inquiry of the Public Accounts Committee which was held as recently as last Tuesday.

Mr KILLEN:
Minister for Defence · MORETON, QUEENSLAND · LP

-The Auditor-General’s report reached my table only last night. I am sure the honourable member will understand that I have not had an opportunity to look at it.

Mr Hurford:

– You have kept it under your pillow.

Mr KILLEN:

– I would much rather have it under my pillow than you. I am sure that the honourable gentleman would clearly understand that in that time I have not had an opportunity to examine it, as indeed I should. It would be incorrect to charge the present Department of Defence with any maladministration in relation to what is in the Auditor-General’s report because at that time there were separate Service departments. Beyond that stage I would not think it proper for me to comment, but may I say this to my honourable member: I will treat the question as being on notice and I will ensure that he gets an answer as soon as possible.

page 1113

QUESTION

MILITARY AID TO INDONESIA

Mr GRAHAM:
NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I address my question to the Minister for Defence. Is the Minister aware of a statement made by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition that the Australian Government is secretly selling out the rights of the people of East Timor by arranging the delivery of further military aid to Indonesia in the form of patrol boats? I understand that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition stated:

By giving the Indonesians patrol boats that could be used for military purposes and against the Timorese people, the Government is not only in complicity with Indonesia ‘s illegal invasion of East Timor but can now be regarded as actively encouraging this unprovoked Indonesian aggression.

Will the Minister inform the House whether he regards the statement of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition as being at all accurate?

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

– Order! The Minister for Defence is not responsible for statements made by any members of the Opposition except insofar as they may relate to some decision which he has made in relation to the department over which he has control. In that regard I suggest that the Minister answer that part of the question concerning his departmental responsibility but not go into the matter of any statement by a member of the Opposition.

Mr KILLEN:
LP

– I am under an obligation to you, Mr Acting Speaker, for your guidance. I would regard it as a very cruel fate indeed to be responsible for statements made by members of the Opposition. I did read that statement last evening. I thought that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition must have been in an uncommonly exuberant mood because I remind him and the House that the patrol boats of which he spoke were authorised to be given to Indonesia by the previous Labour Administration. On that occasion the Deputy Leader was a member of the Cabinet, so I do not suppose he sat in the Cabinet with some doleful Trappist vow weighing over him. If he had held strong views on the matter, I imagine he would have stated them. The present Leader of the Opposition was at the time Prime Minister. He does not seem to me to be sopping wet with anxiety on the issue. And who was Treasurer at the time? He was none other than my very dear friend, the honourable member for Oxley. He provided them with the money.

What are the patrol boats? They would have the offensive capacity of a Manly ferry in dry dock. I have a statement from my research, albeit hurried research, which was put out by an old friend of us all, now the Australian Ambassador to Sweden, at the time when he was the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister for Defence. I refer to the Honourable L. H. Barnard. In his statement he said:

Under the project, -

That is the defence aid project -

Australia will provide Indonesia with 2 Attack class patrol boats, two other patrol boats of the same or a similar type, six 5 1-foot patrol boats and at least 4 Nomad aircraft, -

Mr Hayden:

-Was that 650 one-foot boats?

Mr KILLEN:

– You are under heavy pressure; we know that. You do not know whether your accounting is right or your defence is wrong. To me it is fascinating: Here is the Deputy Leader of the Opposition complaining about an action taken some years ago- an action, speaking for myself, that is absolutely innocent.

page 1114

QUESTION

PRE-SCHOOL CHILD CARE

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
KINGSFORD-SMITH, NEW SOUTH WALES

-I direct a question to the Minister for Health who represents the Minister for Social Security in this place and I refer to an open letter written by his ministerial colleague which indicated that the 75 per cent subsidy for pre-school child care would obviously be reduced next year. I point out that this was a subsidy granted by the Labor Government. Have the appropriate State governments concurred with this reduction? Can the Minister give an assurance that the average wage earner and the single parent will not have to pay any more for child care, bearing in mind that they have lost the dependent child allowance and now have to pay for Medibank?

Mr Hunt:

– Will the honourable member please repeat the last part of the question?

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

– Can the Minister given an assurance that single parents and those people earning less than average weekly earnings will not have to pay more for child care because they have lost the dependent child allowance and will also have to pay the Medibank levy?

Mr HUNT:
NCP/NP

– I will regard the question as being on notice, particularly that part in relation to the child care aspect. I know that the Minister for Social Security is currently having discussions with her State counterparts in respect to the child care program, which also includes pre-schools. As to the figure that the honourable member used- I think it was 75 per cent -

Mr Lionel Bowen:

– It is in the letter.

Mr HUNT:

– I think it is quite inaccurate but I will obtain details from the honourable member later in the day.

page 1114

QUESTION

TASMANIAN FREIGHT EQUALISATION SCHEME

Mr LUSHER:
HUME, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Is the Minister for Primary Industry aware of serious concern being expressed among mainland apple growers about the effect on mainland markets of the recent introduction of the Tasmanian freight equalisation scheme? Although the rates are to be adjusted, will the Tasmanian apple growers be more likely to export to the United Kingdom and

Europe or will they tend to supply mainland markets? Will the Minister keep a close watch on this situation, particularly in view of the oversupply of apples predicted for next season?

Mr SINCLAIR:
NCP/NP

– I know that eating an apple a day seems to be advocated as a good health habit. However, there is some difficulty in the sourcing of those apples and in ensuring that the apple growers, in whichever State they live, receive a sufficient return. The introduction of the freight subsidy for Tasmania was, of course, in no way seen as a particular measure of adding unduly to the competitiveness of Tasmanian fruit growers. It was seen as a means to help remove the significant disadvantages which that State suffers and has suffered because of the generally higher than normal level of industrial disputation on vessels that ply between Tasmania and the mainland, because of the unfortunate increase in production costs that has led to very high freight charges on that Bass Strait trade and which have led to circumstances of high unemployment and considerable economic difficulty in that State.

It is true that mainland fruit producers have expressed some concern at the probable effect of this concession for supplies of fruit to the mainland in the next growing season. I am told that the Tasmanians traditionally have looked to a range of export markets. It would be expected that a big percentage of their crop would continue to go to those markets. Indeed, in discussions with me they have been most optimistic about their chances of expanding sales into a number of new markets. I would hope, for the sake of Tasmania, that those hopes can be realised. The announcement the other day of the apple and pear stabilisation assistance to be provided for the next season- in rejection of the Industries Assistance Commission comments, might I add- is intended to try to provide some offset against those continued export sales. I believe that the manner of stabilisation assistance will enable the Tasmanian fruit growers to continue to send their products significantly to the markets they have traditionally supplied. I do not believe that there will be any undue disruption on the mainland. But, of course, that is a matter that will need to be borne in mind in subsequent discussions with the industry. If necessary measures do flow in relation to any oversupply, they will be adopted only in consultation with producers on both sides of Bass Strait.

page 1115

QUESTION

ROYAL AUSTRALIAN NAVY PATROL BOATS

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

– I ask the Minister for Defence a question supplementary to that which he has just been asked. Do the Attack class patrol boats at present in service with the Royal Australian Navy also have the offensive capacity of a Manly ferry in dry dock? I also ask: What other RAN vessels would immediately be available to defend Sydney on a sunny Sunday afternoon?

Mr KILLEN:
LP

– I know that it is some time since my honourable and learned friend has done any practice at the Bar, but I take leave to remind him that a good interrogatory should always be carefully drawn. The interrogatories he has put to me have been put with characteristic imprecision. His Deputy Leader, who I think follows him out of desperation, was referring specifically to six 51 -foot boats that have- I repeat it- the offensive capacity of a Manly ferry in dry dock. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition was not referring to the Attack class boats. He was referring to the six 51 -foot boats. If the honourable gentleman were to discipline his mind again, go back to the law and bring in Mr Hawke, Australian politics would be cheered up.

page 1115

QUESTION

ALEXANDER AND THOMAS BARTON

Mr BIRNEY:
PHILLIP, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I direct my question to the Attorney-General. I refer him to extradition proceedings launched against the fugitive financiers, Alexander Barton and his son, Thomas, on 20 charges of fraud and conspiracy. I ask the Attorney-General whether he is aware of recent newspaper reports that these men have been providing both the New South Wales Government and Federal Government with dossiers of information on the collapse of some of their companies, and the disappearance of millions of dollars, in an attempt to do a deal on these charges. I ask the Attorney-General: Have the Bartons in fact been providing detailed information on the network of their companies and making serious allegations against prominent persons in the business community? Have these ex-financiers attempted to do any deal whatsoever with the Federal Government as a condition precedent to their voluntarily returning to Australia?

Mr ELLICOTT:
Attorney-General · WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

-I think it ought to be clear that the role of the Federal Government in this matter is to get the Bartons extradited from Paraguay. Two Federal Governments have been attempting to do this over a period of 2 years now. Some time ago I detailed to the House the efforts which have been undertaken and which are still current in that country. The Bartons have not attempted to do a deal with this Government in relation to their return to Australia. I can assure the honourable member that no deal will be done with the Bartons. The proposal is that they be extradited according to law. I hope that will come about in due course.

page 1116

QUESTION

HEALTH INSURANCE

Mr WALLIS:
GREY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

-I ask the Treasurer: Can he assure the House that persons who have not lodged health insurance levy exemption forms with their employers by today and who subsequently purchase private health insurance on or before 1 October will not be forced to make an extended loan to the Taxation Department if the levy is deducted from their salary? Will the Treasurer also confirm that a working wife whose husband is paying the levy at the family rate will not have the levy deducted from her salary and be forced to make a similar loan to the Taxation Department?

Mr LYNCH:
LP

– In the first place the answer is yes in the sense that employers can make application for an extension of the time required. With regard to the second part of the question, I am looking at that at the present time and I will be issuing a statement later today.

page 1116

QUESTION

FAMILY LAW IN NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr FIFE:
FARRER, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Has the Attorney-General seen recent reports which indicate that the New South Wales Attorney-General, Mr Walker, has described family law in New South Wales as a judicial cross-country course and an untidy jumble of jurisdictions? Does the AttorneyGeneral agree with this view? Has he any suggestions to make which would assist the New South Wales Attorney-General to run the course and clear the jumble?

Mr ELLICOTT:
LP

– I have noticed those articles. I wish that the State Attorney-General, instead of talking to the Press, would talk to me because I could assist him with his problem. Last year this Parliament in passing the Family Law Bill put section 41 in the legislation. That section is there simply because we realised when we put the section in that this sort of a jumble would occur. I cannot understand why State Attorneys-General do not agree to set up State Family Courts. From the States’ point of view it would be a tremendous deal because the Commonwealth would have to pay for the establishment and the maintenance of those courts. If those courts are set up all the Commonwealth law and the State law on the family can be administered in the one court. That is the principle. We cannot achieve that in the Federal area because of the lack of constitutional power. In the long term if the States do not agree to set up State Family Courts, in order to achieve this principle we may have to seek some reference from the States. However, there is a ready solution here for the State AttorneysGeneral to take up. I hope that Mr Walker takes it up.

There are a number of conditions. One condition is that the judges in the Family Courts be appointed to the age of 65 years. I hazard a guess that probably no member of this Parliament is against a fixed retiring age forjudges in the Federal area. I just hazard a guess on that subject. All that the legislation in the Federal area requires is that the Commonwealth AttorneyGeneral has a right of veto. In enforcing section 41 I cannot direct what judge is to be appointed to a State Family Court. I simply have to approve of the appointment. This year 23 judges have been appointed to the Family Courts, and each of them, I believe, was a good appointment. I have had no criticism from any State AttorneyGeneral on that score. The other point that the New South Wales Attorney-General raises is that the Family Court judges cannot exercise all the jurisdiction; that jurisdiction has to be exercised by magistrates. Magistrates are exercising family law jurisdiction now in every State, and so far as I am concerned they can continue to exercise jurisdiction in that area. So the New South Wales Attorney-General has a ready solution, and that is to call in his secretary and start dictating a letter to me saying that he is prepared to negotiate to set up a State Family Court in New South Wales. I invite the State AttorneysGeneral in every other State to do likewise and as quickly as possible.

page 1116

QUESTION

HEALTH INSURANCE ADVERTISING

Mr Les McMahon:
SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-Is the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs aware that the Hospitals Benefits Association has made at least 8 incorrect and misleading assertions about Medibank cover in its health insurance advertising campaign? Is the Minister also aware that persons who elect to transfer their health insurance cover after 1 December will incur a severe financial penalty? In order to ensure that the public is provided with accurate information about health insurance prior to 1 October, will the Minister direct HBA to cease these practices pending a determination by the Trade Practices Commission?

Mr HOWARD:
LP

– I am aware that allegations have been made, and the honourable gentleman has repeated them, about misleading advertisements by a particular health insurance fund. In answer to a question from the honourable member for Maribyrnong last week I made it clear that the Government was particularly keen to ensure that at present there should be full and accurate disclosure not only by the private health insurance funds but also by Medibank Private so that Australian health consumers could be put in a position of making proper choices as to where they wish to insure. There are provisions of the Trade Practices Act which are relevant to the question of misleading statements being made by any corporation coming within the operation of the Act. If people believe that the health fund which the honourable member nominated has made misleading advertisements, it is open to those people to refer their complaints to the Trade Practices Commissioner.

I do not propose to give any ministerial directions or to make any requests to a particular fund. It is the responsibility of the Trade Practices Commission to administer the provisions of the Trade Practices Act. I do not intend to replace the statutory responsibility of the Commission with my ministerial decision. I make it quite clear that those people who are concerned about misleading advertisements, particularly in respect of this general area, should make their complaints to the Trade Practices Commission. It would greatly assist the proper consideration of this matter if, rather than funds being constantly named in the House under privilege, the people who have complaints to make were to make those complaints to the Trade Practices Commission, where they would be properly considered by staff qualified to do so.

page 1117

QUESTION

WOOL HANDLING DISPUTE

Mr CARIGE:
CAPRICORNIA, QUEENSLAND

– Is the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations aware that the Storemen and Packers Union is holding a meeting in Queensland on Friday to determine its attitude to the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission’s decision with regard to the wool bale weight dispute? Is the Minister also aware that the President of the union has stated that his union will not accept the Commission’s decision? If that proves to be the case, what action can the Government take to assist the persons who will be adversely affected by this union’s move?

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

-The history of this issue goes back a long way- some 10 years- to when an agreement was reached between the parties, including the Australian Council of Trade Unions, on the maximum weight of wool bales, which was established in modern terminology at 204 kilograms. The House will remember that this matter was the subject of a very long and damaging dispute towards the end of last year and early this year. Also involved were claims by the Storemen and Packers Union for a 35-hour week and improvements in various terms and conditions of employment. This dispute really put Australia’s trade in wool at risk. It did serious damage to our reputation amongst our trading partners, particularly our major customer, Japan, and threatened to disrupt the whole of the world trade in wool. Eventually the issue went before Commissioner Heagney of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. Dr Ferguson conducted another inquiry in relation to the health aspects.

As I understand it, the conclusion reached by those inquiries was that the maximum weight should remain at 204 kilograms but that if people had difficulty in handling bales of a heavy weight in stores they should be able to ask for assistance in the handling of such bales. That seems to be a very sensible and reasonable conclusion to reach. Indeed, I can recall having had to ask for a bit of help myself many times when the stack in the wool room became a bit high. I would urge members of the Storemen and Packers Union to think of the welfare of their fellow workers in the present circumstances. Hundreds- perhaps thousands- of their fellow workers could be stood down as a result of any further dispute. Finally there is the damage that could be done to Australia’s major industry- the wool industry- should the decision of the Commissioner and the expert health inquiry not be accepted. It is a matter of great concern to the Government. I am hopeful that good sense will prevail in the ranks of the union.

page 1117

INTERNATIONAL LABOUR CONFERENCE

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

– For the information of honourable members I present the report of the Australian Government Delegation to the 60th Session of the International Labour Conference held in Geneva in June 1975. Appended to the report are the texts of the following instruments adopted by the 60th Session of the Conference: Convention No. 141 concerning Organisations of Rural Workers and Their Role in Economic and Social Development, Recommendation No. 149 concerning Organisations of Rural Workers and Their role in Economic and Social Development, Convention No. 142 concerning Vocational Guidance and Vocational Training in the Development of Human

Resources, Recommendation No. 150 concerning Vocational Guidance and Vocational Training in the Development of Human Resources, Convention No. 143 concerning Migrations in Abusive Conditions and the Promotion of Equality of Opportunity and Treatment of Migrant Workers, and Recommendation No. 151 concerning Migrant Workers.

These 6 instruments have been referred to the appropriate Commonwealth and State authorities for examination and comment. This preliminary examination indicates that, while there is compliance with many of the provisions of the instruments, Australia’s law and practice do not comply in all respects. In the light of this, immediate ratification of the Conventions does not appear to be practicable. However, in accordance with normal practice, the position regarding compliance with Conventions Nos 141, 142 and 143 will be kept under examination with a view to possible ratification in due course.

page 1118

AUSTRALIAN SHIPPERS COUNCIL

Mr NIXON:
Minister for Transport · Gippsland · LP

– For the information of honourable members I present the annual report of the Australian Shippers Council for the year ended 30 June 1976.

page 1118

BATTERIES

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

– For the information of honourable members I present the report of the Industries Assistance Commission dated 30 June 1976 entitled Batteries Part A: Storage Batteries (Accumulators).

page 1118

MIGRANT SETTLEMENT

Mr MacKELLAR:
Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs · Warringah · LP

– For the information of honourable members I present a report by the Australian Population and Immigration Council entitled A Decade of Migrant Settlement: Report on the 1973 Immigration Survey.

page 1118

PRICES JUSTIFICATION TRIBUNAL

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

- Mr Acting Speaker, I seek the leave of the House to make -

Mr Lionel Bowen:

– On the question of leave, I wish to make a comment.

Mr HOWARD:

– Would you mind letting me finish my request to the House?

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

– Normally leave is granted or not granted without debate.

Mr HOWARD:

– Does the honourable member know what I am seeking leave to do?

Mr Hurford:

– Yes. It is leaked everywhere today. It is on the front page of the Australian Financial Review.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-The Chair is not interested in that aspect.

Mr HOWARD:

– I seek leave to make a statement about the future of the Prices Justification Tribunal.

Mr Lionel Bowen:

– On that point, Mr Acting Speaker, I want to say that this statement obviously will encourage debate. We would rather that the statement be debated later. I would ask the Leader of the House to seek leave to move a motion to suspend Standing Orders to enable the ministerial statement to be dealt with at the conclusion of the grievance debate. If it is not dealt with then, members of the Opposition will be denied an opportunity to debate their grievances in the Parliament. Debate on the statement will obviously take at least half an hour. That means at least 3 honourable members will be denied an opportunity to speak in the grievance debate. If debate on the statement is resumed at a quarter to one, we will be able to proceed with business in the normal way. I do not wish to delay the Parliament, but if leave is to be granted- I do not think it will be because I am not getting any cooperationit will be on the basis that the ministerial statement will be debated at a quarter to one. If it is not debated then, 5 members of the Opposition could be denied an opportunity to speak in the grievance debate.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

– I think the honourable member for Kingsford-Smith has made the point. Is leave granted?

Opposition members- No.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-Leave is not granted.

Mr HOWARD:

– I table the statement.

page 1118

TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMENDMENT BILL 1976

Bill returned from the Senate without amendment.

page 1118

NARCOTIC DRUGS AMENDMENT BILL 1976

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

Second Reading

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

– I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of this Bill is to amend the Narcotic Drugs Act 1967 to transfer responsibility for the regulation of the manufacture and wholesale distribution of narcotic drugs from the Department of Business and Consumer Affairs to the Department of Health. The Narcotic Drugs Act controls the licit manufacture of narcotic drugs, provides for security of manufacture and also for control over narcotic drugs when in transit through .Australia to another country. This transfer of responsibilities is being made because the Department of Health with its computer facility to monitor licit transactions in narcotics together with various inspection, labelling and quality controls is well placed to administer controls over the licit trade. Import and manufacturing quotas are also based on legitimate medical requirements and the Department of Health can best assess such requirements.

Under the new arrangements the Department of Health will be responsible for:

  1. licensing and inspection of manufacturers, importers and exporters;
  2. authorising importation and exportation of drugs;
  3. the setting of import and manufacturing quotas;
  4. in conjunction with the appropriate State authorities, determining acreage for poppy cultivation; and
  5. preparation of health statistics and estimates for transmission to the International Narcotics Control Board.

The Department of Business and Consumer Affairs, of which the Australian Narcotics Bureau is a part, will continue to be responsible for:

  1. ensuring that Australia’s obligations under the international drug conventions are met;
  2. action against the traffic in and possession of narcotics illicitly imported;
  3. also under the Customs Act, administrative control over licit importation and exportation; and
  4. security (under the Narcotic Drugs Act) of licit manufacture, handling and movement of drugs.

Honourable members will be interested to know that the arrangements which have been in operation administratively for 2 years have rationalised and streamlined functions with some reduction in staff. I commend the Bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr Young) adjourned.

page 1119

BANKSTOWN AND LIDCOMBE GOVERNMENT AIRCRAFT PLANTS

Reference to Public Works Committee

Mr McLEAY:
Minister for Construction · Boothby · LP

– I move:

That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1 969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for investigation and report: Consolidation into Bankstown of the Bankstown and Lidcombe Government Aircraft Plants operated by Hawker De Havilland Australia Pty Ltd

The proposal involves the provision of additional facilities at the existing Bankstown plant to enable certain operations now undertaken at Lidcombe to be transferred to, and consolidated with, the Bankstown operations. Both plants are operated by Hawker De Havilland Australia Pty Ltd. The works to be undertaken at Bankstown broadly involve: major extensions to a hanger type building for use as a workshop and major extensions to the main stores building; extensions, alterations and refurbishing of several other buildings; erection of a new administration building, including a canteen; and extensions or upgrading of associated engineering services to serve the expanded facility.

Generally the building extensions will be constructed to match the existing facilities. The new administration building will be of reinforced concrete frame with brick infill panels. Minor landscaping is included. The cost of the project at August 1976 prices is $7. 1m. I table plans of the proposed works.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 1119

GRIEVANCE DEBATE

Prices Justification Tribunal

Question proposed:

That grievances be noted.

Mr YOUNG:
Port Adelaide

-Mr Acting Speaker, I take this opportunity to make some comments on the statement which has been tabled in regard to the Government’s intentions about the future of the Prices Justification Tribunal. I am sorry that I have had to raise the matter in the Grievance Day debate because usually such time is taken up by members speaking on private matters, but it is pleasing to the extent that for 3 days now there has been a series of leaks to the Press- the Sydney Morning Herald and the Melbourne Age -

Mr Sinclair:

- Mr Acting Speaker, I do not think there is any alternative but for me to move that the honourable member be not further heard. The Opposition prevented the Minister from making his statement and I see no purpose in allowing the honourable member to respond. Therefore I move:

That the honourable member for Port Adelaide be not further heard.

Mr YOUNG:

– In response to that argument -

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-Order! The Leader of the House has moved that the honourable member be not further heard. There is no debate. The question is: ‘That the motion moved by the Leader of the House be agreed to ‘.

Question put-

That the honourable member for Port Adelaide be not further heard.

The House divided. (Mr Acting Speaker- Mr P. E. Lucock)

AYES: 75

NOES: 22

Majority……. 53

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Mr BAILLIEU:
La Trobe

– It will not be lost on those people listening to the broadcast of these proceedings today that the Opposition -

Motion ( by Mr Young) put:

That the honourable member for La Trobe be not further heard.

The House divided. (Mr Acting Speaker- Mr P. E. Lucock)

AYES: 22

NOES: 75

Majority

53

AYES

NOES

Mr SINCLAIR:
Minister for Primary Industry and Leader of the House · New England · NCP/NP

– As Opposition members obviously do not want to avail themselves of Grievance Day, I move-

That the question be now put.

Mr Bryant:

– May I speak to that motion?

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

– No. The question that the question be now put cannot be debated.

Question put-

That the question be now put.

The House divided. (Mr Acting Speaker- Mr P. E. Lucock)

AYES: 72

NOES: 22

Majority……. 50

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Original question put.

The House divided. (Mr Acting Speaker- Mr P. E. Lucock)

AYES: 70

NOES: 22

Majority……. 48

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

page 1122

QUESTION

SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS

Mr YOUNG:
Port Adelaide

– I move:

That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the honourable member for Port Adelaide making a statement on the future of the Prices Justification Tribunal.

Motion ( by Mr Sinclair) proposed:

That the honourable member for Port Adelaide be not further heard.

Mr YOUNG:

– In moving for the suspension of Standing Orders, one should expose the outrageous precedent which has been set in the Parliament. I have moved the motion as a result of the Government’s failure to allow the Parliament to discuss the Prices Justification Tribunal and everybody in Australia ought to know this.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-Order! The question is: “That the honourable member for Port Adelaide be not further heard ‘.

Question put.

The House divided. (Mr Acting Speaker- Mr P. E. Lucock)

AYES: 70

NOES: 23

Majority……. 47

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Mr KEATING:
Blaxland

-Mr Acting Speaker, this motion need not have been moved had the Government not behaved in the manner in which it did. Indeed, the former Government -

Motion (by Mr Sinclair) put:

That the honourable member for Blaxland be not further heard.

The House divided. (Mr Acting Speaker- Mr P. E. Lucock)

AYES: 70

NOES: 24

Majority……. 46

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

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

– The Prices Justification Tribunal having not been-

Motion (by Mr Young) put:

That the Leader of the House be not further heard.

The House divided. (Mr Acting Speaker- Mr P. E. Lucock)

AYES: 24

NOES: 69

Majority……. 45

AYES

NOES

Question put.

That Standing Orders be suspended.

The House divided. (Mr Acting Speaker- Mr P. E. Lucock)

AYES: 24

NOES: 68

Majority……. 44

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Question so resolved in the negative. Mr Hayden- Mr Acting Speaker, I move:

That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the honourable member for Adelaide making a statement on the management of the business of the House by the Government

Mr HAYDEN:
Oxley

– I move:

That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the honourable member for Adelaide making a statement on the management of the business of the House by the Government.

We have seen an unnecessarily provocative series of incidents this morning on the part of the Government.

Motion (by Mr Sinclair) put:

That the honourable member for Oxley be not further heard.

The House divided. (Mr Acting Speaker- Mr P. E. Lucock)

AYES: 70

NOES: 22

Majority……. 48

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Mr HURFORD:
Adelaide

– I am seconding the motion. The reason for the motion is that the Labor Opposition is fighting for the usual traditions of this Parliament against the jackboot majority of the Liberal and National Country Parties.

Motion (by Mr Sinclair) put:

That the honourable member for Adelaide be not further heard.

The House divided. (Mr Acting Speaker- Mr P. E. Lucock)

AYES: 70

NOES: 22

Majority…… 48

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Mr SINCLAIR (New England-Leader of the House)- I move: That the question . . .

If the honourable member is prepared to reconsider his stand and apologise to the Chair and the House, I will be prepared to withdraw that motion.

Mr Hayden- Mr Acting Speaker -

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-Order! Allow me to complete what I am saying. That is not a refusal to accept from the honourable member for Wills a motion of dissent from a ruling. What I said to the honourable member for Wills was that the Standing Orders state clearly that that motion that the honourable member be not further heard is not applicable. Therefore it is not a ruling from the Chair. The Standing Orders state that a motion that an honourable member be not further heard is not applicable when that honourable member is moving a motion of closure.

Mr Sinclair:

– I rise on a point of order. I moved that the honourable member for Oxley be suspended from the service of this House. If he withdraws the remarks he made and apologises, I am prepared to withdraw that motion, otherwise I suggest that the business of the House is such that that motion must be put, and put forthwith.

Mr Young:

– I rise on a point of order.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-Order! I shall reply to the point of order raised by the Leader of the House. In regard to the motion for the suspension of the honourable member for Oxley from the service of the House, I have pointed out to the honourable member for Oxley the comments that I made to the honourable member for Wills. Therefore I suggest to the honourable member for Oxley that he might think, on reflection, that the comments that he made in relation to my taking unto myself authority which I did not have were not correct. If the honourable member for Oxley is prepared to accept that the explanation that I have given to him puts a different interpretation on my answer to the honourable member for Wills, we will go back to square one.

Mr Hayden:

– I am very happy always to defer to the Chair. No slight was meant to you, Mr Acting Speaker. It was an unfortunate choice of words. I do apologise unreservedly. Your position is extremely difficult, especially at a time like this. However, I do want to draw your attention to standing order 100, because I think -

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

– Would the honourable member for Oxley resume his seat for a moment?

Mr Sinclair:

– I seek leave to withdraw the motion: ‘That the honourable member for Oxley be suspended from the service of the House’.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

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

Mr Bourchier:

– I rise on a point of order, Mr Acting Speaker. I would like you to clarify whether it is correct under Standing Orders that when you are on your feet all honourable members should be seated. Would you please explain to members of the Opposition that they should study the Standing Orders and pay due homage to the Chair.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

– I shall reply to that point of order raised by the honourable member for Bendigo. A number of honourable members in this House have transgressed Standing Orders today. I do not think it has helped the business of the House; I do not think it has helped the standing of the Parliament. I think that perhaps from now on we might try to carry on the business of the House in a manner which is in conformity with the Standing Orders. I call the honourable member for Port Adelaide.

Mr Young:

– I raise a point of order with regard to your ruling on the motion I moved. Firstly, as I said, the Hansard record will show that when the Leader of the House began to move his motion, he got only as far as the word ‘that’ when I moved that he be no longer heard. You did not know what he was going to move. I then took a point of order on that matter. You ruled that there was no point of order involved. The honourable member for Wills has moved dissent from your ruling. He has not moved dissent from your ruling that he cannot move that the question be now put; he has moved dissent from your ruling in an effort to point out that you knew what the Leader of the House was going to move when I moved that he be no longer heard.

Mr Sinclair:

– I rise on a point of order. The motion before the House is: ‘That the question be now put’. We have wasted most of this morning in a denial by the Labor Party -

Opposition members- Shame, shame!

Mr Young:

– Are you going to turn this into a debate?

Mr Sinclair:

– The rights normally available to a Minister in this House -

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-Order! I suggest that the Leader of the House make his point of order.

Mr Sinclair:

– I am speaking on the point of order that was raised by the honourable member for Port Adelaide. The question before the Chair is: ‘That the question be now put’.

Mr Young:

– No, it is not.

Mr Sinclair:

– I moved, in accordance with the rights that are available in this chamber, according to the alternate system call, that -

Mr Young:

– The Leader of the House -

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-Order! I call the honourable member for Port Adelaide to order.

Mr Young:

– He cannot be in the Chair too.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Port Adelaide will cease interjecting. As I intimated earlier, the House is not being assisted by interjections and by interruptions by various honourable members when other honourable members are speaking. I think the Leader of the House is correct in what he raised in his point of order. At this given moment the question before the House is: “That the question be now put’. According to the Standing Orders again, no other business can be considered by the House until that motion has been agreed to. That is the position at the present time.

Mr Hayden:

– I rise on a point of order, with your indulgence, Mr Acting Speaker. The point I wanted to make earlier relates to standing order 100, which reads:

If any objection is taken to any ruling of the Speaker, such objection must be taken at once, and a motion of dissent, to be submitted in writing, moved, which, if seconded, shall be proposed to the House, and debate thereon shall proceed forthwith

The honourable member for Port Adelaide pointed out to you that he did take a point of order which you ruled out of order. The honourable member for Wills then moved dissent from your ruling. That is the point I was trying to make to you earlier. I repeat my regret if the way in which I went about it was objectionable to you. It was not meant to be. It seems to me that in the heat of the debate which is going on at the moment the succession of points of order led you to overlook at least one or two of these points. It happens often enough in the difficult circumstances which arise similar to those which we have today. Perhaps a little more calmness at this point might give you a fairer opportunity to sort out the complexities which have arisen. That, with respect, is the situation. The honourable member for Port Adelaide did, as he points out, take a point of order subsequent to his motion that the Minister be not further heard being ruled out of order by you, and it was then that the honourable member for Wills moved dissent from your ruling under standing order 100. If standing order 100 does apply- I believe it does- then there is an obligation for that motion to be proceeded with by the House forthwith.

Mr Sinclair:

– Speaking on the point of order, the point is that no honourable member can be interrupted under our Standing Orders while he is in the course of moving a motion. Under the normal system of alternate calls from each side which is applicable in the House, I had the right to be called. I received the call. I was in the process of moving a motion of closure. Under standing order 93- even the honourable member for Oxley might be able to read this- such motion shall be put forthwith and decided without amendment or debate. Therefore, any motion, irrespective of whether it was moved by the honourable member for Wills or by any other honourable member of this House, could not take precedence over the closure motion. I suggest that as we have continued the sitting for some time after our normal time for suspending the sitting for lunch the appropriate course might be for Us to put the question: ‘That the question be now put’ so that this matter may be terminated forthwith.

Mr Bryant:

– The point I am making is that I moved dissent from your ruling, claiming it to be a ruling, that the question before the House was that the question be put. What I am saying is that the Leader of the House had not indicated even that he was moving a motion because he had said only one word before the motion that he be no longer heard was moved. Therefore, he was not at the point of moving a motion. We did not know that he was intending to do so. Therefore it was valid for the honourable member for Port Adelaide (Mr Young) to move that the Leader of the House be no longer heard. When you said that the motion before the House was that the question be now put it was an incorrect ruling. It was a ruling. I moved dissent from that ruling.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

– In regard to the point of order raised by the honourable member for Wills, I did not accept the motion of dissent from a ruling because, in my interpretation of the Standing Orders, no ruling had been given. It was a continuation of procedures under the Standing Orders and therefore the motion of the honourable member for Wills was not applicable. With all due respect to the honourable member for Wills and the House- in this sense perhaps I do give a ruling- if the point of order raised by the honourable member for Wills is accepted, in my opinion no honourable member would ever be able to move that the question be now put. The occupant of the chair does not know what the Leader of the House is going to do but he must have some appreciation and understanding of the circumstances. If a member intended to get up and move that the question be put and the Opposition were aware that that motion was about to be moved, the situation would be that no member would ever be allowed to move that the question be now put.

It was in those circumstances and, with all respect to the House, I hope with a degree of common sense that I gave the ruling that I gave, that the Leader of the House was entitled to move the motion that the question be put and that it must be accepted without any member being able to move a contrary motion before he had finished. In normal circumstances when the House is in a degree of calmness and serenitywhenever that may happen- a member has an opportunity to move that the question be put because the Opposition is not aware of his intention to do so until he has actually moved it. But in the present circumstances and in this given political situation, as I said quite candidly, I would suggest that a member on the Government side would never be able to move that the question be put if the interpretation asserted by the honourable member for Wills were accepted.

Mr Lionel Bowen:

– Rightly or wrongly in the context of all the words you have used, Mr Acting Speaker, you cannot get away from the practical fact that any chairman’s ruling can be dissented from. Of course the motion can be upheld or rejected but the House cannot be put in the position of not being able to move dissent from your ruling, irrespective of the merits of it. That is what has happened here. You are now saying that we really cannot move dissent from your ruling. We can, rightly or wrongly. It is true perhaps that the Leader of the House is entitled to move his motion, as you say, but the motion of dissent is against your ruling and it is for the House to determine that issue. Nobody but the House can do that. All this dispute could have been avoided if there had been agreement to 2 members debating a ministerial statement.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

– In regard to the point of order raised by the honourable member for Kingsford-Smith, when I gave the explanation for my assertion relating to the standing order, perhaps at that point of time in giving my reasons I came to the situation of giving a ruling, in which case dissent from that ruling could be moved. Might I suggest that at this point we adjourn the House for lunch.

Mr Sinclair:

– But Mr Acting Speaker-

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

– When the Chair says the House stands adjourned until a certain time, it will stand adjourned, irrespective of who in this House makes any other statement. I am endeavouring to get a little bit of common sense into the proceedings so that we might, when we return to this chamber, be able to proceed with the business of the House. The House stands adjourned until 2.15pm. I suggest that there be some discussion between the Leader of the House and the Opposition’s representative before the Chair is resumed.

Sitting suspended from 1.26 to 2.15 p.m.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-The question is:

That the question be now put.

Mr Bryant:

- Mr Acting Speaker, I take it we are up to the motion of dissent from your ruling.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-At the moment the motion before the chair seeks the suspension of Standing Orders. If after this question ‘That the question be now put’ and the original question are resolved the honourable member wishes to move dissent from the ruling which I gave earlier, I will give him the call. The question now is:

That the question be now put.

The House divided. (Mr Acting Speaker- Mr P. E. Lucock)

AYES: 72

NOES: 23

Majority……. 49

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Question put:

That the motion to suspend Standing Orders be agreed to.

The House divided. (Mr Acting Speaker- Mr P. E. Lucock)

AYES: 23

NOES: 73

Majority……. 50

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

page 1131

OBJECTION TO RULING

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

– I call the honourable member for Wills.

Mr BRYANT:
Wills

-Mr Acting Speaker, we come back to the point which arose at about phase 5.

Mr Sinclair:

- Mr Acting Speaker, I ask on what matter the honourable gentleman is talking?

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-The honourable member for Wills intends to move a motion of dissent from the ruling of the Chair.

Mr BRYANT:

– I move:

That the ruling ‘that the question before the Chair is that the question be now put’ be dissented from.

I do not want to -

Motion (by Mr Sinclair) proposed:

That the honourable member for Wills be not further heard.

Mr BRYANT:

– I was just going to -

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-Order! The question is: ‘That the honourable member for Wills be not further heard ‘.

Question put. The House divided. ( Mr Acting Speaker- Mr P. E. Lucock )

AYES: 71

NOES: 22

Majority…….. 49

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

A motion may be made that a Member Who is speaking, except a Member giving a notice of motion or formally Waving the terms of a motion allowed under the! standing orders, ‘be not further heard’, and such question shall be put forthwith and decided without amendment or debate.

Mr Acting Speaker, does this mean that under the precedent being set by this Government, if it is allowed, honourable. members opposite. Will use their numbers ip try to overrule the right of any person or a. minority in this Parliament to dissent from your ruling’ Should;, hot the Chair stand on its own fillings arid be allowed to withstand a motion of dissent?

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
Smith · Kingsford

-Yes, Mr Acting Speaker. We have moved a motion of dissent from your ruling not so much because we are trying to discuss the detail involved but rather the rights of a member in moving a motion of dissent. Before the suspension of the sitting for lunch, there was some confusion as to what had actually happened. We felt that the Leader of the House was going to put a motion. We say that motion was not put. We then felt that you had decided that the motion would be put before you had actually heard the Leader of the House give the details. Then, with respect, Mr Acting Speaker, in the course of the crossfire you said that no motion of dissent could be moved, it is as a result of the position you took that We say that at all times a motion of dissent may be moved. The only point we wish to make in our quarrel With you in a reasonable fashion, Mr Acting Speaker, is that we are always entitled to move a motion of dissent. We think, as I say, in the crossfire of the debate, you prejudged what the Leader of the House was going to move. He had hot actually moved his motion. It is for that reason and on that basis that We say, With respect, Mr Acting Speaker, that you Were in error . We know that you are entitled to give an explanation to the House as to how you interpreted the situation. In other words, you could well ask the House to support you in your ruling.

As we see it, having in mind the interjections that were thrown from both sides of the chamber, the Leader of the House actually had not moved his motion. Therefore there was no question that you, Mr Acting Speaker, could put. When you said that you were going to put the question we then said that we would move dissent from that ruling. I want to put this point in the present calmness of the debate. What has happened is unfortunate. We have wasted a fair bit of time today. All we wanted was for the honourable member for Port Adelaide to be able to continue to speak within his rights in the grievance debate. The Government must bear the odium of having prevented him from speaking. It is as simple as that. The honourable member for Port Adelaide merely wanted to exercise his rights but he was not allowed to do so. That is where this confrontation occurred. On a number of occasions today we have asked why the honourable member for Port Adelaide could not be allowed to say what he would have said during the grievance debate. We have no objection to the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs (Mr Howard) -

Mr Sinclair:

– You refused leave. What are you talking about?

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:

-We refused leave for the Minister to make a statement during the grievance debate. We said that he could make it at the conclusion of the grievance debate at 12.45 p.m.

Mr Howard:

– You are running the House, are you?

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:

-I am not running the House. We just refused leave, which we were entitled to do.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-Order! I think that the honourable member -

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:

-Getting back to what I was saying -

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

– I think that the honourable member for Kingsford Smith was getting away from the subject matter. Also, when he was speaking he was not assisted by interjections in relation to other matters.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:

-AU the interjections are against the merits of what we are trying to say. We understand your position, Mr Acting Speaker. It is a very difficult situation. We do not want you to think that we are moving this dissent motion in the sense that it is a personal reflection on your integrity or ability. We believe that a genuine mistake was made.

Mr Hodgman:

– Frustrating tactics.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:

-There again we see the hatred and venom that comes from the Government side at any time when we want to make a reasonable suggestion. Let me make this very clean There would be no hatred and venom if the honourable member for Port Adelaide were allowed to speak. That is all we are asking for now. We would settle for that position. Unless that happens we will have to use all the forms available to us to enable the honourable member to speak.

Mr Sinclair:

– You are threatening us.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:

-I am not threatening the Minister. He has threatened us a number of times today. It will be noted that every time there is an interjection it is not a helpful one. That is why the honourable member for Wills believed that he was entitled to move dissent from your ruling, Mr Acting Speaker. I think you would agree that he has that entitlement. Whether you agree with the merits of the argument in support of the motion is another matter. The merits in this matter refer to the way in which you, Mr Acting Speaker, prejudged the situation. I put it no higher than that. Unless we can get a satisfactory arrangement to enable the honourable member for Port Adelaide to participate in the debate in respect of the statement which was tabled, we will have to use every form of the House to enable that to be done.

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

- Mr Acting Speaker, during the term of office of the Labor Government the practice of Ministers making statements in the Parliament fell into disarray. This motion of dissent from your ruling arises from the way in which statements are made in the Parliament. The common practice and procedure is that 2 hours before a Minister is about to make a statement, the Minister, through the Leader of the House, gives a copy of that statement to the honourable member who manages the affairs of the House for the Opposition. The statement is then handed to the shadow Minister concerned, and leave is normally granted for the Minister to make the statement in the House. This morning when my colleague, the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs (Mr Howard), sought leave to make the statement in the ordinary course of events- adequate notice of the statement having been given to the Opposition- he was refused leave. The statement that he sought to make concerned the Prices Justification Tribunal. He utilised the only alternative procedure available to him and tabled the statement. Therefore, he was in the position where, having a significant matter of government policy which he sought to present to and have debated by this House, he was denied the right to speak to the statement. He was denied the right and opportunity to present government policy in the true and proper fashion. As a result of the action taken by the Opposition the grievance debate was called on. The honourable member for Port Adelaide rose in his place and, because it was the grievance debate, sought -

Mr Bourchier:

– He was not even listed.

Mr SINCLAIR:

– As my colleague the Government Whip, points out, the honourable member for Port Adelaide was not listed to speak in the grievance debate, but he sought to respond to a statement which had not been made as it should have been done and in respect of which no honourable member on the Government side had an opportunity to speak. This fracas has developed because the Australian Labor Party denied the Government an opportunity to make a statement on the Prices Justification Tribunal. It has denied back bench members on both sides of the House the opportunity to speak in the grievance debate. Now honourable members opposite have persisted in questioning your ruling, Mr Acting Speaker, in relation to a motion that the question be now put, which was put before the Chair in accordance with standing order 93, and in some way have suggested that you were out of order by not permitting the honourable member for Port Adelaide to interrupt the moving of that motion so that he could move that I be not further heard. I should begin by explaining that it is not possible for the honourable member for Port Adelaide to move that I be not further heard until I have in part been heard. So I had to start to move my motion before he could interrupt me and move that I be not further heard.

Mr Young:

– That is right. That is exactly what happened.

Mr SINCLAIR:

-I am delighted to hear that the honourable gentleman agrees with that point. If he looks at the Standing Orders he will see they provide that the motion that the question be now put shall be put forthwith and decided without amendment or debate. Under the Standing Orders there is no way in which an honourable member can be interrupted in the course of his moving a motion that the question be now put. Therefore, I was in the position of moving that the question be now put, and the Standing Orders provide that I cannot be interrupted when I am moving such a motion. You, Mr Acting Speaker, ruled accordingly. Therefore, I contend that the whole substance of this motion of dissent from your ruling is totally out of line with the Standing Orders as they are applied and as they should apply in this House. I suggest that we should conclude this debate, take whatever procedural steps are necessary to have the motion put and then proceed to deal with the Appropriation Bills, and in due and proper time we can conclude the debate on the residue of the Government’s program relating to health insurance which we intend to have passed by this House so that it can go to the Senate and be implemented for the advantage of the Australian people on 1 October. Therefore, I move:

Mr Hurford:

– On a point of order -

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

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

Mr Bryant:

- Mr Acting Speaker -

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-The honourable member for Wills has already spoken in moving the motion -

Mr Bryant:

– Under standing order 67 I have the right of reply.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-Order! I suggest to the honourable member for Wills that his motion is a motion of dissent against the Chair. It is not a substantive motion. Therefore, the honourable member has not got a right of reply.

Mr Bryant:

– Can I speak to a point of order on that?

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-No. I would not think there is provision in this debate for a point of order to be taken by the honourable member for Wills. I again suggest that we should proceed at this moment to consideration of the motion moved by the Leader of the House ‘That the question be now put’, although I would almost suggest that we should proceed without doing that and vote immediately.

Mr Bryant:

– I will just say that I can think of nothing more substantive in the true sense of the word than a motion of dissent from a ruling of the Chair. I have been here long enough to know -

Mr Sinclair:

- Mr Acting Speaker, on what sort of motion is the honourable member addressing the Chair?

Mr Bryant:

-. . . that up until about three or four years ago a motion of dissent from a ruling of the Chair was one of the most important motions that one could move in this House.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-Order! I hope that the honourable member for Wills was speaking to a point of order. As I have explained the situation, there is no substance to the point of order.

Mr Hurford:

- Mr Acting Speaker, I seek to raise a point of order.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

– I call the honourable member for Adelaide.

Mr Hurford:

– Thank you, Mr Acting Speaker. Earlier you did not hear -

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-Is the honourable member for Adelaide raising a point of order?

Mr Hurford:

– Yes, I am raising a point of order. I did say that I was, as you will find from an examination of Hansard. Earlier you did not hear a motion from this side of the House- in good faith, we accepted it- that the Leader of the House be not further heard. I ask you now -

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Adelaide is not correct. It was not that the Chair did not hear it; the Chair was saying that a standing order did not allow that motion to be moved. That was the situation at that point. According to the standing order the motion ‘That the Leader of the House be not further heard’ was not relevant. The motion before the House at this moment is the motion of dissent that has been moved against the ruling that I gave following that explanation of the standing order. I think that it might assist the House if honourable members were to proceed to vote on the motion.

Mr Morris:

– I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-Order! Many points of order have been raised over a period of time and a number of them have not been relevant. I suggest, as I have said, that the House should proceed to a vote. I think that it may be to the advantage of everyone if the House were to proceed immediately to vote on the motion of the honourable member for Wills concerning dissent from my ruling. I am more or less making a suggestion, if I may, to the honourable member for Port Adelaide, who is at the table, and the other members of the Opposition that the House should proceed immediately to vote on the motion of dissent.

Mr Hurford:

– The Leader of the House moved ‘That the question be now put ‘.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-The question is: ‘That the question be now put’. Those of that opinion say ‘aye’; to the contrary ‘no’. I think the ‘ayes’ have it. The question now is that the motion of dissent from the ruling of the Chair that was moved by the honourable member for Wills be agreed to. Those of that opinion say ‘aye’; to the contrary ‘no’. I think the ‘noes’ have it.

page 1135

GOVERNMENT BUSINESS

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

-Mr Acting Speaker-

Mr Young:

– I move:

That the Leader of the House be not further heard.

Mr SINCLAIR:

-I move:

That orders of the day Nos 2, 3 and 4, Government Business, be postponed until a later hour this day.

Mr Young:

- Mr Acting Speaker, I have moved that the Leader of the House be not further heard. I did so when he rose to his feet. He did not move ‘That the question be now put’ or any other motion that is contained in the Standing Orders.

Mr Sinclair:

– Speaking to the point of order, the question that we have just debated -

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

– I suggest to the honourable member for Port Adelaide that we should perhaps hear what the Leader of the House has to say first.

Mr Young:

– That was the idea of my moving the motion. We are intent upon getting some discussion sooner or later on what has occurred in this Parliament today. The idea of chopping off his motion was, of course, to enable us to proceed with our own. We are not going to put up with his larrikin tactics in the Parliament all the time.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-Order! Once again I suggest, if the honourable gentleman will agree, that we should hear first what the Leader of the House is going to say. Certain suggestions have been put forward by the honourable member for Kingsford-Smith. I am not aware at this moment of what the Leader of the House is going to say.

Mr Young:

– Can we have a look at it first?

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-No. Perhaps the Leader of the House should be allowed to make certain comments. If the honourable member for Port Adelaide then wants to take action it would be within his province to do so.

Mr Hurford:

– He has dissipated the goodwill since the last time he spoke.

Mr Sinclair:

– You must be joking. Do you have any idea what you are talking about?

Mr Hurford:

– I do.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-Order! At this moment I do not think that anybody is quite sure that he knows what he is talking about, including the occupant of the chair. I know what I would like to talk about, but it would not be parliamentary for me to do so. I suggest that I call the

Leader of the House and that the House then proceed accordingly.

Mr SINCLAIR:

-I repeat that I have moved:

That orders of the day Nos 2, 3 and 4, Government Business, be postponed until a later hour this day.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 1136

APPROPRIATION BILL (No. 1) 1976-77

Second Reading (Budget Debate)

Debate resumed from 14 September, on motion by Mr Lynch:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Upon which Mr E. G. Whitlam had moved by way of amendment:

That all the words after ‘That’ be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: ‘the House condemns the Budget because-

it pursues a policy of unemployment as a weapon to reduce real wages and salaries:

it abdicates federal government responsibilities and forces the State governments and local governments either to reduce their services or institute additional charges, or both;

it introduces an additional tax in the form of the Medibank levy, thus further reducing consumer spending;

it reduces the availability of services to the whole community but particularly to those most vulnerable to hardship notably Aborigines, the unemployed and migrants, and

it fails to institute selective stimulatory expenditure to reduce unemployment and restore consumer confidence’.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-Does the honourable member for Shortland wish to raise a point of order?

Mr Morris:

– No, I want to move a motion for the suspension of the Standing Orders.

Suspension of Standing Orders

Mr MORRIS:
Shortland

– I move:

That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the honourable member for Shortland moving a motion condemning the Government for its action in preventing the Parliament from debating the ramifications of the decision by the Government to weaken the powers of the Prices Justification Tribunal thus greatly reducing its effectiveness in restraining prices at a time of high inflation and Government sponsored record unemployment and the Government’s action in urging the people to earn less and spend more.

Throughout the day-

Mr Sinclair:

– I move:

That the honourable member for Shortland be not further heard.

He has finished moving his motion.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

– I call the honourable member for Shortland.

Mr Sinclair:

– I raise a point of order, Mr Acting Speaker. I have just moved that the honourable gentleman, having completed the moving of a motion, be not further heard.

Mr Morris:

– I rise to a point of order, Mr Acting Speaker. I have just commenced the motion; I have not concluded the motion.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-There is no substance to the point of order in that the motion moved by the Leader of the House must be accepted. The question now before the Chair is: That the honourable member for Shortland be not further heard’.

Mr Lionel Bowen:

– I raise a point of order. The honourable member for Shortland was indicating to you, Mr Acting Speaker, that he had not finished stating the terms of his motion. I would repectfully say that until such time as he has finished stating the formal terms of his motion he cannot have the guillotine or gag moved against him. I do not know what part of the motion he has yet to state, but he has said to you that he has not finished stating the formal terms of it. Until such time as he has -

Mr Sinclair:

– I accept that. He said that he had finished.

Mr Lionel Bowen:

– He has said that he has not finished it. It is on that point that I have raised a point of order.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

– I am sorry. I did not hear the honourable member say that he had not finished stating the terms of his motion.

Mr MORRIS:

– I had almost completed the formal motion. To clarify the situation and for the benefit of the Chair I will read it again.

I move:

That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the honourable member for Shortland moving a motion condemning the Government for its action in preventing the Parliament from debating the ramifications of the decision by the Government to weaken the powers of the Prices Justification Tribunal thus greatly reducing its effectiveness in restraining prices at a time of high inflation and Government sponsored record unemployment and the Government’s action in urging the people to earn less and spend more.

The reasons the Opposition is moving this motion -

Motion (by Mr Sinclair) put:

That the honourable member for Shortland be not further heard.

Question put. The House divided. ( Mr Acting Speaker- Mr P. E. Lucock )

AYES: 68

NOES: 23

Majority……. 45

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Mr ARMITAGE:
Chifley

-Yes, Mr Acting Speaker. I second the motion because this is one of the most important issues to come before this House for many years.

Motion (by Mr Sinclair) put:

That the honourable member for Chifley be not further beard.

Question put. The House divided. (Mr Acting Speaker- Mr P. E. Lucock)

AYES: 69

NOES: 23

Majority……. 46

AYES

NOES

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Mr YOUNG:
Port Adelaide

-Mr Acting Speaker, in speaking to the motion for the suspension of Standing Orders -

Motion (by Mr Sinclair) put:

That the question be now put. Question put. The House divided. (Mr Acting Speaker- Mr P. E. Lucock)

AYES: 68

NOES: 23

Majority……. 45

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Question put. The House divided. (Mr Acting Speaker- Mr P. E. Lucock)

AYES: 22

NOES: 68

Majority……. 46

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Mr SULLIVAN:
Riverina

– I have already described the Budget as responsible and from reports I have received in my electorate there is very wide support not only for the Budget but for the way in which the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) and his Ministers are getting on with the job of putting this country back on its feet. I would like to turn my attention to the problem of unemployment.

Mr Young:

– I rise to a point of order. This is Rafferty’s rules. Firstly, you called the honourable member for Riverina (Mr Sullivan) while most of the Opposition members were still sitting on the Government benches. They were not even allowed to resume their seats before you called him. Secondly when you called him I moved immediately that he be no longer heard. The other thing is that I do not know how you saw him.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

– I called the honourable member for Riverina because he rose in his place immediately after I had announced the numbers in the division.

Mr Young:

– So did I, but only to come back here.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-No, the honourable member for Riverina rose in his place immediately I had called the numbers in the division. Before I called the honourable member for Riverina I asked all honourable members to resume their seats as quickly as possible. The honourable member for Riverina was still on his feet. The business before the House had been called by the Clerk. The honourable member for Riverina had stood previously and the moment he stood after I had asked honourable members to return to their seats immediately, I gave the honourable member for Riverina the call. That is the sequence of events and that is as the situation was.

Mr Lionel Bowen:

– I raise a further point of order, Mr Acting Speaker. I want to make it very clear that we think your integrity is beyond any doubt. I would like the House to hear what I have to say. It was clearly indicated to you that the honourable member for Maribyrnong (Dr Cass) had a motion he wished to move. You knew it because we told you about it.

Mr Sinclair:

– Are you threatening the Acting Speaker?

Mr Lionel Bowen:

– I am not threatening the Acting Speaker. I want to say what happened. If you want this House to perform properly, let us be fair. There will be no business done today if we cannot get some co-operation.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-Order! I suggest that interjections cease. At the moment the honourable member for Kingsford-Smith is making a comment in relation to the Chair. I will answer when the honourable member has finished, but I suggest that during the time that he is making his comments there be no interjections.

Mr Lionel Bowen:

– I asked the honourable member for Maribyrnong to indicate to you that he wished to move a motion. Before we had a chance to do that, before we had a chance to come back to this side of the House, you had called the honourable member for Riverina. It is not good enough for us to be put in that position. We wanted to indicate to the House that we wanted to discuss further whether the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs (Mr Howard) and the member for Port Adelaide (Mr Young) could now discuss for 10 minutes each the statement we have been arguing about. It was a motion we wished to move. The honourable member for Maribyrnong indicated that to you. We regret very much that you were unable to call him. I make it very clear that we are very suspicious of the circumstances in which the call has been given to the Government side.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-The honourable member for Maribyrnong indicated to me prior to the last vote being taken that he desired to move a motion for the suspension of Standing Orders. I informed the honourable member for Maribyrnong that before he could move that motion there was one more vote to be taken and that was on the previous motion for the suspension of Standing Orders. The honourable member for Maribyrnong indicated to me what his motion for the suspension of Standing Orders was. If I may be permitted to say so, I felt that it did not have any relationship to a decision that I would have to make from the chair. I have on 3 occasions called members of the Opposition who have moved for the suspension of Standing Orders, and that is customary and is part and parcel of the proceedings of the House. The Appropriation Bill had already been called on. As I said, the honourable member for Riverina had stood and I make no apology for calling the honourable member for Riverina.

The subject matter mentioned to me by the honourable member for Maribyrnong had, I felt, been discussed by this House on 4 different occasions. It is not the prerogative of the Chair to interfere in any way with the business of any member. I want to say as strongly as I can that in the whole of the time that I have been associated with the Chair I do not think anyone can accuse me of deliberately favouring the Government as against the Opposition. On this occasion, I felt that the House had made a decision relating to the subject matter mentioned by the honourable member for Maribyrnong. The honourable member for Riverina rose in his place at the same time as the honourable member for Maribyrnong did. That was the reason I deliberately paused before I called the honourable member for Riverina. When 2 members rise at the same time, the Chair has a discretion as to which member to call. In all those circumstancesand I appreciate that the Chair should never intrude too much in the business of the Parliament- I did hope that if we got on to some other subject matter some degree of common sense might come into the House on both sides. That and that only was the reason, knowing all the facts, why I called the honourable member for Riverina, instead of the honourable member for Maribyrnong.

Dr Klugman:

– I rise on a point of order. Could I draw attention to the fact that the honourable member for Riverina spoke on the Appropriation Bill on the evening of 14 September. He commenced reading his speech at 10.23 p.m. and his speech was interrupted at 10.30 p.m. Therefore 7 minutes of his time had been used. Yet according to the clock he has been given another 20 minutes today.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

– The time shown as remaining to the honourable member for Riverina will be adjusted.

Dr Cass:

– I rise on a point of order on your comments about my approach to you and your estimate of it. I do so because I share your concern about what has happened. I think it is appropriate to attempt to heal the breach and achieve a constructive conclusion to what has been a rather destructive disorderly situation which has arisen as a result of weaknesses, if you wish, on both sides. I was attempting to suggest that both the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs and the honourable member for Port Adelaide each be given the opportunity to address the House for 10 minutes on the statement tabled by the Minister. With all due respect to you, Mr Acting Speaker, in view of what has happened I would have felt that it would have been a more constructive and wholesome conclusion to a rather regrettable episode.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

– In regard to the point of order, there is an element of value in what the honourable member has said. Might I say that I hope the same result might be achieved with a period of pause. When the honourable member put his suggestion to me I was not quite sure whether the spirit of the House was such that it would have been accepted. That is only a personal opinion but at this given moment that is what I feel.

Mr Young:

– That is our offer. It is a fair test.

Mr Sinclair:

– Let us put it to the test then.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-Order! I respectfully suggest that the honourable member for Riverina might be permitted to continue his speech.

Mr Young:

– We will let him finish-and then you will call me?

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-Then we can proceed. I would also suggest that the period of time in which the honourable member for Riverina may speak should be the same as that remaining to him when the House adjourned on 14 September.

Mr Bryant:

– But Mr Acting Speaker, he spoke all day and you want to give him extra time.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:
Mr Lionel Bowen:

– He can have the extra time.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

– I call the honourable member for Riverina.

Mr SULLIVAN:

-To return to the question of unemployment, how members of the Opposition have the gall to stand in this chamber and make puerile speeches about unemployment amuses me in a very sick sort of way. If anyone looks through the Hansard for the 3 years that the Opposition was in office, when this tragic economic situation, which was largely engineered by those who now sit opposite, caused unemployment to reach record levels, he will find hardly one word from these hypocrites, from these running-dogs of socialism and communism. Now, like vultures and jackals they see an opportunity to postulate, to carp and to squeal from the very shoulders of the people -

Mr Charles Jones:

– I raise a point of order. I draw attention to the point of order taken by the honourable member for Prospect, namely that the honourable member for Riverina commenced speaking on this Bill at 10.23 on 14 September and the House adjourned at 10.30. According to the clock approximately 8 minutes have elapsed from the time he commenced his speech today. The honourable member has therefore had 15 minutes. But according to the clock he still has 1 1 minutes to go. In the past whenever points of order were taken during a member’s speech they ate into his time, and when Mr Speaker rose to give a ruling it also ate into his time.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:
Mr Charles Jones:

- Mr Acting Speaker, I have not finished my point of order, begging your pardon. I think it is time we had some consistency in rulings and in decisions in this place.

Mr Sinclair:

– Approval had been given from your front bench.

Mr Charles Jones:

– Shut up. You are nothing but a larrikin and you have never been any different in this place.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member will resume his seat. In relation to the point of order raised by the honourable member, it has been accepted that the honourable member for Riverina will be permitted to speak for the time remaining to him when he concluded his speech the other day.

Mr Bryant:

– A point of order.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-The honourable member will resume his seat.

Mr Bryant:

– Can I not raise a point on that?

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

– I call the honourable member for Riverina.

Mr SULLIVAN:

– As I said, Opposition supporters are now carping from the shoulders of the very people they so callously put out of work. This is disgusting hypocrisy. I will now go back and have a look at the track record of some of these people who are now screaming about unemployment. Let us look at the honourable member for Port Adelaide (Mr Young)- the great saviour of the working people. He made one irrelevant speech on 11 February 1975. He asked a question in April 1975 and he has been silent ever since. The honourable member for Shortland (Mr Morris) asked one question on 6 March 1973 yet he stands in this House and says he is terribly interested in unemployment. What a tremendous record. The honourable member for Hughes (Mr Les Johnson) has not said anything in this House about unemployment.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

- Mr Acting Speaker, -

Mr SULLIVAN:

– He is now rising to a point of order. He knows very well this will be the first time he has ever stood up when the word ‘unemployment’ has been mentioned. (Quorum formed.) So this charade of the parliamentary process continues- a charade that was deliberately engineered yesterday by the Labor Party and put into practice today; a charade that has cost the Australian taxpayers probably no less than $30,000 so that honourable members opposite can stand up in this House on absolutely spurious points of order to stop the Parliament from working. You people opposite should be ashamed of yourselves for having wasted the taxpayers’ money for 3 years while you were in office and you are trying to do it while you are in opposition. You should be rightfully ashamed of yourselves.

Dr Klugman:

– You were wasting it for 20 years when you were in the Army.

Mr SULLIVAN:

– You should have gone into the Army. Something may have happened to you.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Prospect will sit in his correct seat.

Mr SULLIVAN:

– It is amazing how the questions of unemployment and money seem to do something to the Opposition.

Mr Keating:

– I raise a point of order.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-There is no point of order. The honourable member for Prospect interjected while he was out of his seat. He must return to his correct seat.

Mr SULLIVAN:

– I hope their consciences are working.

Mr Keating:

– A point of order.

Mr SULLIVAN:

– The honourable member for Blaxland is now standing at the table in this House -

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:
Mr Keating:

– I take a point of order. If you require the honourable member for Prospect to resume his seat you should require all other members to resume their seats.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member will resume his seat. The honourable member for Prospect was interjecting while he was out of his seat. The honourable member for Blaxland has been a member of this House long enough to know the rules. If he does not, he should have a look at the Standing Orders.

Mr SULLIVAN:

– Let me add that the same honourable member for Blaxland (Mr Keating) has not risen in this House once and made a speech or asked a question about unemployment, but he sees fit today to stand up and try to stop the parliamentary processes. The honourable member for Chifley (Mr Armitage), perhaps the loudest mouthed man in this House, has not made one speech or asked one question on unemployment. You all should be rightfully ashamed. All sensible and thinking people know that the only successful way to reduce unemployment is to reduce inflation and to get the economy moving again. However, for what can be described only as cheap, selfish, gutless political reasons, the Opposition does its best to destroy any signs of returning confidence. It does its best to put down the economy. Despite the actions of members of the Opposition and their communist and left wing friends, the recovery is working. When the recovery is complete, the people of Australia will remember those who did their best to wreck it.

Mr Morris:

– Mao was your mate.

Mr SULLIVAN:

– And the name of the honourable member for Shortland (Mr Morris) will be right at the top of the list.

Mr Morris:

- Mr Acting Speaker, I rise to order. I regard the remark made by the honourable member for Riverina as grossly offensive and intimidatory. I demand that it be withdrawn.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

– I did not hear the remark, but the honourable member for Shortland has asked that it be withdrawn. I suggest to the honourable member for Riverina that he withdraw the remark.

Mr SULLIVAN:

– I am not quite certain of the remark, but would the honourable member for Shortland accept a compromise? He is a rabbit.

Mr Morris:

- Mr Acting Speaker, I rise to order. I have sought already your aid in requesting the honourable member for Riverina to withdraw remarks he made about me which I found to be grossly offensive and intimidatory. He does not recall the remarks. I recall them and I asked that he be directed to withdraw them. In further flouting -

Honourable members interjecting-

Mr Morris:

- Mr Acting Speaker, may I have the attention of members of the House and protection from members of the National Country Party?

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-Order! If the remarks of the honourable member for Riverina reflected upon any individual member, I ask him to withdraw them.

Mr SULLIVAN:

– My words were that the name of the honourable member for Shortland would be at the top of the list; nothing else. I then -

Mr Young:

- Mr Acting Speaker-

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

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

Mr Young:

– Is he going to withdraw or not?

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Port Adelaide will resume his seat. The remarks that the honourable member for Riverina made need not be offensive except in the context in which they were made. I said that I did not hear the context in which they were made. But those remarks, in a certain context, could be offensive to the honourable member for Shortland. I ask the honourable member for Riverina to withdraw them.

Mr SULLIVAN:

-I withdraw, Mr Acting Speaker.

Mr Morris:

- Mr Acting Speaker, I further requested you to direct your attention to the subsequent remark of the honourable member for Riverina when he flouted your further -

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Riverina withdrew the remark.

Mr Morris:

– What about the second one? There was a further remark.

Mr SULLIVAN:

- Mr Acting Speaker, I withdraw the remark that the honourable member for Shortland is a rabbit. I would now like to raise an important matter -

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

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

Mr Klugman:

– Why do you not go back to the backwoods?

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Riverina has withdrawn the remark that he made about the honourable member for Shortland. I call the honourable member for Riverina.

Mr SULLIVAN:

– I would now like to turn to an important matter affecting not only my electorate but also many other important parts of Australia. I refer to drought. This natural disaster -

Dr Klugman:

– Ha!

Mr SULLIVAN:

-It is wonderful to hear the laughter from the honourable member for Prospect (Dr Klugman) and the honourable member for Chifley (Mr Armitage) when the word ‘ drought ‘ is mentioned.

Mr Armitage:

- Mr Acting Speaker, I rise to take a point of order. The honourable member for Riverina just accused me of laughing about a drought issue. I had not even opened my mouth.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:
Mr Armitage:

– I ask for a withdrawal.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-The honourable member for Chifley will resume his seat. The honourable member has been a member of the House long enough to know that there is no substance in the point of order he has taken.

Mr Armitage:

– It has been said -

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Chifley will resume his seat. I call the honourable member for Riverina.

Mr SULLIVAN:

– Drought is undoubtedly the worst of all disasters for country people and farmers.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member’s time has expired. I remind honourable members that there are people visiting the Parliament today and that the proceedings are broadcast. As I have said previously, I suggest that honourable members remember this and remember that they are members of the Commonwealth Parliament. The behaviour today has not been fitting behaviour for the Parliament of this Commonwealth.

Suspension of Standing Orders

Dr CASS:
Maribyrnong

-I move:

That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the Minister for Business and Consumer

Affairs from speaking to his statement on the Prices Justification Tribunal and the honourable member for Port Adelaide from replying, each speaking for a period not exceeding 10 minutes.

Mr Acting Speaker, I make this suggestion because, as we witnessed during the last speech by the honourable member for Riverina (Mr Sullivan), rancour is still high. Feelings are distinctly ruffled over what I might suggest is an area of misunderstanding. I do not accept that there was necessarily any intention to deceive on either side. From what I heard of what occurred earlier on when there was an attempt made -

Mr Sinclair:

- Mr Acting Speaker, I rise to order. There have already been 3 motions this afternoon which have cast general suggestions regarding this same proposition. For this reason, I would suggest that under standing order 169 the motion for the suspension of Standing Orders for an almost identical purpose sought in the other motions is out of order.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-There is an element of justification in what the Leader of the House has said. I had spoken to the honourable member for Maribyrnong and said that the motion had a parallel in what had already been moved and rejected by the House. I point out also that the honourable member for Maribyrnong is discussing the subject matter which the motion seeks to have discussed rather than the motion for the suspension of Standing Orders. I suggest that in this instance, in view of the circumstances, perhaps the honourable member should move the motion and have it seconded without a great deal of discussion or debate.

Dr CASS:

– I am attempting not to discuss the argument we have had all afternoon; I am trying to point out that it arose perhaps because we misunderstood the intentions of the Leader of the House (Mr Sinclair). I am granting -

Mr Sinclair:

- Mr Acting Speaker, I rise to take another point of order. I know that you are seeking to resolve the problems of the House. But I point out to you that we have had 3 motions all of which, in fact, have been voted against and all of which in substance were the same as the motion that the honourable member for Maribyrnong is now submitting to the House. In accordance with standing order 169, I suggest that it is not competent within the rules and procedures of this place for a motion to repeat the substance of an earlier motion. I therefore suggest that this motion is not in order.

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

- Mr Acting Speaker, I rise to speak to the point of order. There is an essential difference between the motion which the honourable member for Maribyrnong (Dr Cass) is seeking to move and any of the previous motions moved today. The previous motions all sought that the honourable member for Port Adelaide (Mr Young) should speak. This one seeks not only that he should speak but also that the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs (Mr Howard) should speak. Therefore, it is obviously different from the previous ones. Instead of stating that one honourable member or a member of one Party only should speak, this motion put that 2 members should speak- that a member should speak from each side. It specifies the subject and the length of time. The subject is the same and the time is the same. But it is essentially different from any previous motion that has been moved. It is an emollient- a soothing lotion. It should at least let us get on with the business of the House which was interrupted at 11.30 a.m. The time of the House has been wasted ever since.

Mr Sinclair:

– Yes, thanks to you.

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

- Mr Acting Speaker, I can answer that interjection if you permit interjections. The whole evil came about in this way: The Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs (Mr Howard) sought leave- he needed leave- to make a statement. The legitimate point was made that leave would not be given to the detriment of the grievance day debate; leave would be given any other time in the day- afternoon or night. The Minister required leave. The Opposition said it would give leave at any time other than to the detriment of grievance day. Then, Sir–

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-Order! May I just say to the Leader of the Opposition that in regard to his answer to the point of order raised by the Leader of the House, the motion moved by the honourable member for Maribyrnong (Dr Cass) was discussed with me. I felt it had justification for reasons that I have intimated from this chair on more than one occasion today. Secondly, there is a difference in the sense not necessarily of a different person being named but in the sense that there is a limitation of time for the total debate on this subject. Previous motions have been in terms of a general debate. It is therefore within the province of the Government and the Parliament to make a decision on the merits or otherwise of the motion for the suspension of Standing Orders in that regard. The honourable member for Maribyrnong discussed this matter with me prior to moving his motion. I suggested that the time in presenting it be limited. It was for those reasons that I accepted the motion for the suspension of Standing Orders moved by the honourable member for Maribyrnong. I call the honourable member for Maribyrnong.

Dr CASS:

- Mr Acting Speaker, I accept your proposition and shall conclude my remarks. At one stage today you yourself suggested when there was a rather unfortunate interjection and some cross-fire that we forget it and revert to an original situation. That was accepted as a way of overcoming an impossible situation. This motion seeks to return us to where we were before the whole misunderstanding arose. I moved the motion in good faith for that reason. It gives the Minister a chance to put his views; it gives the Opposition a chance to state its view. This would normally have been the accepted procedure. Grievance day has gone anyway.

Mr Sinclair:

– Thanks to you.

Dr CASS:

– I shall ignore the ungracious interjection by the Leader of the House because I am seeking to overcome something which I concede is painful to him as well as painful to me.

Mr Sinclair:

– It is not at all painful for me.

Dr CASS:

– If it is not painful to him, it is a reflection on his lack of sensitivity.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-Is the motion seconded?

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

- Mr Acting Speaker, I second the motion. The motion which you have allowed to be put will in fact allow the House to get back on to an even keel. You have tried manfully to achieve that for the last 5 or 6 hours. The Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs sought leave to make a ministerial statement. The Opposition would like him to make that ministerial statement. The Government would concede the right of the spokesman on business and consumer affairs on the Opposition side to make a statement on the same subject after the Minister. The whole mischief has come about because the Minister sought leave to make the statement during grievance day. Leave was refused at that time. It was stated at the rime- I myself statedthat leave would be given to the Minister to make the statement this afternoon or, if he so wished, tonight. We wanted him to make the statement. We were not satisfied with reading it in this morning’s papers. We also wanted to reply. The reply has been prepared. The mischief was aggravated when the Minister tabled the statement and the grievance debate was brought on. The shadow Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs sought to speak- he was entitled to speak- and he was gagged. I do not remember an occasion when, during grievance day, an honourable member has been gagged.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-May I suggest to the Leader of the Opposition that in speaking to the point of order previously and up to this stage perhaps sufficient explanation has been given?

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

-Sir, I believe it would be in the interests of this House- the institutionand it would be a decent acknowledgement of your own efforts over the last few hours if this motion were put, if it were carried without a vote and the Minister and the shadow Minister were then to make the statements they have been itching to make for the whole of the week.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-The question is that the motion be agreed to.

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

– Today has been quite incredible. We have now been told in sweet reason according to the honourable member for Maribyrnong that he is putting forward a compromise. He fails to accept that equally with sweet reason and equally with an object of compromise we have deferred the passage of critically urgent legislation, legislation that must be introduced so that it will be available for the benefit of the people of Australia by 1 October. Every member of this House is aware that the Senate normally rises of a Thursday evening. It had been our hope that we would be able to pass the legislation in relation to health insurance and the Family Law Amendment Bill so that it could have been referred to another place so that that chamber would have had notice of the legislation and in order that it could be adequately considered for debate next week. Because of the tactics of the Opposition today, that has been precluded.

The second point is that I accept that members of the Opposition feel very strongly on this issue. I felt that, well, the debate on Appropriation Bill (No. 1 ) was available. There would be an opportunity in that debate to talk about any subject whatsoever. The statement on the Prices Justification Tribunal is one which I believe could have been effectively dealt with in a very brief period of time this morning in a normal and proper fashion. The Opposition chose otherwise. There will be an opportunity when the legislation is introduced into this House. Every member of the Opposition was patty to a system which denied Government supporters when in Opposition any chance at all to debate matters of substance as far as the policy proposals of the then government were concerned. The only occasions on which we were allowed to debate were on those limited occasions, subject to guillotine -

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

-Mr Acting Speaker -

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:
Mr SINCLAIR:

-Is the Leader of the Opposition taking a point of order?

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

-Yes, I am- When you sit down I shall express a point of order.

Mr SINCLAIR:

– Have you taken a point of order?

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

-Yes, I so state.

Mr SINCLAIR:

-Well, thank you. I am delighted to hear it. I was waiting for you to state so.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-I call the Leader of the Opposition.

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

-Mr Acting Speaker, I take a point of order. I reduced the length of my remarks and lowered the tenor of them in deference tq your efforts, the Leader pf the House is speaking at great length, and with great provocation He is np’t helping the situation- He has referred to the! conduct of my Government. The fact is that no grievance day was ever ousted or reduced- No general business day was ever ousted. Every general business motion was brought to a vote, if provocative statements like this are made they will be answered.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

– Order! One. of the joys of this situation today has been that this has been one of the things that has been happening during the whole of the day. ! allowed the Leader of the House perhaps to stray a little bit from the line because we had had 2 speakers from the Opposition in relation to this subject and both did not speak strictly to the subject. Might I suggest to the Leader of the House that he remain within the confines of the motion for the suspension pf Standing Orders to allow the subject to be debated. I call the Leader of the House.

Mr SINCLAIR:

-Mr Acting Speaker, I would be very pleased to do so. I think that the interruption? that are now being made demonstrate how little regard there really is -

Mr Charles Jones:

– My Acting Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Leader of the House made a statement to the effect that he wanted his legislation through this House so as to get it into the Senate today- 1 just draw the attention of the honourable member to the fact that the Senate has not been sitting since midday today and will not sit again today.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-Order! No point of order is involved.

Dr Klugman:

– It rose at a quarter to twelve.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-Order! I call the honourable member for Prospect to order.

Dr Klugman:

– The Senate rose at a quarter to twelve.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Prospect will come to order. I call the Leader of the House.

Mr SINCLAIR:

-The honourable member for Newcastle is very funny. He needs someone to sway his normal attitudes in this chamber. The point before us, however, is not the interruption by the honourable member for Newcastle; it is whether or not Standing Orders should be suspended to enable the restoration to the agenda of an item which was properly set down for the beginning of the day’s business. The Labor Party does not seem to realise that there are adequate procedures during the debate on the Appropriation Bill. If honourable members opposite wish to continue a debate on the Prices Justification Tribunal every one of them knows that there is adequate opportunity for them to talk if they so wish.

Mr Young:

– On a point of order, Mr Acting Speaker-

Mr SINCLAIR:

– In relation to the suspension of Standing Orders-

Mr Young:

- Mr Acting Speaker, on a point of order-

Mr SINCLAIR:

– I have spoken for 4 minutes. I have been -

Mr Young:

– I have tried to speak to a point of order 4 times, goat.

Mr Sinclair:

- Mr Acting Speaker, I take offence at that remark and I ask that he withdraw it.

Mr Young:

– I was praising you up.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:
Mr Sinclair:

- Mr Acting Speaker, I ask the honourable member to withdraw that remark. I regard it as grossly offensive.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-Order! I suggest to the honourable member for Port Adelaide that that remark did not help in any way and that it ought to be withdrawn.

Mr Young:

– I still rise on my point of order because the people listening to this debate may get the impression that we will have an opportunity to speak about the Prices Justification Tribunal during the debate on the Appropriation Bills.

That is not correct. The only honourable members who can speak in that debate are those who have not spoken in it during the last month. As a shadow Minister I have already spoken in that debate. I cannot take the opportunity to speak in that debate again, although the Leader of the House is trying to mislead the House by saying that I can do so.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Port Adelaide has made his point.

Mr SINCLAIR:

-I believe that these frivolous points of order are not exactly helping the tenor of the debate. There have been a series of points of order taken, none of which has much relevance in seeking to prevent the debate on the motion for the suspension of Standing Orders.

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

-Mr Acting Speaker, I take the point of order that any member of the House, even the Leader of the House, has to speak with relevance to the subject matter of the debate. The Leader of the House has said, by way of explaining his gagging of the shadow Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs in the grievance debate this morning, that the shadow Minister could have spoken on the subject of the Prices Justification Tribunal during the Budget debate.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-Order! The point of order that the Leader of the Opposition has taken was taken by the honourable member for Port Adelaide. I said to the honourable member for Port Adelaide that it was not a point of order. It is more a debating point than a point of order. The Leader of the House, if my memory serves me correctly, said that members could speak in the Budget debate. He did not refer to any particular member. I say in relation to the point of order that one cannot tell whether a point of order is effective or not until it is taken.

Mr SINCLAIR:

- Mr Acting Speaker, there is an opportunity -

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

-On a point of order -

Mr Sinclair:

– You forget you are no longer in government, my boy -

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

-The Leader of the House will not be in government much longer, the way he is going.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-Order! The Leader of the Opposition has a point of order to make?

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

-Yes. The corollary I wanted to put is this: In the debate on the Appropriation Bills the Minister could make a statement without leave also on the same subject. The argument cuts both ways. Therefore, the argument that the Leader of the House is putting is no argument of relevance to the motion.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

– I think the Leader of the Opposition has said it was an argument and not a point of order.

Mr SINCLAIR:

– Once again the Opposition has demonstrated that it just does not really accept the fact that it is in Opposition. The whole of the intrusion that honourable members opposite have made has been designed to disrupt the business of this House. They, and they alone, stopped the grievance debate this morning. We are quite prepared to allow the grievance debate to continue. In fact, we moved a motion last week to enable the grievance debate to continue in the normal way. The reason why we sought leave to make the statement this morning was that we believe the proper place for ministerial statements to be made is in this chamber. It is for that reason that the statement was set down for delivery this morning in the normal course of events.

The procedures of this House provide several opportunities for debate on the Prices Justification Tribunal. Those honourable members who have not spoken in the debate on the Appropriation Bills can do so and refer to the Prices Justification Tribunal. Those honourable members who have spoken in the debate on the Appropriation Bills can refer to the Prices Justification Tribunal during the Estimates debate. An opportunity to discuss the Prices Justification Tribunal is available in debates on matters of public importance. Honourable members opposite can raise such a matter next week if they desire. There will be an opportunity to discuss the Prices Justification Tribunal when the Prices Justification Tribunal legislation is introduced into this chamber.

There is no reason for us to go back to the beginning of the day. There is an opportunity to discuss the Prices Justification Tribunal in the debate on the Appropriation Bills, which we have called on for debate. Honourable members opposite tried to interrupt that debate when the honourable member for Riverina (Mr Sullivan) was speaking. Through the debate on the Appropriation Bills we are trying to arrange for the proper conduct of the affairs of this House. I suggest it is for that reason that this motion should be rejected.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-Order! The Minister’s time has expired.

Mr BOURCHIER:
Bendigo

-In supporting the remarks of my colleague the Leader of the House (Mr Sinclair), I should like, firstly, to say I think the honourable member for Maribyrnong (Dr Cass) introduced this motion for the suspension of Standing Orders to try to calm down the situation somewhat- something that perhaps we all want to see happen. But I point out to him that there was an opportunity for both the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs (Mr Howard) and the honourable member for Port Adelaide (Mr Young), who is a shadow Minister, to air their views in relation to the Prices Justification Tribunal- one presenting a statement on it and the other replying to the statement. This had been arranged. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr E. G. Whitlam) stated that when he was Prime Minister and when we were in Opposition there was no interference with the time provided for grievance debates and general business debates. Although this is something that I would have to check out, I accept his word on it.

I remember many occasions when we were in Opposition and wanted to raise matters which we believed were important. We were gagged before we could say even two or three words. On occasions we listed matters of public importance and they were accepted by the then Speaker who was a member of the Australian Labor Party. We had a list of speakers from our side and the Labor Party had a list of speakers from its side. The moment an honourable member from our side stood up to speak on the matter of public importance government business was brought on. No consideration was given to the Opposition. Today we at least did provide, and I say reasonably fairly, an opportunity for both sides of the chamber to be heard on the subject matter of the statement. That is fair comment. Even the honourable member for Port Adelaide would agree with that. But honourable members opposite chose not to grant us leave to make the statement. Let us be reasonable: They made that choice. I accept what the former Prime Minister, the present Leader of the Opposition has said, that their reason for refusing leave to make the statement was that they did not want the making of that statement to occur during the time provided for the grievance debate. I accept that as fairly logical reasoning. But we happen to be the Government. (Quorum formed). I was trying to keep this debate on a calm basis before being interrupted by the honourable member for Shortland (Mr Morris) who obviously did not like what I was saying.

To return to the motion for the suspension of Standing Orders that is before us, I suggest, as the Leader of the House has put forward, that this matter of the Prices Justification Tribunal should be dealt with as a matter of public importance next week. We will allow the Opposition to raise it as a matter of public importance if it wishes. We will welcome it. Perhaps we will raise the question as a matter of public importance ourselves and provide speakers in the debate. If that does not suit honourable members opposite then, as the Leader of the House has suggested, they have other opportunities to debate this matter. But for goodness sake, we have a program to implement. I say to honourable members opposite: Do not get carried away with the idea that in Opposition they are going to be able to dictate to the Government. If they have any illusions about that I ask them to ring up Freddy Daly, the former Leader of the House, and ask him how the House should be run. Get his idea on it. Nothing that we could do would exemplify that better.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-Order! The time for the debate has expired.

Question put-

That the motion to suspend Standing Orders be agreed to.

The House divided. (Mr Acting Speaker- Mr P. E. Lucock)

AYES: 22

NOES: 60

Majority……. 38

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Dr CASS:
Maribyrnong

– I take advantage of the opportunity offered by the Leader of the House (Mr Sinclair) and commence my remarks by making some brief comments on the Prices Justification Tribunal. We have heard a lot and we have been lectured a lot by the Government on the need to be responsible, particularly if one belongs to the wage and salary earning section of the community, and the need to lower our demands and contain our desires for a better way of life, all in the cause of reducing in effect the share of the wealth of the community flowing to wage and salary earners so that more of the resources in terms of the gross national product can flow back to the private sector. There are various legal restrictions inhibiting increases in wages. There is a need for those workers who want to have their wages increased to go to the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission year in and year out and put their case. But we hear nothing of the other side of the coin. After all it is not just wages that are of concern to the whole community; it is also prices.

We now have the intriguing spectacle of the Government proceeding to modify the Prices Justification Tribunal- an instrument set up by the previous Labor Government to attempt to control increases in prices in much the same way as increases in wages have been controlled in this country for many years. The essence of the Government’s proposals is the drawing of the mere two or three teeth that the Prices Justification Tribunal has had. The effect of the Government’s proposals will be to leave it solely at the discretion of the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs (Mr Howard) whether there ought to be inquiries or requirements for certain types of companies to present some justification for increasing their prices. That is to be left purely to the discretion of the Minister. The turnover level beyond which companies are expected automatically to apply to the Prices Justification Tribunal for permission to increase prices has been increased to such an extent that very few companies will be now covered by the requirements of the Prices Justification Tribunal.

We are living in an atmosphere in which the trade union movement and the Australian Labor Party generally are forever being badgered and told that workers must be responsible and that their demands must be restrained in order to ensure that the country can get onto its feet economically again. At the same time the Government is removing the very modest restraints which may have persuaded the private sector to moderate its price increases. It is making a mockery of the very advice it is giving the trade union movement. It is quite clear that the whole thrust of the Government’s approach is simply to beat down the working section of the community. Imagine what sorts of effects this will have on the Australian Council of Trade Unions and the whole trade union movement when they next apply to the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission for wage justice. Why should they be restrained? Why should the trade union movement not threaten industrial action in view of these sorts of activities being undertaken by the present Government? The call for responsibility should apply to all sides. Quite frankly, I think we are all on the wrong track. I think the cry for this sort of restraint will not solve the problem, but I do not want to lecture on that at the moment. Accepting for the moment the Government’s assumptions about the causes of inflation and about where we need to have restraint, it seems totally unjust that the only restraint is being placed on the trade union section of the community and not on the private enterprise sec.,tion of the community. I am quite sure it is not difficult to find cases- there have often been reports of such cases- of blatantly unreasonable increases in prices that have had no relationship to cost increases but simply to the fact that they were as high as the market would bear.

So much for the Prices Justification Tribunal. In keeping with the whole Government approach- restraint in all areas- this Budget has shown that, whereas the Labor Government may have made some mistakes in attempting to stimulate development in areas which have been stultified for 20 years, the only positive actionthis is a rather Irish approach, I guess- the present Government has taken has been to stifle every initiative the Labor Government put forward, every initiative the Australian community voted for, and every initiative we talked about in the period from about 1968 onwards until we were elected which clearly excited the Australian community and prompted people to vote for a Labor Government.

In all these areas of restriction and strangulation of programs which were applauded when they were introduced, the area of health service expenditure is an area where the effect is perhaps the greatest. The Liberal Government’s austerity measures have been amongst the most brutal and shortsighted and eventually will be recognised as having been quite counter-productive. Let me start with a comment on Medibank. With the help- in ignorance, I might point out- of the Liberal and Country parties while in Opposition the Labor Government was able to introduce a truly comprehensive national health insurance program, Medibank, financed in the socially most equitable fashion possible, via general taxation revenue. That was not our original proposal. When we originally put the proposal for a national health insurance system, we proposed a levy. We recognised that the money had to come from somewhere.

Before our proposal, the money was coming from the taxpayer via his contributions to voluntary health funds, via his contributions to taxation revenue and via the payments he made out of his pocket directly to doctors. We knew that. We knew what the position would be if we took the radical step of introducing a comprehensive national health insurance system. I put the word ‘radical’ in inverted commas, because it was not a radical step. Any sensible Liberal Government would have seen the point of it and taken the step itself. When we took the step of introducing a comprehensive national health insurance system, quite clearly the money which had previously been channelled to the health services, the doctors and hospitals, by the other means I have just mentioned, had to go through a central agency- the national health insurance office. Funds for that office could have been raised in 2 ways. The money could have come via the taxation system or a levy could have been imposed. Put another way, instead of people contributing to voluntary funds they could contribute to the national health insurance fund. That is still a levy.

The Labor Government, not wanting to be too revolutionary, proposed a levy. It was in keeping with what the community was used to. Payments to benefit funds were in essence a levy. There was nothing voluntary about them, because if a person did not contribute to a so-called voluntary fund, when he was sick and paid the bill he could not get his Commonwealth medical or hospital benefit. Just understand that. There was nothing voluntary about the previous system. People were forced to contribute to the voluntary funds in order to be able to claim Commonwealth hospital or medical benefits. So it was perfectly logical to suggest a levy to take the place of contributions to the benefit funds. Taxation revenue was still to continue to provide the same subsidy as it provided under the Liberal and Country parties when they were last in governmentno difference. But I concede that the levy was not as socially equitable as taking the whole lot out of taxation revenue. The former Opposition, in its blind ignorance, opposed the levy. We quite happily accepted defeat of our levy Bill, because we were then able to finance Medibank, the national health insurance system, completely via taxation revenue, which was a much more socially equitable system.

Mr Martyr:

– And rob everybody.

Dr CASS:

– That is an idiot comment, because everybody has to pay for his health services. If a person is sick he has to pay out of his pocket somehow. All our system did was make sure that there was more social equity in the way people had to pay. Foolishly, the former Opposition in its blind opposition to anything any opponent of the Labor Party cares to call socialist rushed in like a bull in a china shop. Ostensibly its purpose was to nip a socialist experiment in the bud andsuch was the then Opposition’s blind beliefsave the Government and hence the taxpayer money. Honourable members opposite should take off their ideological blinkers and see what they have done. In terms of cost to the community, money paid out by the community, whether via the taxation system, via the Medibank levy, via contributions to benefit funds or in the form of direct payments to doctors and hospitals, the real total cost- not just the payments via the taxation system, which is what honourable members opposite crow about- will go up dramatically because of the stupid meddling of honourable members opposite.

I ask them to think for a few minutes, if they can sustain the effort for that long without becoming over-emotional and irrational. The cost of our health services are the costs of the medical services. These costs include the fees paid to the doctors. Whether they are paid by Medibank or private fund or paid directly from the patient’s pocket is irrelevant. They include also the bills paid to the hospitals, again irrespective of how they are paid, and finally the administrative costs of getting the money transferred from the community to the doctors and the hospitals. Honourable members opposite crow a lot about the cost of Medibank and the disastrous increases in the cost of Medibank. They are talking balderdash. Under Medibank the money which eventually must be paid to the doctors and the hospitals was to be collected via the taxation system. In order to collect that money the Taxation Office did not have to increase its expenditure one cent. All it had to do was increase the scale of taxation people had to pay. The present Government has done this, but it is so dishonest that it is not prepared to admit that it has done it. Its levy is nothing but a tax.

Collecting the money via the taxation system saves everybody a lot of bother. They do not have to fill in forms and apply to particular funds. They do not have to make sure that they pay their contributions weekly, monthly, yearly or however they decide. Under such a system they tend to forget and find that they are in arrears. It is all done automatically in the same way as, hopefully, people pay their superannuation contributions. The money is automatically taken out of people’s pay packets. That is all the Medibank collection system was about. The money having been so collected, it could be distributed by one central agency with a large efficient computer facility, which would have made it far more efficient from everybody’s point of view. Of course, Medibank was so efficient that its administrative costs were less than 4 per cent of total costs. I admit that for every dollar paid by the taxpayer 4 cents was wasted by Medibank. That is still the situation, and we have not yet reached 1 October. But what is the situation under the voluntary health fund system? People have to make their own individual private arrangements. If they are lucky and belong to a firm that is prepared to put in a closed system then their contributions are automatically taken out of their pay packets by the company. It is a tax. Does it matter whether the tax is for a private fund or for the Government? It is still a tax. But most people are not in that happy position. Most people have to make a conscious effort to go to a chemist shop or to make up their mind which fund they will join and then write into the appropriate fund in order to make their contribution. It is not just the money, it is the time and effort as well which is never counted.

There is also the question of the size and variety of the funds. Until recently there were more than 100 different funds in the hospital and medical areas. I know that over the last year that figure has dropped and the number is now in the mid eighties, but there are still a large number of different funds, all with their separate administrations, all with their different techniques, all dealing across the country with a variety of patients and doctors. How can that be as efficient as the Medibank system? It cannot, and the facts prove it. If one looks at the last report tabled in this House on the costs and financial dealings of the benefit funds one will find that for every $ 1 a contributor pays to the voluntary funds 14.8c- 15c- is lost, wasted, compared with only 4 cents for Medibank. In short, the end result of the Government’s meddling is at least a doubling of the administrative costs of the whole system, as well as an enormous waste of time and effort by the community to fulfil all the requirements, make all the extra decisions, fill in all the paper etc.

Medibank is a great achievement of the Labor Government but it is now being mutilated beyond recognition by unnecessary Liberal Government surgery. The Liberal Government surgery on the funding of the community health facilities might well prove fatal. In its last Budget, Labor allocated $70.7m for these services and, if our programs had been sustained and our commitments fulfilled, $88m would have been allocated this year instead of the $7 1.8m this Government has allocated. True, only $55m was spent last financial year because as soon as this Government came in it dilly-dallied and delayed and many of the projects that we had approved were stopped, crippled, destroyed. That is why the Government has spent less than Labor budgeted for. At the same time, because of those restraints, State governments imposed restrictions on the appointment of new staff and even on the replacement of staff. If someone resigned he could not even be replaced. That has created an idiot situation where, because of previous approvals, in many areas the necessary elaborate facilities are being built, and people trying to run health centres in cramped temporary quarters with half a dozen staff are faced with the prospect of running their services in the elaborate facilities with a third or a quarter or even less of the staff they need to run the service properly.

The community has shown its appreciation and is flocking to these centres. Figures are available indicating the patronage of the centres in Canberra. No one could suggest that the public servants in this city are being forced to frequent the health centres. No one could suggest that the community in Canberra is being forced against its will to patronise the community health centres. Yet I notice that the figures coming out indicate that doctors in these centres are expected to cope with three or four times the number of patients that it is reasonable to expect a general practitioner anywhere else to cope with. What is the response of the Government? The people are showing what they believe in. They are voting approval for these centres by going to the doors. So the Government has said: ‘You cannot now go unless you live in a certain area’, thereby imposing geographical limitations. The Labor Government was accused of that sort of potential restriction, but we never imposed such a restriction. People should be free to go wherever they choose. The Liberal Government is imposing restrictions on who can go to what health centre- if they do not live in the appropriate area they are not allowed to go. Honourable members opposite talk about Labor being dictators! If people continue to go to the centres, the centres are not allowed to increase their staff. They wear their doctors into the ground, they wear their nursing staff into the ground. They have to let the standard of service deteriorate because the staff just cannot cope with the work load.

Then, because the service falls off, the Government encourages private practitioners to come in and set up in opposition to the centre. There are even ancillary medical personnel such as chemists and other people in these health centres, and it is recognised that that is necessary. The Government is encouraging private chemists to come in and set up their private chemist shops, selling all the things that chemists sell. That is a sheer waste of community resources. Articles have appeared in the academic pharmaceutical Press suggesting that there are too many chemists, but the Government is busy encouraging more of them. They come in and set up near the health centres and the Government then says that is does not need to have a chemist in the health centre any more. They put the chemists out and increase the inconvenience to patients, who cannot then get their drugs and medicines at the health centres and have to go to a nearby chemist. All this is being done to prop up a system which is going to strangle the community. It will encourage excessive pharmaceutical consumption, excessive administrative costs, and blatant waste all round. The Government’s approach in the Budget is sheer hypocrisy. It is not business efficiency, it is business inefficiency. The approach of the Labor Party was the efficient approach. This Government’s approach is just a blinkered ideological opposition to anything which might be more efficient if it is in any way similar to anything the Labor Party may have thought about and may therefore be called socialist.

Mr DOBIE:
Cook

-It is not my intention to follow the previous speaker, the honourable member for Maribyrnong (Dr Cass), and discuss Medibank, but he used the word ‘balderdash* in relation to costs of health schemes increasing. I would refer him to articles, particularly in today’s Press, about what is happening to the French scheme. Without the proper costs and proper controls which have been introduced by this Government I put it to the House that we might well have been in the same position as the French. At this stage of the Budget debate- and we are debating the Budget- most of the issues have been raised and presented by members who sit on the Government benches. The experience, the talent, the compassion and the concern of my Party collegues have been illustrated for all to see. It would be fair and objective to say that no Parliament in Australia’s history has been able to boast such a great collective talent as that which normally sits on the Government side during debates. As most Australians realise- this was said in a famous stage musicalthe country is in the very best of hands.

But what of the contributions to this most important of economic debates by members of the socialist Party who occupy the Opposition benches? What can be said about them and their contributions? Most of the socialists in this House have demonstrated clearly that they just do not understand how to run a country. They have shown by their continuing attitudes that they have learned absolutely nothing from their past mistakes. They continue to promote the theme of class consciousness. They hide their ignorance of economics by sliding into personal abuse. They refuse to accept that it is as a result of their utter disregard for responsible government, as opposed to popular government for sectional interests, that Australia has been forced into its parlous economic position. In one speech after another in this debate there has been an almost unbelievably stubborn refusal by members of the Labor Party to accept that their socialist theories were impractical, that their socialist doctrines were self-centred and, for Australia, almost self-destroying. Not one member opposite has seen the error of his ways. Not one member opposite has revealed the slightest concern for the plight into which Labor plunged Australia.

The small business operator was a particular target for Labor, and no wonder. It is the classical socialist program to destroy small business, remove the spirit of individual enterprise and then, when it is good and ready, to nationalise and socialise the major industries one by one. Centralise, nationalise and socialise the lot- that was Labor’s battle cry. Let us not be fooled into forgetting, nor letting the Australian public forget, that Labor had no other ambition during its 3 years of government. The sense of hopelessness which it brought to young Australians, the lack of opportunities for satisfying their desired careers, its almost manic concern for changing the very structure of the Australian economy, and its disregard for established social patterns- all these ambitions, all these sinister nearachievements were the background against which an almost total economic collapse would have occurred had there not been a change of government at the end of 1975; and the Australian public knew that too.

It is the background against which the Australian electorate voted in the Fraser Government in what was the greatest political victory ever known in Australia. It is the background against which the Treasurer (Mr Lynch) has had to make serious economic decisions, as the facts ‘of the previous Whitlam Government’s mismanagement of the country regularly reveal themselves. Not for 40 years has an incoming Treasurer had to grapple with so much confusion inherited from a previous government. It is against that background that this Budget must be assessed and critically examined. It is against the Fraser Government’s ambition to restore real values to the Australian way of life that Australians should regard the Budget.

How have they regarded it? First of all, let me say that I believe that this Budget has been accepted by the man in the street. After all the drama we have experienced with the Whitlam reign of mismanagement, the average Australian is very relieved to know that despite the need for redirection in money matters the Fraser Government has not raised any major tax. Contrary to the prognostications of the ladies and gentlemen in the Canberra Press Gallery, the price of beer did not increase, petrol did not become more expensive, and cigarettes were not increased in price. Popular though those concessions were with so many people in the community, the really important acceptance of this Lynch Budget related to the tax indexation of personal incomes, together with the decision to increase social welfare in real terms, to accept a greater financial responsibility in the field of education, again in real terms, and to bring back some realism in the field of defence spending.

What happened on 17 August 1976 showed that the Fraser Administration was determined not to follow the lead of the Whitlamites of robbing the working man of his financial independence and his hopes. It showed that this Administration, the Fraser Administration, was fair dinkum in its plan to show a special concern for the underprivileged in the Australian community. It showed that the Fraser Administration was game enough to come out and make responsible decisions to put the whole economy back on the right road.

Now that we have the Budget before us, we know that the family allowance scheme was not a flash in the pan. This Government is compassionately concerned with raising the disadvantaged beyond and out of their disadvantage. After years of discussion by all parties in this House, pensions have been taken out of a wretched political arena. Although the Government must continue to proceed again next year with the policy plan of removing the means test, the formal attachment of the pension rate to the consumer price index is a grand move forward. It is a humane and dignified decision which all sections of this House must support, for all sections of this House have, in one way and another, worked towards it. It is not a decision that should be viewed with party political pride. It should be seen as a culmination of much effort that has been put into the welfare of the aged by members who sit in this House today representing such electorates as Mackellar, Sturt and Oxley. The family allowance is so fundamental a decision that one wonders why on earth none of us had not thought of it before. The Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) will be remembered long and affectionately for that significant policy decision.

The increase in payments to handicapped children from $10 to $ 1 5 is also most welcome, but I am sure that the Treasurer is aware of the great needs which still remain for educating the handicapped child into the tertiary area of education. Of course much has been done and there are countless stories of young people who have overcome not only their own disability but often the education systems themselves to achieve success. My own memory in this regard goes back to when I was being tutored by a totally blind graduate in Queensland when I was preparing for matriculation. That person, Miss Mercy Griffin, was one of the great people that Australia has produced. Her achievements were the result of her own great efforts. It remains very much within the motivation of many significantly deaf and blind young folk themselves to achieve higher educational awards. I hope that next year’s Budget will see the extension of appropriate educational allowances and the extension of invalid pensions to disabled children over the age of 16 years who remain full-time students. It is an area that seems to have been cruelly overlooked, and perhaps that may be due to the fact that the numbers involved are not great. However, it is my intention to speak on this subject more fully in debates other than the one presently before the House.

I support the economic thrust of the Lynch Budget. I believe it has made a very honest attempt to restore confidence and to provide stimuli in needy quarters. We all accept the need for promoting private entrepreneurial skills, and it is fascinating to read that in my own State we now have a socialist Premier who is making noises in support of private industry in a way which would have him driven out of the Federal section of this Party. In vain have I waited for just one honourable member opposite to mention the need for reviewing that section of the economy which provides three-quarters of the job opportunities in Australia. It is gratifying to note that the Australian Chamber of Commerce, for example, has found that its State chambers are unanimously agreed that the Budget represents a responsible and courageous approach to Australias present economic problems. The Chambers of Commerce said that they are confident that the incentives provided in the Budget will encourage business enterprises and consumers to enter new spending commitments and thus help lift the level of activity in the economy. The President of the Australian Chamber of Commerce said:

Responsible economic management has to be accompanied by resposible community attitudes and realistic expectations.

I am certain that industry, commerce and the community are awaiting strong leads and are most anxious to promote what is becoming a consumer based recovery. There can be no doubt that one of the great hurdles we have to overcome is the high level of interest rates. We are all aware of it. Quite obviously there is no easy or quick solution to that problem. I believe, however, that we have room for certain negotiations and initiatives. I would like to put forward one thought: Recent comments by the Australian money market dealers suggest that they are no longer confident in the prospect of an early or sharp drop in interest rates. I share that concern, yet I realise that there is no easy government action which can be taken. I know that the level of interest rates does have the Treasurer’s keen attention and that he is concerned. I would not wish to deny the extraordinary complexities which surround the establishment of interest rates by those whose duties are involved with money management.

However, I want to draw the attention of the House to one aspect of interest rates. I refer to the interest rate that is paid by the Reserve Bank of Australia for statutory reserve deposits. As honourable members are no doubt aware, the rate of 0.75 per cent has been paid, apart from a short break in 1956, since 1941. That rate was originally established to secure that the trading profits of the trading banks did not exceed the average of their annual trading profit for the 3 years ended 31 August 1939. That interest rate has been enshrined in official thinking ever since. While the rate was designed as a form of profit control, h was also related to a discount on the Treasury bill rate. Despite what could be referred to as radical changes in the rates of interest in the markets for money in Australia, the rate paid for statutory reserve deposits remains at 0.75 per cent. It is no longer possible to say with any sanity or responsibility that the rate bears any direct relationship to any other interest rate in the market, with the exception perhaps of the non-market and archaic Treasury bill rate. Histories of statutory reserve deposits and their interest rates are really quite crazy. I put it to honourable members that they have the same anachronism that the payroll tax had when it was introduced to pay child endowment. I believe we have reached this stage where statutory reserve deposits should attract an interest rate commercially viable and which would allow the trading banks the chance for greater downward mobility in the rates of interest it charges for its lending to its customers. I do hope that the Treasurer, as a matter of some urgency, will enter into serious discussions not only with the Reserve Bank, but also with the trading banks involved, to see what would be achieved if statutory reserve deposits were taken on a commercial interest rate. I believe personally that such a move would allow a reduction in bank rates on overdrafts to commence.

To illustrate the problem of interest rates, I refer to a table in the March 1976 issue of Reserve Bank Statistics which shows that in December 1972 when the Liberal Party last governed the country 90 per cent of total advances outstanding were being charged less than 8 per cent. After 3 years of Labor Government, that is in December 1975, 90 per cent of total advances outstanding were being charged less than 13 per cent. In other words, the level being charged as a result of the unknowing, uninformed economic policies of the people opposite when in government, is some 5 per cent more. It is a serious burden on all borrowers, especially the individual customer and especially too for the home borrower who is badly affected by the level of interest rates over a very long period.

The position of interest rates must be improved, and respectfully I put forward the thought that a thorough investigation of the position of interest paid by the Reserve Bank on statutory reserve deposits could be the starting point we are looking for. I believe that this rate can be changed by the Reserve Bank with the approval of the Treasurer from time to time and it does not require parliamentary legislation. The interest rate on the statutory reserve deposits, as I have said, is archaic. It must be seen as no longer serving its original purpose of profit control of the trading banks of Australia, but rather I believe it must be seen in its true light of having a deleterious and distorting effect on the various money markets in Australia.

As an aside, I would like to comment a little on the revaluation of the Australian dollar, about which much has been said in recent days. During my recent trip overseas I spoke to many people interested in investing in Australia. My professional associations with them showed that they all clearly indicated that although there is some international uncertainty regarding the continuing value placed on the Australian dollar, the real barriers which are causing some reluctance for investment in Australia are related to confusion as to the application of our overseas investment guidelines. But even more important than that is the ever present threat of industrial turmoil and the fear of another socialist government coming to power with its attitude towards killing profits as a matter of political dogma. The latter day Fabians, who sit opposite still (Quorum formed)

I support the Budget. It is responsible and it is considerate. It is a vehicle upon which Australia’s economic recovery will be based. I commend the Treasurer on his first of many Budgets.

Mr CONNOR:
Cunningham

-I support the amendment proposed by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr E. G. Whitlam). This Budget and its effect on the Australian people would only be rivalled by the horror Budget of the early 1950s. It is a tragedy of conflicting political ideologies. Ideological obsessions are very nice when taken in small doses.

Mr Shipton:

– You would have a fair share, would you not?

Mr CONNOR:

– I heard the honourable member, for what it was worth, in silence and, if he had any elementary courtesy, he would do the same for me. The Prime Minister of Canada, Mr Trudeau, recently said that we cannot make a modified free market economy solve our current problems. He added: . . . it will do no good to try to create a pure free-market economy to solve our future problems . . .

This did not come from a man of the Labor Party’s political persuasion. This man is responsible for governing a major and comparable member of the Commonwealth. He continued:

Until I heard the shrill comments made by some businessmen during the past few weeks, I had thought that the great depression of the 1930s had destroyed for ever the notion that a free-market economy, if unassisted by Governments, would produce by itself the ideal state of steady economic growth, stable prices and full employment.

That is precisely what this Government hopes to achieve by the unparalleled pursuit of its traditional ideology.

This Government lags one whole depression 40 years, as a matter of fact- behind economic reality. Its ideology simply will not work. The leaks corning from the party rooms of the Government suggest that there is unlimited fear on the part of the oncers as to what the result will be. It is very good to try to tough it through, but we are coming to the point where shrill voices are commencing to be heard. The most recent of these was the voice this week of Mr Taplin who, as Government supporters would know, is the President of the International Trade Division of the New South Wales Chamber of Commerce. He has been reported as follows:

Some manufacturers, he said, were ‘beginning to have grave doubts’ whether the Federal Government fully understood business problems.

I do not believe that it does. Today right throughout the world, in terms of secondary industry, every major trading country is paying Up service to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade and pushing up the tariff barriers as high as it can. Today it is a case of every nation for itself in preserving employment in a period of deteriorating world economy. Instances of feather bedding can be quoted. Other instances can be quoted of industries doing the best they can. But in the situation that exists at the present time there is no alternative to the maintenance of full employment. Persons who receive Australian rates of pay and persons under Australian working conditions have a corresponding obligation to purchase goods made in Australian secondary factories under those conditions of payment. May I also quote from yesterday’s issue of the Melbourne Age in which the financial editor Mr Graeme McDougall in an article said in the heading ‘Asinine jawboning is moving no one’ and in fact it is ‘counter-productive’. He said that Ministers are taking their own public utterances seriously. He made particular points. He said that through a massive jawboning effort the Government had:

Talked business into believing recovery had started early this year- when it had not;

Talked the sharemarket into it ‘s strongest rise for years;

We all know about that. The third point was that the Government had:

Talked many people into believing they had done much for business when in fact they have done little.

He went on to say:

There is a strong chance that continuing urging from the top echelons of Government will begin to be counterproductive.

Ministers are starting to take their own public utterances so seriously they cannot understand why businessmen do not see things the same way and start spending.

After all, one of the Government’s main hopesfrustrated as they have been- for economic recovery is that somehow the bulk of the Australian people will accept lower wages yet spend more- spend themselves out of an economic depression and receive less money for their daily stint of work.

Mr Shipton:

– Do you suggest a $4,000m loan?

Mr CONNOR:

– Yes. I will give you something on that. It was a $2,000m loan, I remind you. I will have something pertinent on that for your edification. If you want a real horselaugh get the full text of the address by Senator Cotton to the assembly of retailers recently in which he told them to get out and sell- boots and all. The true position is that with a dwindling cake in terms of consumer expenditure they are doing their best and they are going flat out to maintain their sales and their present diminished rate of employment.

Mr Goodluck:

– Are they mugs and hill-billies too?

Mr CONNOR:

-No, but you are. To add to the woes of the Government, the economic panel which was recently appointed- the think tank of the whiz-kid, the Treasurer (Mr Lynch)- had one of its leaders, a Professor Whitehead, saying, at a public assembly of course, that the retailers are in for ‘a long hard haul’. He said there is ‘unlikely to be evidence of any real recovery for 3 years’. So much for the handpicked think tank. The truth is that today the figures of current savings indicate that they are continuing to increase and there is only one cogent explanation for it, and it is this: The people are literally squirrelling; they are saving for a rainy day. They are all afraid that it will be their turn next to join the ranks of the unemployed.

Reference has been made to loan borrowings overseas. The figures are interesting. Since this Government took office it either has arranged or is about to secure total borrowings of $A850m. The figures are there to be seen in the financial columns of last Saturday’s Sydney Morning Herald. More than that, immediately after the advent of this Government and with the smart money believing that as a reflex action the Country Party would force immediate devaluation, another $A575m went out by way of exchange transfers. The smart money men took it out there and then. The total was just on $ A 1,400m, not so very short of the $2,000m authority that I had. They were U.S. dollars and at the time were worth $ A 1,500m. Our very smart Treasurer has his men tip-toeing around Europe picking up what he can, the unconsidered trifles, wherever he can get them, in places where he bad mouthed a former Government.

Let us look at the other remarkable financial feat of this whiz-kid Treasurer. Australian savings bonds are at a record rate, a horribly unsensible, foolish rate of 10.5 per cent. They were pitched on terms which were such that all the smart money men got in. I do not blame them for doing so because lightning strikes only once in the same spot on matters like this. The financial world was horrified. Let us look again at the question , of devaluation. I for one am strongly opposed to any devaluation occurring and that is the policy of our Party. Let that be understood quite clearly by the people of Australia. There is no need whatever for devaluation to occur if this Government is prepared to handle its business in a proper way. There are certain excellent sources of export revenue that can be obtained and maintained. I repeat my comment of last week: I said then that my predecessor in office had better pull his finger out and get straight down to business because if he did not the Japanese would put it all over him. In fact they are doing so already.

We are in a strong position in our trading relations with Japan if we choose to use it correctly. For example, for from time to time there is the old stalking horse of the threat of Brazilian iron ore to the Australian Exporters. It is true that Japan needs only an extra 20m tons and it is true that collectively the Western Australian producers are offering 80 million tons. On the other hand, that Brazilian ore happens to be a soft friable ore which has to be brought a longer distance and when it is being sized for a blast furnace charge it produces extra iron ore dust which in turn has to be solidified by calcination. This should dismiss that argument and I give the Minister that advice for what it is worth because in a matter of a few weeks a Japanese delegation will be coming here. What of the counter offers that will occur in the case of coal, say from Russia or from the east coast of the United States of America. On the east coast of the USA they cannot produce the coal they need and only spot sales are being made because of the conservationist lobby. It is not obtainable there. Similarly, coal from Russia has a very high sulphur content. The Japanese well know that the best coal that they can get at a sensible price and on proper terms as to continuity is from Australia.

I mention these facts because coal today is the leading Australian export earner. Iron ore is next to it. In both cases, in Australia’s interests I want to see proper prices obtained and proper trading conditions. I want to see an end to the chaos that is emerging and to which even the spokesman for the Utah people, Mr Parer, referred recently. He said that there was a need for the Federal Government to come back into the picture once again. It is time this nonsense about who was unkind to the Japanese or that the terms upon which they purchased the minerals were unfair was dropped. We entered into proper trading negotiations with them. We had the respect of these people. They respected our firmness, our competence and our reliability. If the Government does not continue its relations with the Japanese on that basis, they will run right over the top of us, and I would not blame them for doing it.

I turn to other matters. Today we have a world wide situation in which the devastation of World War II has ended. The reconstruction of the damaged countries has ended and we are again in a classic period of economic crisis. We are in a period also in which the productive capacity of the world as a whole far exceeds the ability of the world to consume. In a situation such as that, we need to think much more in terms of what we do within our own country. It is no good the Government trying to gloss over the situation. It is there. It is one that a Labor government would have inherited also. There is only one answer to the situation and it is this: There should be an infusion of public moneys; there must be an infusion of public moneys. Honourable members opposite well know this. The honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Wentworth) in particular will know this. One matter upon which I agree with him is that the constriction of capital expenditure is being associated with cash on the barrel head concepts of budget managementMr McLean- But where would you spend it?

Mr CONNOR:

– It needs to be spent on infrastructure. If Australia is to achieve its destiny, it can be done only by the upgrading and beneficiation of its mineral resources on the one hand and by selective and improved agricultural production on the other hand. Today in the world there is a drop in the availability of food supplies. In the early 1950s, there was a food supply of 95 days per person for the world’s population. Today, that supply is down to about 25 days. We have developing now as a counter poise to petro-power the concept in the United States of America of agri-power. The U.S. happens to be the world’s largest producer and exporter of food. There will be conflict between the U.S. and Russia in this regard. One will play its cards and the other will play its cards also. Countries such as Australia must consider precisely what their attitudes will be. I quote the words of Marshall Green, the former United States Ambassador to Australia, as I have so often quoted them in the House previously. He said that Australia on a per capita basis and in terms of our resources is the richest country in the world. Australia is one of only 4 countries which can claim that it is self-contained and self-sufficient in energy resources. The 4 countries are Canada, the Soviet Union, Mainland China and Australia. I suggest to honourable members on the Government side that they consider economic, social and political realities rather than the continual caterwauling we are hearing as to the sins of omission and commission of the former Labor Administration.

Mr SIMON:
McMillan

-Among the number of revelations which arose from the remarks of the honourable member for Cunningham (Mr Connor), not the least was the disclosure that the policy of the Opposition is that the Australian dollar should not be devalued. I wonder which policy the honourable member for Oxley (Mr Hayden) has referred to recently in his announcements. However I will not dwell on that matter. The Treasurer (Mr Lynch), in his Budget Speech to the House on 17 August, outlined one of the most progressive reforms relevant to the relationship of the Commonwealth Government to State and local government. It was certainly of great significance to the future of local government in Australia.

The Government made it clear in its election policy prior to 13 December 1975 that both State and local government would have permanent access to Commonwealth revenue raised through personal income tax. The Government also stated as part of its policy that a fixed percentage of personal income tax would be distributed through the respective State governments to every local government authority in Australia.

The Treasurer, in his Budget Speech, confirmed his statement on 20 May that local government authorities would have an annual entitlement to a share of personal income tax. The amount allocated in 1976-77 is $140m. It represents an increase of 75 per cent over funds allocated by the Labor Government in the preceding year. It is a very significant increase and one appreciated by local government authorities at a time when their traditional source of revenue raising would have climbed to staggering heights in an effort to provide basic municipal services and to cope with the high inflation rate. There is a need to emphasise that it was a Federal Liberal-National Country Party government which introduced this policy. The Commonwealth Grants Commission was asked on 31 March 1976 by the Minister for Administrative Services (Senator Withers) to inquire into and report on the proportionate distribution as between States of the total moneys to be granted to local government on a per capita and equalisation basis. Pursuant to those terms of reference, the Commonwealth Grants Commission recommended, and the Government adopted, the subdivision by which the per capita formula element for all States was 30 per cent, and the remaining 70 per cent comprised the equalisation element for all States. It was to be left to the State grants commissions to determine the formula for distribution between the local government authorities in each State.

In addition to the untied grants totalling $140m, the Budget makes provision for payments to or for other local government authorities in relation to a wide ranging number of projects and services. It is my intention to refer briefly to these payments and to pose the question whether local government is capable and willing to play a larger role in government which historically it has not undertaken but which it will be encouraged to undertake in future. Other honourable members have referred in this Budget debate to the limited role which local government has in the past undertaken in Australia in the areas of roads, drains, bridges, limited health services and in assisting the property and commercial interests in our communities.

Budget Paper No. 7 refers to payments to local governments authorities. The various categories of specific purpose payments demonstrate the increased role which local government authorities have undertaken in the provision of public services. For example, for pre-school and child care services in 1973-74, the recurrent expenditure totalled only $4,000. It rose to $773,000 in 1975-76. The capital grant increased in the same period from $441,000 to $5,595,000. Another example is home nursing. Under the Home Nursing Subsidy Act 1956 grants were increased from $73,000 in 1972-73 to the $199,000 estimated for 1976-77. Grants directed to local government authorities for expenditure under the Aged or Disabled Persons Act 1954 have increased from $746,000 in 1972-73 to the estimate for the current year of $3,443,000.

There are further specific grants to local government in relation to the Meals on Wheels service, handicapped persons, Aboriginal advancement and community arts activities. Another category referred to in Budget Paper No. 7 further illustrates the continued role which Commonwealth and State governments consider that local government authorities are handling with efficiency and which they would expect municipalities to continue to administer. I instance these very briefly: Senior citizen centres, payments to the New South Wales and Victorian governments respectively for on-passing to the local government authorities concerned with the Albury-Wodonga growth centre program, the area improvement program, the national sewerage program and capital assistance for leisure policies. The federalism policy of the Government states that the vital principle relevant to that policy is as follows:

If effective government geared to the needs of the 1980s and beyond is to be achieved … if the great issues of national and local concern such as education, health, social welfare, housing and urban development are to receive maximum intelligent attention … if all our resources including human talents and local knowledge are to be effectively harnessed … if innovation, diversity and imaginative reforms are to be encouraged . . . then we must restructure our forms and institutions of government and our attitudes of mind to achieve co-operation, partnership and not domination.

For true national concern to be achieved and maximised it must be done through a partnership effort by forms of government.

By granting local government a share in federal income tax receipts we see a clear demonstration by this Government of its determination to implement the federalism policy and by so doing, dramatically change the traditional revenue source of local government. But is local government able to take on this added responsibility? The amount of $ 1 40m of national revenue is not being granted to local government simply as a supplement to its rate revenue. It is implicit in the application of the federalism policy that local government must play an added role to better serve the communities in the areas of health, social welfare, housing and urban and community development.

In England reorganisation of local government commenced some 12 years ago. Major studies were undertaken in quick succession by Sir John Maude and his select committee which reported to the Government on management of local government. The Government in England also appointed a royal commission to examine the structure of local government on a broad basis, including the reallocation of municipal boundaries. Finally, a report which proved to be acceptable to both central government and local government authorites gave guidelines on structure and management for the rejuvenation of English local government as was set out in the Bains report. Many of the conclusions in these reports are relevant in giving consideration to the future role which local government will play in Australia and to whether the federalism policy of this Government will work.

The Maude Committee brought down its report in 1967 before the royal commission’s recommendations had been presented to the central government. Included in the Maude report was a conclusion that: if as a nation we want Local democracy, the National Government must give Local Authorities a larger measure of home rule.

In 1969 part of the report of the Royal Commission on Local Government in England made reference to the pattern and character of local government which must be such as to enable it to do 4 things: Firstly, to perform efficiently a wide range of profoundly important tasks concerned with the safety, health and well being, both material and cultural, of people in different localities; secondly, to attract and hold the interest of its citizens; thirdly, to develop enough inherent strength to deal with national authorities and develop partnership; and, fourthly, to adapt itself without disruption to present unprecedented process of changes in the way people live, work, move, shop and enjoy themselves.

Whilst recognising that the English system does not have the third member of the partnership which we have in Australia, local government in Australia must be capable of showing that it can meet the challenges with which it is faced. Local government is the third partner in the total system of government in Australia. It has responsibilities concerned with local communities. It acts as a delivery agent for State and Federal Government schemes and services. Whilst it is true that this Budget has given recognition to the position of local government as one of the 3 tiers of government in this country, money alone will not solve problems or necessarily improve the quality of service of local government authorities. An improved standard of administration, the expertise of council officers and elected representatives and the establishment of an independent local government public service will take many years to achieve. More importantly, both the State Government and the local government authorities should recognise the increased responsibilities that each should undertake in the federal structure.

There are many authorities today with the experience, the personnel and the attitude to cope with increased responsibility for a wider range of public services in government at the local level. I submit, however, that there would be an equal number overwhelmed by the complexity of urban growth, the depression of rural areas and the socio-economic changes evident in our society. The impact of urban development is first felt by local government. Movements in population within the major cities and from them to rural and semi-rural areas bring pressure on the social infrastructure of our communities. Money from the Federal Government would be wasted if the local authority recipients do no more than prop up a rate structure without doing anything to improve the quality of local government administration or the quality of living standards of members of local communities. Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek leave to continue my remarks at a later hour.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 1159

HEALTH INSURANCE LEVY ASSESSMENT BILL (No. 2) 1976

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 8 September, on motion by Mr Eric Robinson:

That the BUI be now read a second time.

Mr McLEAY:
Minister for Construction · Boothby · LP

Mr Deputy Speaker, may I have the indulgence of the House to raise a point of procedure on this legislation? Before the debate is resumed on this Bill I would like to suggest that it might suit the convenience of the House to have a general debate covering this Bill and the Health Insurance Levy Bill (No. 2) as they are associated measures. Separate questions will, of course, be put on each of the Bills at the conclusion of the debate. I suggest therefore, Mr Deputy Speaker, that you permit the subject matter of both Bills to be discussed in this debate.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Giles:
ANGAS, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

-Is it the wish of the House to have a general debate covering both measures? I will allow that course to be followed.

Dr CASS:
Maribyrnong

-I move:

That all words after ‘That’ be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: ‘whilst not declining to give the Bill a second reading, the House is of the opinion that Medibank should be funded out of general revenue’.

I also foreshadow that at the Committee stage the Opposition will be moving an amendment to clause 4 paragraph (a) by inserting some words. I will give the details of that later. By not denying the Bill a second reading yet seeking to have the House express its opinion that Medibank should be funded out of general revenue we are seeking to indicate our persisting opposition to the concept of a levy. In case people should think that at this stage we should oppose the Bills outright, let me say that the sad reality is that by doing that we would leave on the statute books the Health Insurance Levy Assessment Act (No. 1 ) and the Health Insurance Levy Act (No. 1 ) which were passed earlier this year, and which we also opposed. Since we did not have the numbers we could not prevent their being passed. Obviously, they are less adequate than the 2 Bills before the House now, which is precisely the reason why the Government has introduced these 2 Bills- to modify the earlier Acts because they are not appropriate to Medibank model 4 or 5, or whichever model we are up to now. Medibank changes have been brought in progressively in fits and spurts by the Government since it started meddling with the original Labor Government Medibank. That long explanation is to show why we are not opposing the Bills outright. These Bills when passed will at least be better than the present legislation. We seek to show that we still disagree with the concept.

Now I have to cover another seeming inconsistency. When the Australian Labor Party Government first proposed Medibank- not in the form of Medibank but in the form of a national health insurance fund- it proposed the imposition of a levy. We talked about it often enough. I like to think that in the years from 1968 to 1972 no one in the community talked about the Liberal

Government’s policy. They spent their time discussing the Labor Party’s policy. We were in Opposition then and in those years in the community right across the country people discussed our proposals for a national health insurance system. In that original system we proposed the imposition of a levy. I would like to discuss what it was meant to do and why we proposed it. To do so I need to analyse for a short time how the private or so-called voluntary health insurance system worked before the Labor Party’s election in 1972. If anyone wants to talk about the thin end of the socialist wedge let me remind him that the voluntary health insurance system was introduced by Sir Earle Page on behalf of the Liberal-Country Party Government back in the 1 950s. Up until then people were more or less responsible for paying their own bills. It is common knowledge that this resulted in a lot of social inequity and hardship, particularly for those on lower incomes or those who were hard hit by illness.

So in those early days, in the 1950s, the Liberal Government proposed a system of insurance based on a concept which had been around for many years before them. It was based on the benefit fund or lodge system. As I say, that had been around for many years. I can remember my father, when he was in practice as a doctor in the country areas in Western Australia, talking about his list of lodge patients, his panel of patients. It was a well known system of taxing people- voluntarily, in the sense that people decided to belong to a benefit fund of some sort, or a friendly society or a lodge. They paid a contribution. Part of the contribution made to the friendly society was paid by the friendly society to a doctor who undertook to treat a certain number of patients, the patients on the lodge list. The doctor was not paid a fee for service. The doctor was paid a capitation fee. So much for the dishonest obstruction and opposition by a considerable section of the medical profession and the Liberal-Country Party Government in their ignorance of the Labor Party’s concept. The opponents of the concept objected to a third party intruding between the doctor and the patient. They objected to government- they did not say ‘government’, they said a third party- breaking this sacrosanct doctor-patient relationship which they said depended on the patient paying the doctor a fee. They were quite dishonest. That relationship had been broken in many places in the last century.

This concept of a third party-a benefit fund, a lodge, a friendly society- intruding between the doctor and the patient is old hat. It was not introduced by the Labor Government. So Sir Earle Page sanctified it in his voluntary health insurance scheme. He invited or encouraged voluntary health funds to set up- in other words, he enlarged the number of organisations which were already doing this sort of thing- by setting a restraint on the freedom with which members of the community could get their tax contributions back in the form of medical or hospital rebates, because an integral part of the system was that the patient had to contribute to a voluntary fund. When they were sick, went to a doctor, got a bill and paid the bill or assigned it, their account either way went to the health fund or the friendly society that was registered as a medical or hospital benefit fund. That fund then made a refund to the patient for the amount of money that he had paid to the doctor.

The refund consisted of 2 parts. One part from the benefit fund was based upon the contributions that the person had made to the fund. The other part, usually roughly the same amount, came from the Government as a Commonwealth hospital or Commonwealth medical benefit. That had been paid for by everybody in his taxation payments. But the rub was that the person who voluntarily chose not to belong to a benefit fund could not claim his legitimate Commonwealth hospital or Commonwealth medical benefit refund. In other words, he robbed himself unless he paid an extra contribution to a voluntary fund. I hope that is clear. It is the truth. It is the way the system worked. We have been fooled for years into not understanding the position and therefore thinking that the cost of health services under the Liberals was the cost which the taxpayer paid via Commonwealth hospital or medical benefits or Commonwealth Government contributions to hospitals via the States. The Labor Party’s point was that because of that restriction I have mentioned, the total payment in contributions represented a tax. In other words, the real cost of health services, even under the Liberals, was far more than was ever measured in the budget figures. At least, it was twice as much in terms of the hospital or medical benefits contributions and payments.

That is the first dishonesty in the whole argument and it is continually perpetrated by people on the Government side. It happened even today after my comments in the Budget debate. The next speaker from the Government side got up and talked about the terrible cost of Medibank. How dishonest can one be? For how long will honourable members on the Government side deceive themselves? That is what they are doing. The cost of health care is the sum total of the money the sick person finally has to pay for his treatment. It does not matter a damn whether he pays it via a benefit fund, via the taxation system or directly out of his own pocket. The whole amount still comes from his pocket. The cost to the community is not Medibank or the voluntary benefit funds. The cost to the community is the money that finally finishes in the pockets of the hospitals and the doctors and in whatever administrative costs have been incurred in transferring the money. That is where the benefit funds or Medibank come in. They receive just the administrative cost. If we are honest, and I beg honourable members on the Government side to at least be honest with themselves in that sense -

Mr Baillieu:

– What sense?

Dr CASS:

– I ask the honourable member not to pretend that he is not following me.

Mr Baillieu:

– Give us the figures.

Dr CASS:

– The precise figures are irrelevant. They could be $ 1,000m, $2,000m, or$5,000m. It does not matter. The total cost is that sum which covers the hospital costs and doctors’ fees. That is the cost of health services to the community. In terms of the proportion of gross national product it is a lie to say that if the taxation revenue expenditure is 3 per cent of gross national product, that is the cost, because that is not the only cost. The cost of health services, includes all the other costs. When one argues that the French or the British are spending more than we are because, via their taxation system, they spend 4.5 per cent or whatever the figure is, and via our taxation system we are spending only 2.5 per cent, one is being dishonest. The British system includes all the things that our taxation system does not include.

If we included all the things for which the British system pays we would have to pick up all the private payments in the Australian context. If one adds those and if one is honest, one finds the equivalent to the British figure for the year. When I last looked at it it was about 4.5 per cent. At that time the equivalent figure in Australia was over 6 per cent. If one looks at comparable figures throughout the world and adds all the bits so that one gets the total cost of health services the reality is that Australia with its private enterprise system has spent, as a percentage of its gross national product, rather more than most. We are up near the American figure and it is one of the worst. I am not saying that all figures are the same. They do vary. Sweden which has a fairly socialised system as far as I am concerned is fairly expensive, but it has an exceptionally high standard of medical care available.

I come back to my argument about these Bills. Given that whichever way we do this is represents a tax and given that the whole community ultimately has to bear the whole cost, I ask: What is, socially, the most equitable way to do this? This is where the argument about Medibank and the private funds comes in. If honourable members accept my argumentnever mind the political points one must makeand I ask those who are listening to the discussion to think about it inwardly, I point out that, because the doctor has treated the patient and the hospital has given him the service because he has gone into hospital, then the money has to pass out of the patient’s pocket to the doctor and the hospital somehow or other. In our view it is socially more equitable to do this by means of the taxation system.

It is not actually true to say that flat rate contributions to voluntary benefit funds mean that the poor pay the same as the rich. I ask honourable members to cast their minds back to the situation that existed under the voluntary health insurance system before the introduction of the present form of Medibank and to think of what it meant. The charge for a particular level of refund was the same for everybody, irrespective of his income, but the contributions that one made were tax deductible. So somebody on a low income who was paying, say, $100 got back the equivalent of $25 in the concession if he was lucky because he was able to claim his payment as a tax deduction. But someone on a high income who was making the same claim for the same sum of money- $100- got back the equivalent of $50 or more. In other words, the rich paid less than the poor. Is that social justice?

For a long time our sorts of societies, that is, Western democratic societies, have accepted the principle that those services that are seen as a necessity- services that in short we recognise as social services, such as unemployment and sickness benefits, social welfare payments of all sorts and so on- are not paid for by imposing a fiat rate tax on everybody in the same way as the contributions to the voluntary funds. Everyone all over the Western world- in fact practically everywhere- recognises that one pays on a sliding scale according to ones income so that the richer one is the more proportionately one pays.

If one accepts that argument and if one accepts the thesis that one does not deserve to be sick, that one does not choose to get ill, that one does not want to require the services of a doctor or hospital and that illness is something which is unexpected, which is thrust upon us and which one does not embrace in free choice, then I think one can take a step further than that and say therefore that the services required for one’s treatment when one is sick ought to be provided as a social service. They ought to be available to everyone not as a privilege that they can purchase if they are able to pay; they should receive hospital and medical services in accordance with their medical needs as a right. If one accepts that then, in my view, one has to accept the thesis that that sort of service or that sort of welfare function, if you like, should be provided out of taxation revenue and based on a sliding scale, as we accept for all other forms of social service.

The Australian Labor Party proposed the imposition of a levy but, fortunately for it, due to the ignorance of the Liberal and Country parties whilst they were in Opposition- they did not understand the point and so opposed the Labor Party’s legislation to bring in the levy- it then chose to fund Medibank entirely out of taxation revenue. That was socially far more equitable as far as our basic philosophy is concerned. That is the way it ought to have been. We thank the Liberal and Country parties for being so kind to us philosophically and helping us to achieve our philosophical objectives. To prove my point, no sooner did the Liberal and National Country Parties come to power than they recognised that in their eyes that was not fair. Of course, in their view anything that is socially equitable is unfair to the rich.

Mr Baillieu:

– Oh, come on!

Dr CASS:

– So the Liberal and Country Parties have immediately sought to revert from that system, which does represent social equity- it does, despite the honourable member for La Trobe ‘s interjection, and he recognises it for every other sphere of social welfare that he can think of- to the private enterprise system, which in essence is going to weigh far more heavily on the poor compared with the rich.

Sitting suspended from 6 to 8 p.m.

Dr CASS:

– Before the suspension of the sitting I was discussing the true import of the levy which is proposed in these Bills. I pointed out that it is a tax by another name. It is an unfair tax because, as a 2 1/2 per cent levey applied uniformly and, in fact, tapering off for the higher income people, it is not equitable. It bears more heavily upon the lower income sections of the community. For this reason the Opposition opposes the levy concept. We feel that health expenses are a social service that everyone should be entitled to when he needs it and ought to be provided for according to medical need and paid for out of taxation revenue, which is the fairest way of raising the funds.

The Government is indulging in sleight of hand, a trick, in talking about lowering the tax burden and reducing the deficit but imposing a levy. It is utter fraud. It is collecting an extra sum of money, however much it is, from the levy or from forcing people to belong to the various benefit funds. In the socially inequitable way I have suggested, the levy will derive these extra funds. At the same time the Government can pretend, because it is no longer going to find the money out of taxation revenue, that it has lowered the deficit. It has lowered the figure going through its books.

Dr Klugman:

– Not even that.

Dr CASS:

– Not even that, but it is pretending that it is going to lower the figure. However, in real terms the cost to the community will go up. As I mentioned earlier, the costs include the fees paid to doctors, the money paid to hospitals and the administrative costs. The facts are that Medibank ‘s administrative costs were about 4 per cent. The administrative costs of the private benefit funds are about IS per cent. So in no way can it be suggested that it will be cheaper for the community to fund the whole business via private benefit funds.

We keep hearing the cry from those on the Government benches that Medibank is ruinous, that it will drive the country to bankruptcy, because of the increasing costs. As I have pointed out, the costs relate to medical services and hospital services. Medibank is irrelevant. So let me analyse what it is that is driving up the cost of these services. Honourable members on the Government side say that because things seem to be free the patient abuses the system. Yes, that is right. When all the ordinary citizens of the community know they can go to the doctor for nothing they flock there two or three times a week and they urge the doctor to operate on them three or four times a year. What sort of nonsense is that claim that patients are causing overutilisation? The most a patient can do is go to see the doctor. In my view, if a patient feels worried about his health or is concerned about something he is legitimately entitled to see a doctor. It is not the patient’s job to make an assessment of whether he is dying or not from whatever disease it is he thinks he has. He is entitled to visit the doctor and be reassured that he is just neurotic, if you like. That level of over-usage can account for very little of the cost because it is simply a general practitioner consultation. It is what happens after that that increases the costs. Patients cannot write their own prescriptions. We are told that we consume too many drugs; we have too many prescriptions. But whose fault is that? Patients cannot write the prescriptions. Doctors write the prescriptions.

Mr Sullivan:

– The patients demand them.

Dr CASS:

– All the patients do is consume the stuff. Half the time they do not even do that. They put it on the shelves in their bathroom cupboards and it falls out and breaks when they open the door some day to put another bottle of pills in. But that is the doctor’s fault. The doctors have done all this prescribing which in my view is unnecessary. And so it could go on.

When we come to analyse the utilisation of more expensive services such as hospitals and surgeons, operation rates and so on it is interesting to look at some figures that are coming from America these days. We do not know the figures in Australia. We have a hint of some and I have cited them before. Studies by Dr Jim Lawson show that operation rates in Australia on a feeforservice basis are much higher than in America where some doctors are paid on a salary basis. I should like to quote some more information from America although some people say we are different from the Americans and we cannot really be compared with the Americans. I do not believe that. But let us see what happens in America. What are the differences within America? I know that America is no more uniform in a sense than Australia is. They are just people anyway. I quote from a report that appeared in Medical World News of 3 May 1976 which is a fairly recent publication. It is a collection of findings from various studies. It states:

Dr Doyle, who published his findings in 19S3, concluded that 39 per cent of the 6248 procedures should not have been done.

If they had not been done there would have been a fairly significant saving I would have thought. The article continued: … the track record for hysterectomies was dismal. Of the 148 procedures reviewed, 64 or 43 per cent, were deemed unjustified . . . Perhaps the most famous comparison of surgical rates was Dr Bunker’s 1970 bombshell study. Not only did he find the rate of surgery in the United States twice that prevailing in England and Wales but he also showed that Americans were three times as likely as their British counterparts to have a cholecystectomy and more than four times as likely to have a haemorrhoidectomy. His diplomatic conclusion: ‘It seems likely that some unnecessary surgery is being performed in the United States’ … In 19S2 the late Dr Paul A. Lembcke . . . documented the incidence of appendectomies in 23 ‘hospital service areas’ … He found a range of from 69 appendectomies per 10 000 persons in one area to 25 per 10 000 persons in another.

I know the argument: ‘Oh, that just shows that the doctors who are not doing the operations are not treating their patients properly. The patients are all dying from burst appendices. ‘ The article continued:

Especially intriguing: He discovered no higher rate of death from appendicitis in the areas with low rates of appendectomy than in areas with high rates of the operation. He concluded that a ‘reasonable inference’ would be that accessibility to doctors and hospitals- not a diseased appendixwas a ‘deciding factor’ in determining appendectomy rates . . . in 1969 . . . From an analysis of Blue Cross records for 196S, Dr Lewis tabulated the number of six kinds of common operations . . .

He found:

The range for tonsillectomies, for example, was from 153 per 10 000 persons to 433 per 10 000. Appendectomies ranged from 16 per 10 000 to 62 per 10 000 . . .

Seeking an explanation . . . Dr Lewis . . . discovered that those regions with the highest incidence of operations had also the highest proportion of physicians (both GPs and surgeons) who did surgery and the highest proportion of hospital beds. Dr Lewis speculated that he might have stumbled on to a medical variation of Parkinson’s Law: Patient admissions for surgery expand to fill beds, operating suites and surgeons ‘ time ‘.

Then we come to another study which I think is relevant to our experience in Australia. I think they all are, but even more so the study of what it is that really prompts excessive surgery. In my view and in the Labor Party’s view the cause is the fee-for-service approach. The article had this to say on this matter:

There’s another type of incidence-variation study: Comparing the surgical rates in pre-paid plans with the rates among comparable fee-for-service groups.

That means patients operated on by salaried doctors compared with fee-for-service doctors. The article continued:

Most such investigations show that HMO-

That means ‘health maintenance organisation’, whose doctors are on salaries- enrollees are operated on a lot less frequently than feeforservice patients. In 1966, for example, it was found that federal employees who opted for prepaid coverage had a surgical rate only 56 per cent of that among employees who chose Blue Cross coverage.

Blue Cross is fee-for-service and the HMOs are salaried doctors. … the rates of surgical admissions among a geographically isolated low-income group in Boston were measured before and after installation of a comprehensive health clinic in their community. Within 2 years of the clinic’s opening, surgical admissions plummeted by some 300 percent.

I should point out that the doctors at the clinic were salaried doctors. The truth is not that Medibank is causing the ruination of this country. The truth is not the medical costs are going up because of Medibank. The truth is that in this country we are suffering from excess medical care, unnecessary surgical intervention, unnecessary medication, because of the feeforservice system.

For those reasons, the Opposition opposes the concept of the levy. We think it should all be done through taxation revenue. We think Medibank should encompass the whole community. Then, with an analysis of statistics such as those I have quoted, we could pick up where wrong treatment, which in my view could lead to unnecessary deaths, is taking place. The Opposition opposes the concept of the levy.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-Is the amendment seconded?

Dr Klugman:

– Yes, Mr Acting Speaker. I reserve my right to speak to the amendment at a later stage.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-The original question was that the Bill be now read a second time. The honourable member for Maribyrnong has moved an amendment that all words after ‘That’ be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The question now is that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question.

Mr BAILLIEU:
La Trobe

-Tonight the House is debating the motion moved by the Government to amend the National Health scheme through the Health Insurance Levy Bill. In this Bill the Government proposes certain amendments to provide for a levy and to clarify certain aspects of the way in which the levy will be applied. The Opposition has moved an amendment to the Bill, thereby seeking to eliminate any levy at all. I think Government members and people listening tonight to the debate could be excused for saying: ‘What on earth will the Australian Labor Party do next in respect of national health care?’ The whole saga of events that have taken place since the proposal was originally put forward have served to confuse, to abuse, to violate the interests of Australian people in respect of health care. I believe that the Bill introduced by the Government is quite logical and quite clear. But tonight the honourable member for Maribyrnong (Dr Cass), has come into the House and, speaking for the Opposition, suddenly moved an amendment to the BUI which in one swoop seeks to totally eliminate a Medibank levy.

I think I could be excused for a moment for looking back and reviewing the history of the attitude of the Australian Labor Party in this Parliament to the levy, whether it be for a national health insurance fund or, more recently, for Medibank. If I could retrace some of the steps, I should point out that when the Labor Government suggested a levy to fund its proposed health insurance scheme it talked of 1.25 per cent of taxable income. Subsequently I believe they made an announcement that the levy would be 1.35 per cent of taxable income. In his 1972 election policy speech at Blacktown in New South Wales the then Leader of the Opposition, Mr E. G. Whitlam, failed to mention the word ‘levy’ when he was putting to the Australian electorate his view of the form national health insurance should take. Not once did he mention the word ‘levy’. He went into that election and many Australians voted for his party. They voted for it in the electorate of La Trobe because they thought they were going to get something free. But in subsequent years when the Labor Party was in Government it changed its tack. It brought in a proposition to introduce a levy on taxable income. Since then the Labor Party has taken a left turn, a right turn, and tonight it has taken an about turn. The Opposition has sent the honourable member for Maribyrnong into this House- at least I think the Opposition has sent him but I am not entirely sure that as a party and an Opposition it has agreed on it- and he has moved an amendment to abolish the Medibank levy. This is even more curious.

Mr Birney:

-To abolish it?

Mr BAILLIEU:

-To abolish it. That is the amendment before the House.

Mr Shipton:

-Did he ask Bob Hawke?

Mr BAILLIEU:

– I do not believe he asked the President of the Australian Labor Party because just a few months ago this Government, when it came to office, set up the Medibank Review Committee. That committee was given certain specific tasks to inquire into health problems generally in this country. Many submissions were made to that Review Committee and it conducted a very exhaustive study. We are grateful to the members of the committee for doing that work. Many submissions were made to the committee. A submission was even made by the Australian Council of Trade Unions. We were reliably told by none other than the President of the ACTU- who is also the President of the Australian Labor Party- in his capacity of wearing both hats as Stiffy and Mo that the proposition that the ACTU put to the Medibank Review Committee represented the view of the Opposition. One could reflect on why the President of the Australian Labor Party put it rather than the Leader of the Australian Labor Party. Well, of course, the Leader was out of the country and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Uren) was out of the country, as were most of the other representatives of that party in this Parliament.

The Opposition left it to the President of the ALP to put the case to the Medibank Review Committee and it was for a levy of 1.6 per cent. That was a few months ago when we set up a review committee specifically to look into the whole situation of Medibank; to review where it was going, to establish whether it was providing a good service and, more particularly, to identify where it was failing to provide an adequate medical service. Subsequently the Leader of the Opposition stood up on 5 August in the Collingwood Town Hall in Melbourne and criticised the Government’s proposal for a 2.5 per cent levy for Medibank. He said that all that was required was a 1.8 per cent levy.

Mr Lusher:

– Is that the meeting attended by 10 people?

Mr BAILLIEU:

– No, there were 12 people present.

Mr Lusher:

– Twelve?

Mr BAILLIEU:

– Yes, there were 6 members from the parliamentary Australian Labor Party and 6 others. For a meeting attended by only 12 people it got a lot of publicity. What it said was that the only requirement was a 1.8 per cent levy in order to fund Medibank.

Mr Hodges:

– Was that across the board?

Mr BAILLIEU:

– That was across the board, and what is more, it did not include a ceiling. That means that, irrespective of income- it does not matter whether a person is on the minimum wage or on the salary of a member of Parliament -

Mr Hodges:

– Including the $4,000-a-year income earners?

Mr BAILLIEU:

– Whatever it included it was to be 1.8 per cent right across the board with no ceiling, because the Australian Labor Party took the view that Medibank, as a government service, provided yet another opportunity to redistribute income. That was the point. The Labor Party wanted to use not only the income tax formulas, the traditional way of redistributing income, but also a government service, Medibank, as another mechanism by which to redistribute income. If one takes that view to its logical extension one recognises -

Dr Cass:

– Do you really believe all this?

Mr BAILLIEU:

– As the honourable member for Maribyrnong recognised, when I pointed it out to him, that the Australian Labor Party is in fact proposing that any government service which is provided should be used as an additional mechanism by which to redistribute income. Let us take the example of buying a rail ticket in the morning to take a trip, say, into the city. Those who earn $20,000 a year taxable income should under Labor’s proposal pay more than those who earn $10,000 a year taxable income. That is a logical extension of the argument, is it not? That is the view of the Australian Labor Party, the Opposition in this Parliament. It would seek to use every government service that is provided- it will think up a few more if it can- as a means by which to redistribute income. It is quite incredible. That is the view that Opposition members put. That is the thin edge of the wedge which the Leader of the Australian Labor Party put. Notwithstanding the interjections of the honourable member for Grayndler (Mr Antony Whitlam), the honourable member for Werriwa (Mr E. G. Whitlam) is still Leader of the Australian Labor Party in this Parliament. He specified just a month and a few days ago that his Party’s policy was to impose a 1.8 per cent levy. But the honourable member for Maribyrnong has moved in the Parliament tonight an amendment to the effect that there should be no levy to fund Medibank.

Mr Klugman:

– As the position is at present.

The ACTING SPEAKER-Order! The honourable member for Prospect and the honourable member for Grayndler, according to my list of speakers, are due to take part in the debate next. I suggest that they keep their remarks until such time as they do speak.

Mr BAILLIEU:

– That is right; they are listed to speak next. What is intriguing this Parliament tonight is how on earth they are going to explain to the House and to those people listening to the broadcast of the proceedings tonight that a little over a month ago their Leader, the top man in their Party in this Parliament -

Mr Shipton:

-Which one?

Mr BAILLIEU:

– The present one.

Mr Shipton:

– In the Parliament or outside the Parliament?

Mr BAILLIEU:

– No, the present one. When speaking on behalf of his Party he committed his Party to a policy position; he specified that there would be a levy of 1.8 per cent. Tonight the honourable member for Maribyrnong has suggested in this House that the new position of the Australian Labor Party is that there should be no Medibank levy.

Mr Birney:

– What is the position?

Mr BAILLIEU:

-I just wonder what on earth they are going to suggest next. Of course, what the Opposition has in fact done in moving its amendment is to reinforce yet again the impression that it has no single understanding of what it is all about. The Opposition in this Parliament still thinks that there is no limit on what a government can spend. We saw that in the last 3 years in which the Labor Party was in government it spent $6000m more than it raised. This required it to go seeking loans in the bazaars of the Middle East to try to balance its accounts. The honourable member for Prospect (Dr Klugman) who is singing like a canary tonight, he was there in amongst it too. The Labor Party was dodging the Loan Council, dodging every convention that ever existed in order to try to scrape up some money, but at that time it still spent $6000m more than it was able to raise. And it still raised income tax by 300 per cent.

Tonight the honourable member for Maribyrnong (Dr Cass) comes into this Parliament and says: ‘There is no need for a levy. We should pay for Medibank out of tax.’ What is he saying? He is saying that notwithstanding the 300 per cent increase of taxation Labor brought about in 3 years he would put it up again. He will necessarily increase the income tax scales yet again. I put it to the House: Does anybody seriously think that Australians will be prepared to pay yet more income tax in order to fund Medibank? A constituent came into my office and told me that last year he got a $343 increase in pension but has another $106 to pay in tax. In fact, according to the Labor tax scale which the honourable member for Maribyrnong is effectively saying will need to be increased, 40 per cent of that pension rise goes in income tax. What an extraordinary proposition to put to the House. The honourable member for Maribyrnong, who himself is a doctor and understands this proposition, is prepared to come in here on behalf of the Opposition and suggest there should be a further increase.

Mr Shipton:

– He knows not what he does.

Mr BAILLIEU:

– It is extraordinary. I have to say, following the comment of the honourable member for Higgins (Mr Shipton) that I do not believe Labor Party members know what they have done tonight In the Bill the Government has proposed there are some very important measures. I will take the few minutes left to me to explain to the House exactly what those measures are. They are quite logical, they are quite clear, they are based on fact and they are based on principle. That is the way the Fraser Government operates. First of all there will be a ceiling on what taxpayers will need to provide in order to meet their Medibank obligation. No longer will there be the suggestion that the Medibank levy will be used as a means to redistribute income. Taxpayers, particularly the higher taxpayers, are already funding the expenses of patients under Medibank by five to one. Altogether the levy will raise something like $87Sm. In fact, Federal expenditure on health will be considerably in excess of $3,000m. The levy raises something like 20 per cent of the expenditure. That is clear. I make another important point which I would like to stress because the Opposition has sought time and time again to confuse, to discredit and to mislead- particularly to mislead pensioners, people who are vulnerable and people who were vulnerable under the Labor Government’s 17 per cent inflation rate which wrecked the expectations and the wellbeing of thousands and thousands of Australians. I can reassure 75 per cent of pensioners by saying that those who hold the pensioner medical service card will not pay the Medibank levy. How many times have I read and how many times have I heard representatives of the Australian Labor Party, including the President of the Australian Labor Party trying to put fear into pensioners by saying that they will all be vulnerable and that they will all have to pay a Medibank levy? This is particularly evident when I have pensioner constituents at La Trobe coming into my office and telling me that 40 per cent of their pension increase is going in income tax. What hypocrisy it is for the Opposition now to come before the Parliament and suggest that the Medibank levy be eliminated! What hypocrisy it is for them to put such a proposition to the Parliament at this stage in view of the fact that they were the architects of a Medibank levy, although they went to an election in 1972 with not one mention of the word ‘levy’. I reject this amendment and I commend the Bill to the House.

Dr KLUGMAN:
Prospect

-I think it is an insult to this House and to the people of Australia that the honourable member for La Trobe (Mr Baillieu) was chosen to speak and to try to explain the measure that this Government is introducing. He knows nothing about it. If that is the best explanation that the Government can put up for the introduction of a Medibank levy, it is extremely poor. The honourable member for La Trobe is a gentleman whom many would refer to as a smart little bugger.

Mr Shipton:

– I raise a point of order, Mr Acting Speaker.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Higgins will resume his seat. I suggest that the honourable member for Prospect should withdraw that phrase.

Dr KLUGMAN:

– I would refer to him as a smart young man who all his life has lived on his father’s American Express and Diners’ Club cards. All his life he has lived off his father’s income. He has never done a bit of work and does not understand anything about it.

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– I raise a point of order, Mr Acting Speaker. The honourable member did not withdraw that which you requested him to withdraw. He simply rephrased it without withdrawing his original words. He is being that smart little b… that he is talking about.

Dr KLUGMAN:

– I called him that, but I withdraw it if that is appropriate. I withdraw the reference to his being a smart little bugger.

Mr William McMahon:
LOWE, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– On a point of order, Mr Acting Speaker, the honourable member has to withdraw his remark unconditionally and not in a sense of protest. If anyone ought to protest we should do so against the unbelievable and insulting language he has used in this House tonight.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-Order! I requested the honourable member for Prospect to withdraw the remark he made. I thought he had withdrawn it.

Mr William McMahon:
LOWE, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– He did not.

Dr KLUGMAN:

– I did and I shall do so again. I refer to him as a smart young man who all his life has lived on his father’s American Express and Diners’ Club cards. He has never done anything else.

Mr Baillieu:

– I raise a point of order, Mr Acting Speaker. When a remark like that made by the honourable member for Prospect a moment ago or the remark preceding it comes from a man of his calibre, I am tempted to receive it as a compliment. However, what he says is offensive. I take exception to it. It is blatantly untrue. I ask, Mr Acting Speaker, that you give the courtesy of the Chair to all honourable members and, in this case, to myself by having the honourable member for Prospect withdraw his remark as a lie, as deceptive and miserable but quite typical of remarks made by him.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-Order! In the normal course of events a line is drawn in relation to remarks that are offensive to an individual. I suggest to the honourable member for Prospect that whilst the remarks that he made with regard to the honourable member for La Trobe were not unparliamentary in the sense that they required a ruling from the Chair, they are not conducive to assisting in any way the debate before this House. In the circumstances I suggest that the honourable member for Prospect should withdraw the remark and continue his remarks in relation to the legislation.

Dr KLUGMAN:

– I shall continue with my remarks on the legislation, Mr Acting Speaker.

Mr Baillieu:
Mr William McMahon:
LOWE, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– Withdraw!

Dr KLUGMAN:

– The Acting Speaker indicated that there was no need for withdrawal; therefore I would consider it hypocritical to withdraw the remark. The honourable member for La Trobe has no idea about the legislation that has been introduced. He refers to a Medibank levy.

Mr Shipton:

– I raise a point of order, Mr Acting Speaker. I seek your guidance. The honourable member for Prospect has ignored your ruling which suggested that he should withdraw his remark.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

– I have said that in the circumstances the Chair has no power to order a withdrawal of the remarks.

Mr Birney:
Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

– It was suggested that in the normal course of events when remarks such as those that have been made are objected to as being offensive the honourable member might be asked to withdraw them. In view of the statement by the honourable member for Prospect the Chair has no power to enforce a withdrawal. I have only suggested to the honourable member for Prospect that he withdraw. It is in the hands of the honourable member.

Dr KLUGMAN:

-The honourable member for La Trobe referred to a levy which will raise $800m. If the honourable member looks at the Budget Papers he will see that the levy will raise $2 50m.

Mr Lusher:

– I raise a point of order. I draw attention to Standing Order 75 which says:

No Member may use offensive words against either House of the Parliament or any Member thereof . . .

I point out that it has been a practice in the House that when a member regards words used by another member to be offensive the member who has offended normally withdraws. I think the words uttered by the honourable member for Prospect were deliberately provocative and deliberately offensive and he should in the circumstances be asked to withdraw.

Dr KLUGMAN:

-I am convinced by the point of order and I withdraw. The honourable member for La Trobe referred, as I said a minute ago, to $800m being raised by the Medibank levy. I can see the Right honourable member for Lowe (Mr William McMahon) sitting in the chamber. He is terribly good on figures. The last time I heard him interviewed on behalf of the Liberal Party was on station 2UE in Sydney. He referred to the fact that the reason the United States could do certain things we could not do was because after all it had a population of 130 million.

Mr William McMahon:
LOWE, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– I raise a point of order. The suggestion is a lie. I have never been on 2UE and made a statement in any way remotely associated with that subject. I think the gentleman needs psychiatric attention.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-Order! The Right honourable member for Lowe will resume his seat. In view of the situation in this House at the moment I suggest that honourable members might give consideration to the time allowed for the debate. It is impossible for the Chair to know whether anybody appeared on a television or radio program. If it is a matter of misrepresentation the Right honourable member for Lowe may make a personal explanation at the conclusion of the speech of the honourable member for Prospect.

Dr KLUGMAN:

-The Budget Papers this year show that $208m will be collected under the levy from individual income taxpayers who are referred to as the pay-as-you-earn people and $42m from those who are not paying payasyouearn tax.

Mr Gillard:

– Have a look at page 28.

Dr KLUGMAN:

-That is a total of $250m. The rest of the saving is from people who leave Medibank. I am sorry, but if the honourable member cannot follow it he should have another look at the Budget Papers. The actual levy will raise that amount. Let us look at the proposition the Labor Party is putting up. Our amendment is that the Labor Party is of the opinion that Medibank should continue to be funded out of general revenue. Government supporters have made great play of an allegation that this Government has reduced taxation. What in fact has happened in the .current Budget? Payasyouearn taxpayers-that is, all those people who are employees, wage earners, salary earnershave to pay another $ 1,770m in tax this year, an increase of 24.7 per cent compared with an increase last year of $ 1,000m. Everybody screamed when the Hayden Budget was brought down because there was an increase of tax of $ 1,000m but this year the increase is $ 1,770m. That relates only to pay-as-you-earn taxation. It has been increased by 24.7 per cent. That includes $208m estimated to be collected for Medibank for 9 months of the current financial year.

In addition to the $ 1770m which people will lose in extra taxation there will, of course, be the amount that people who leave Medibank and contract out of paying the levy will have to pay. They will have to pay for something they now get for nothing. The people paid $7,000m in income tax last year. This year they will have to pay $8, 775m. I invite honourable members to look at the Budget papers. These people will pay $ 1, 775m more. Let us be quite clear about this. In addition to that, the people who decide to subscribe to private insurance of one kind or another, for either intermediate or private cover, have to pay significantly more- twice as much as they used to pay. This amount will probably increase. I am not opposed to that concept. I think that people who want to be covered for intermediate or private ward treatment ought to pay for it. I completely support that Government proposition. My only objection to the legislation before the House at present is the basic one concerning the levy. I suggest that people follow the advertisements for Medibank which this Government has put out. The advertisement which I have here appeared in the Age on 30 August 1976. It is headed:

Do nothing and Medibank still works for you. Here’s how:

After 1 October, if you choose to do nothing you’ll automatically be covered by Medibank. That’s the most economical health insurance available in Australia today.

page 1168

HOW MUCH COVER

You are covered for at least 85 per cent of your doctor’s schedule fee, if you are treated at home or at his surgery. Free accommodation and treatment in a public hospital. And an eye test benefit from optometrists.

Later on the advertisement states:

Remember. To receive this cover you don’t have to do a thing. You 11 be covered automatically from 1 October, and the payments will be deducted each week from your pay packet.

If this is all you want you get it automatically. But don’t forget to cancel any other health insurance you may have.

That is the important point. I assure the honourable member for Bendigo (Mr Bourchier), the Government Whip, who I see twiddling his thumbs, that I am finishing off.

Dr KLUGMAN:

-That is perfectly all right. The important point is to cancel one’s other health insurance, as the Medibank advertisement to which I have referred indicates. I will refer very quickly to 2 complications. One is the proposition that people who at present cover themselves with any of the private funds will be considered to be covered unless they actually take steps to cancel that insurance. This will mean that lots of people will continue paying for it when they do not really intend to do so. If, at present, a person is paying in the order of $ 1.80 a week to be covered for intermediate benefits I think it is wrong that the insurance company will automatically assume that he still wants to take the cover even though it will cost approximately twice as much. I therefore urge people to look carefully at what will happen.

Finally, I refer to the point that was raised in the House today during question time. I have forgotten who asked the question but the Treasurer (Mr Lynch) said that he was looking into it or that the Department of Social Services was looking into it. It concerns the question of working wives. The difficulty is that people will have to pay the maximum levy of $300 a year for a family unit if their taxable income reaches $12,000. In a way it seems easy to say that if the husband is paying the Medibank levy the wife should not be paying it. That is so if our wives are working because we are earning more than $12,000 a year. In other cases we do not know how much the wife should be paying towards the health insurance levy. But the net result, unless the Taxation Office has come up with some brilliant suggestion, will be either that people will owe money at the end of the year in order to come up to the $300 which is proposed as the levy or they will have overpaid significantly as a family unit before the end of the year and will have vastly exceeded the $300 levy. If the husband has a taxable income of $9,000 a year and the wife has a taxable income of $7,000 a year, they will have paid much more than their $300 if they are both paying the proposed 2.5 per cent levy.

I reiterate the important point so far as this issue is concerned. As the Government has the numbers in both Houses, obviously it will be forcing through this legislation. It will be amending the position as it is at present. One would have thought from the speech of the honourable member for La Trobe (Mr Baillieu) that there was a levy existing at the present time and that we are trying to abolish it. Of course, the opposite is the case. There is no levy at present and the Government is introducing a levy which will cost nearly everybody in this country a large amount of money as from 1 October 1976.

Mr LUSHER:
Hume

-The Health Insurance Levy Assessment Bill (No. 2) and the Health Insurance Levy Bill (No. 2) deal with the financing of health care services for this nation. The proposals contained in them are widely accepted by the Australian community and by the majority of honourable members in this House. The necessity to use a levy to finance Medibank was recognised by the originators of this scheme, Deeble and Scotton. The honourable member for Oxley (Mr Hayden) and the former Australian Labor Party Government also recognised the necessity of applying a levy to fund Medibank. In fact, the implementation of a levy is not an area of political confrontation or philosophical conflict at all, despite the amendment that has been moved by the Opposition quite hypocritically tonight. The only possible area in which opinions may differ is in the amount of the levy itself.

We can no longer accept the tax pool concept of funding Medibank. We do not have a bottomless pit from which to draw finance forever and a day. The open-ended approach to financing encourages abuse and over-use and I will dwell further on this later. To have no limits on financing is, to say the least, not conducive to an efficient economical approach to the budgeting of this nation’s accounts. To quote my colleague, the Minister for Health (Mr Hunt), he recently said:

Medibank Mark I 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 free concept of health care, we must all acknowledge, is a sham. It was never free. There are no free lunches. Surely each honourable member here accepts the premise that it is essential to place limits on expenditure. This applies not only to health care but also to all government expenditure. This is no less true of government than for any private individual. The Government is no more blessed with some infinite stream of gold sovereigns than is the ordinary worker- the average citizen. We, the legislators of this country, hold a solemn responsibility to govern wisely and far-sightedly the use of the public purse. We are entrusted with the conscientious control of the nation’s coffers for the Australian family, just as any responsible parent conscientiously administers the family budget. The implementation of a levy to fund Medibank reintroduces responsibility into the realm of universal health care. Without such a basic levy as is proposed in the Bills, the administration of the health care program would steadily eat more and more into the available funds.

As I mentioned in my opening remarks, the open-ended approach of Labor to financing universal health care lends itself to abuse and overuse. All honourable members realise what would happen if, for example, mechanical services were without direct charge and without limits. Garages would be packed night and day with motorists and their vehicles. The most minor of faults would warrant a quick trip to the garage. The so-called service stations would no longer be able to provide a valid service to any client and the system would soon collapse. It has become increasingly obvious that the service stations of public health care have been similarly affected. The system of universal health care, under the bottomless pit funding system of Labor, has been abused and over-used. Let me remind honourable members of the words of the Minister for Health on 1 8 August this year. When speaking in reply to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr E. G. Whitlam), he said:

The Medibank Review Committe was established 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.

I am sure that each member of the House is aware of abuses of pathology services or of radiology services and of the proliferation of other services brought about by the tax pool concept formerly adopted by the present Opposition. We must establish our priorities in government spending and within the health care system. We must impose controls on outlays, by the adoption of firm, definite and realistic limits on health care funding. In so doing we are encouraging disciplined administration, to restore economy and efficiency in overall health care. We are encouraging discipline in those who administer health care services.

It is vital that health care costs be an identifiable part of the nation’s accounts. We must have no disappearing dollars. Health care must be seen as an identifiable cost unit, related directly to the income tax dollar and limited by inbuilt safeguards protecting both the public purse and the incomes of those it serves. Without this how can the community be expected to respect the system of universal health care or to have confidence in it? Without identifiable costing we invite the sorts of abuses which I outlined a moment ago. We must create economic efficiency in the health care scheme, not at the cost of the quality of the service. The levy system of funding will achieve these ends.

It is important that it be understood that the Medibank basic 2.5 per cent is not a tax. This levy is a fee, like any other, for a professional service. The Bill establishes that the levy may not be claimed as a deduction in its own right. This is not a further tax, as some would have us believe. It is a professional service fee, charged through the public account. In a full year the levy will raise $403m of a total expected Medibank cost of $ 1,540m. The original levy proposed by the honourable member for Oxley would have had to raise $770m, just to finance half the Medibank cost. It becomes obvious that the implementation of a levy is essential to control cost explosions in the health care scheme. The effect of this Bill does not change the original concept. Universal health insurance remains. All persons will remain covered automatically for full medical care and standard ward treatment in hospital. All Australian residents are entitled to these benefits, unless voluntarily choosing to take out private cover.

This Bill ensures the continuance of specialised, concessional health care services for pensioners, repatriation beneficiaries and Service personnel. In particular, pensioners dependent on their pensions and those on the lowest incomes will pay no levy. Aged pensioners whose only income is the pension do not pay the levy. Pensioners entitled to pensioner health benefits do not pay the levy. Persons whose taxable income is below $2,604 do not pay the levy. Persons who receive a single parent rebate and whose taxable income is below $3,790 do not pay the levy. Persons who receive a spouse’s rebate and whose taxable income is below $4,299 do not pay the levy.

Mr Yates:

-That is correct.

Mr LUSHER:

-I am pleased that at least the honourable member for Holt understands the scheme, which is something that cannot be said for honourable members opposite. It can readily be seen from these details that the special position of people in these groups is protected by the provisions of this Bill.

An authority is set up by the Bill to regulate exemptions from the payment of the Medibank levy by pensioners. This ensures that that group of people, with their particular difficulties, is in no way disadvantaged by the passage of this levy Bill. Likewise, the position of repatriation beneficiaries is maintained and protected. The basic principle regarding the application of the levy to this group is this: The entitlements of any repatriation beneficiaries who are currently entitled or who are still completely entitled to medical and hospital services under the repatriation scheme are in no way diminished by the provisions of this Bill. Repatriation beneficiaries with full entitlement include the following groups of people: Disability pensioners at or above the 100 per cent general rate; service pensioners qualifying for fringe benefits; ex-prisoners of war; veterans of the Boer War and World War I; and widows, children and other dependants of those whose deaths are service related, or of totally and permanently incapacitated deceased.

All these people are eligible for full entitlement under repatriation. If such full entitlement beneficiaries have dependants who are also repatriation beneficiaries or are privately insured, they pay no levy- they are totally exempt. At the same time, they still receive the specialised concessional treatment to which they are accustomed. So they should, if such beneficiaries with full repatriation entitlement have dependants who are not privately insured or who are not also repatriation beneficiaries, only half the levy is paid and the concessional treatment still applies. Veterans receiving treatment under repatriation for specific disabilities will still receive this treatment as has always been their due. Like any other citizen, they will have to make decisions on basic Medibank levy or private health cover to make provision for costs of their nonspecific disabilities.

In addition to maintaining and protecting the position of specialised care of these groups, this Bill makes particular provision for a ceiling on the basic Medibank levy payment. The system of a ceiling, rather than a premium has a distinct advantage to the taxpayer. Previously a premium type payment necessitated commitment at the beginning of the year when income for that year was an indefinite factor. The ceiling payment of $300 or $150 for a person with no dependants provides a definite accountable item for the householder’s budget- an item of identifiable cost, related directly to income but limited clearly by legislation to a known maximum. The levy is to be collected in the same form as income tax- a straightforward, direct and practical method, understood by all. In fact, the practical benefits of this financing system are easily evident and certainly need no further elaboration.

One of the things I find interesting about this Medibank debate is the great change of heart which the Opposition has undergone. The Treasurer (Mr Lynch) announced the Medibank changes on 20 May and the Minister for Health introduced the Bills that same evening. On 26 and 27 May there was extensive debate on the

Bills. Only one gag was applied. That gag was the cause of the only division in the whole debate. The honourable members for Oxley, Prospect (Dr Klugman), Maribyrnong (Dr Cass), Corio (Mr Scholes), Hawker (Mr Jacobi) and even Chifley (Mr Armitage) all spoke in the debate. Not one amendment was proposed. In fact the only amendments put forward were from the Minister for Health himself. The Opposition let the legislation through with hardly a whimper. Then the power brokers moved in. The industrial wing of the Australian Labor Party decided that the parliamentary wing had let the side down. We experienced the incredible situation in which, due to the total lack of parliamentary opposition, the argument was taken outside. The militants called for a national strike which occurred in a half-hearted fashion and is now part of Australia’s industrial political history.

After the strike and the muscle-flexing exercises of the industrial wing, the parliamentary wing came back for the Budget session determined to reassert its position in the Labor movement. Events tonight and last night are the result of that. The parliamentary Opposition, having been shown up so glaringly by their union comrades, tried to give legs to the Medibank issue. But the issue is dead. Australians accept the need for the change and the responsibility and the commonsense behind the moves. I commend the Bills to the House and reject the amendment.

Mr Antony Whitlam:
GRAYNDLER, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– This is a wake and I am glad that so many members of the Liberal Party and the National Country Party have seen fit to come. The Government has put up a top flight team of speakers- the honourable member for La Trobe (Mr Baillieu) and the honourable member for Hume (Mr Lusher). Against that we put up 2 members of this House who are among the few people who have taken a consistently intelligent interest in matters relating to health insurance. They are two of the people who have had a chance of getting some grasp of the complex system this Government is trying to inflict on the Austalian people.

Medibank was a simple concept. It was a concept which attracted every one of the members opposite at the last general election. One or two of the members opposite have expressed reservations about Medibank during this debate. The honourable member for Petrie (Mr Hodges) remarked that amongst other things, Medibank mollycoddled people and was a monster that got out of control. Then last night during the debate on the Health Insurance Commission Amendment Bill (No. 2) the honourable member for

Griffith (Mr Donald Cameron) came out of his closet and said that he had never favoured Medibank. I. dare say that that was a sentiment that he expressed in very soft tones around his constituency at the last election.

The present Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser)- then the installed Prime Minister- said on behalf of both of those parties on 8 December:

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

As recently as 3 February this year the Prime Minister said:

You’ve 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.

The concept of Medibank is terribly important. It is a concept that was acknowledged in debates here by the Minister for Health (Mr Hunt). Speaking last week on the Health Insurance Amendment Bill (No. 2) in his farewell tribute to the staff of the Health Insurance Commission he said:

I wish to pay tribute to the staff for the significant part it has played in the success of the Medibank program.

He was not talking about the operations of some statutory corporation in the perfunctory manner of a chief executive or a chairman of a company. He was talking about their commitment to a concept. Medibank was a simple, efficient health insurance scheme. It was a scheme for which the majority of the people voted in the elections in 1969, 1972, 1974 and, although they were gulled, in 1975.

Last year and in the years before that the Liberal and Country Party Opposition fought against the scheme from the beginning, in hand with the Australian Medical Association, the private health funds and the intricate web of interests which stood to benefit from the more than one million Australians remaining uncovered for medical and hospital treatment and from the continuance of more than 200 wasteful, duplicative and hopelessly inefficient health insurance funds. Those funds represent the interests of the institutions which use the money siphoned off into reserves for investment purposes, the well fed bureaucracies which run them and the doctors whose interests were prized by the old system over the patients ‘ interests.

Medibank was the first attempt by an Australian Government to rationalise the insurance system covering health care delivery. It was carefully designed, it was simple, it was understood by people. It benefited many people in its. short life. The Liberals gave it less than a year. The Government has caved in to AMA pressure and pressure by the private funds, and has used the health insurance program to offload a substantial ‘apparent’ amount in the deficit by destroying the original and only meaningful Medibank concept, forcing half of Australia back into the greedy arms of the private health empire. It should be understood very clearly that the Government’s motivation is purely a shabby, sideshow attempt to make it appear as if it is reducing the cost of health insurance to the Government. It is not. It is plunging the health insurance business into chaos and uncertainty and is forcing up the total cost of health care in Australia simply so that at the next election the Government can say that it has reduced the deficit by so much. It should be understood that the Government, in breaking its election undertaking last November not to meddle with Medibank, is dismantling Medibank, not to make health insurance more efficient but so that it can fiddle the national accounts around a little, move some figures sideways and some other figures out altogether, and make it look as if it has saved Australia a lot of money by handing health insurance substantially back to the discredited private funds. The reality is that the Government is adding to the total cost of health care in Australia because the administrative nightmares, duplications and extra-procedural work load will mean substantially increased costs.

A major advantage of Medibank is its inherent administrative efficiency. This resulted from the fact that there are no contributions to collect from members and from the highly computerised processing of claims, including the preparation of benefit cheques. A high proportion of the staff of organisations registered under the National Health Act have been involved in the collection and processing of contributions and the maintenance of membership lists. Furthermore, the scale of operations in each of these registered organisations has not been large enough to warrant automation of the claims assessment procedure. An assessor working in the Medibank system is able to process about 3 times as many claims per day as his or her counterpart in a registered health insurance organisation because most of the calculations, checking and editing procedures are computerised.

It should be borne in mind that the Health Insurance Commission’s centralised computer system in Canberra handles all medical claims at present and will simply be left with excess capacity when a high proportion of claims reverts to the registered benefits funds. Nor are there likely to be any savings in the numbers of assessing administrative staff of the Health Insurance Commission since provision will need to be made for, inter alia, the checking of claims to ensure that claimants are not covered by registered medical benefits funds. The difficulties of determining at any time whether a person is eligible for benefits payable by the Commission under the Health Insurance Act or is covered by a medical benefits fund are accentuated by the fact that a contributor to such a fund may commence or let lapse his or her membership at any time during the financial year.

The Prime Minister and the parties which stand behind him in this chamber conducted a campaign of vilification against Medibank last year to try to create an atmosphere of chaos and confusion and to give Medibank and reputation of being inefficient and open to massive abuse by doctors and patients. In opposition and in government the Minister for Health and the Prime Minister have delivered not one shred of evidence that the abuse they so often talked about actually existed anywhere but in their fevered imaginations. Of more than 17 000 practising doctors in Australia only one has been prosecuted to date for abusing the Medibank system. Honourable members opposite will be interested to learn what one of their conservative newspaper supporters had to say about their dismantling of Medibank. The editorial contained in the Age of 29 July 1976 said:

The Federal Government has effectively destroyed the concept of one national health insurance scheme. In so doing it concocted a muddle which in the emotive words of ‘costs’, ‘competition’ and ‘choice’ became a rhetorical substitute for the creation of a fair and economical system of health care. Even now, more than half the population cannot judge whether it will be more advantageous for them to insure with Medibank ‘s Private fund or with one of the commercial funds . . . . . . more than half the population will be delivered into more expensive hospital and medical care. It may well be that most higher income earners would prefer this option anyway, but the Government has given private doctors and hospitals- as distinct from salaried or sessionally paid doctors and public hospitals- a guaranteed market consisting of the more affluent half of the population.

The main excuse given for the imposition of this confusing and complex system is that it would restrain the escalating costs of health care. It will do little or nothing of the sort …. the supposedly anti-inflationary motive behind the Medibank changes is largely illusory. The dubious benefits of competition and choice between Medibank and the private funds are likely to be more than offset by the higher administrative costs of this needlessly fragmented system …. the Government has increased the total cost on the community.

The health insurance mishmash of the Prime Minister is a monstrosity in concept and by design. The details of it are only shakily and imprecisely grasped by honourable members on the Government benches. The scheme is socially divisive. It is inefficient. It will increase the cost of health care in Australia and it will have a disastrously inflationary effect on the December consumer price index. The scheme has caused needless chaos and uncertainty amongst Australians. The ordinary tax payer did not really know the extent of the cost of the scheme until now, as he contemplates the cost which he will be charged after October this year. Bulk billing, one of the mainstays of the Medibank scheme, has been put in grave jeopardy by permitting medical practitioners to charge patients the difference between the amount recoverable and the standard fee charged. The number of beds available in private hospitals is grossly exaggerated by private funds in an attempt to induce people to take insurance which they do not need and which many people cannot afford.

Hardly a day goes by when both the Minister for Health and the Prime Minister do not change their minds about some aspect of their new monstrosity. They have wasted hundreds of thousands of dollars of taxpayers’ money on printing pamphlets which immediately become obsolete. When in opposition they criticised the Labor Government’s expenditure of some $750,000 in publicising the Medibank program. Now that they have had to spend millions of dollars over and over again to publicise their frequently changing systems of health insurance, they cry poor. Medimuddle, brought to us by the Prime Minister and the Minister for Health, is as easy as one, two three, provided we have a ton of perseverance and a higher degree in pure and applied mathematics. Both the Minister for Health and the Prime Minister have displayed a lack of understanding of what is involved with Medibank and with the operation of national health insurance schemes. This has horrified officers in their departments who have been trying to make this monstrosity work. Members of the Medibank Review Committee have been defamed daily.

Mr Carige:

- Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. I am quite sure that the honourable member is not addressing himself to the 2 Bills as he ought to be. Last night, during a debate on similar Bills -

Mr Hodgman:

– He is reading the same speech.

Mr Carige:

– He is virtually reading the same speech I read last night. Last night honourable members opposite took points of order on me because they said I was speaking about the wrong Bills. Tonight those honourable members are speaking on the Bills about which I spoke last night. Therefore they must be out of order.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Dr Jenkins)Because I was not present last night I cannot judge which Bills the honourable member was speaking on. So far the honourable member for Grayndler has not transgressed.

Mr Antony Whitlam:
GRAYNDLER, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am speaking on the Health Insurance Levy Assessment Bill (No. 2) and the Health Insurance Levy Bill (No. 2). I am explaining their purpose. That might have escaped the attention of the honourable member for Capricornia (Mr Carige). Members of the Medibank Review Committee have been defamed daily in this House when their names have been called in aid of this monstrosity. Reference has been made to a report which they never prepared, which never existed, which has never been tabled in the House and which has never been made available. Their reputations have been shot to pieces because it has been represented in this House by honourable members on the Government side consistently that those Medibank Review Committee members support this mishmash. We have never seen that report.

During the Committee stage we will get to the very imprecise procedures of collection upon which this Bill is posited. Meanwhile, it only remains to point out that the legislative drafters have instituted a prize called the Robinson Prize which relates to this bad penny which keeps coming back. Every honourable member on the Government side has a red face. They hoped that the issue would be out of the way last June. It was not supposed to come up again. It was supposed to be over. It was a most inept job of parliamentary drafting because it was a most inept thinking process. That was absolutely inevitable. But we will get to that matter in the Committee stage. I say to honourable members: Stick around for instalment No. 2.

Mr SHIPTON:
Higgins

-The legislation before the House tonight shows the Government’s concern for the people of Australia. It shows the Government’s particular concern for pensioners and those in the community who are less well off. Before explaining those points, I would like to refer to some statements that the honourable member for Maribyrnong (Dr Cass) made earlier tonight. I believe that some of the statements that he made were completely irresponsible. He said that it does not matter how much Medibank costs. He said that it does not matter how much health care costs. He said that the cost is irrelevant. He said that it can cost $5,000m but that does not matter. He regards it as just a transfer of funds, as just a money game. His words are an indictment of the Opposition for its attitude towards this legislation. They are negligent and irresponsible remarks.

Dr Cass:

– I raise a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I think that is a rather gross distortion of my comments. The sum of money was not relevant to the point about how it is raised and I object to -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Maribyrnong is entitled to raise a point of order but not to address the House. If he feels that he has been misrepresented there is a procedure that he can follow to redress the situation.

Dr Cass:

– The honourable member for Higgins has misrepresented me.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– But the honourable member for Maribyrnong cannot follow that procedure at this stage.

Mr SHIPTON:

-I thank you for your protection, Mr Deputy Speaker. If you read Hansard in the morning I believe that you will find that I have not misrepresented the position. The honourable member for Maribyrnong said that it was irrelevant how much Medibank costs. That is what he said. It shows the complete and utter irresponsibility of the Opposition and the honourable member for Maribyrnong, who is now trying to back down. The honourable member for La Trobe (Mr Baillieu) pointed out earlier this evening how the honourable member for Maribyrnong did not know where he was going and what he was doing. I believe that his attitude tonight completely shows that. We care about health care. We care about getting health care to the people and we believe in acting responsibly with the taxpayer’s money. Those are 2 things that we are doing. We are containing the cost of Medibank. We believe that there can be productivity in relation to Medibank. The legislation that was debated last night in relation to pathological services showed that one can still have responsible and proper health care and contain costs. It is not an argument about economics. We care about the people. The Opposition has given us hairy socialism with its talk about transfer payments and administration no matter how much it all costs. We are concerned about the people. I am reminded today of the victory that the old boys had last night in getting Mr Hawke off the course. I congratulate the members of Dad ‘s Army on their great victory. At the start of question time this morning they were sitting in their places like purring pussy cats.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I raise a point of order. I ask you, Mr Deputy Speaker, whether the future of the President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions has anything to do with the legislation before the House. I submit to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, that the comments that are being made are completely irrelevant and that the honourable member for Higgins ought to be discouraged from continuing in the current vein.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! It is the practice of the House to allow passing references of this nature to be made. I can assure the honourable member for Hughes that if the honourable member for Higgins persists I will call him to order. I call the honourable member for Higgins to speak on the Bill.

Mr SHIPTON:

– I thank you again for your protection, Mr Deputy Speaker. Reference was made by the honourable member for Hughes to the President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions. I was congratulating his parliamentary colleagues for rejecting him. What he says is important and what the honourable member for Hughes said is totally incorrect. The President of the ACTU- the acting de facto Leader of the Opposition during the parliamentary recessbrought out the only opposition to the imposition of our levy. The only opposition for 3 months to the legislation that we are talking about tonight was initiated by the President of the ACTU. May I say that it was pretty lousy opposition. Did honourable members ever see the ACTU’s proposals in writing? One letter was published in the newspapers concerning the ACTU’s proposals. Never were they put down on paper. I would like to speak to the position of the ACTU. It did not care about people, because under its proposals every 2-income family would have paid more. Every family in which the husband and wife worked would have been worse off- and that includes many trade unionists whom the ACTU represents. What the ACTU was saying on Medibank is certainly relevant.

Mr Baillieu:

– It was speaking for the Labor Party.

Mr SHIPTON:

-It certainly was speaking for the Labor Party, and what a lousy job it did. The

ACTU said there would be no ceiling because the rich should pay more. That, too, is a false argument, because our argument is about delivering a health service to people, acting responsibility about the cost of that service and acting responsibility in spending taxpayers’ money. The ACTU argument on the levy was an argument about levelling incomes. In other word, carried to its logical extension, it meant that a person would have to carry his tax return with him when he paid his tram fare, because if he were a crane driver on the wharf he would have to pay a little more than a member of Parliament. It meant that a person would have to take his tax return to the supermarket, because if he earned more than the next person in the queue at the supermarket, one assumes, he would have to pay more for the goods that he bought there. That is what the ACTU proposals meant. They did not take any account of the position of the chronically ill. The ACTU just did not care. What the ACTU had to say certainly is relevant, because for a while it was the only body representing the Opposition.

The honourable member for Grayndler (Mr Antony Whitlam) made another pre-selection speech here this evening. I do not think it will do him much good. He did not say anything that I understood. He said that the Government had caved in to the pressure of the Australian Medical Association and the private health funds. The people of Australia know that that is utter rubbish. He said that the Government was dismantling Medibank. I point out to him that the de facto Opposition Leader, Mr Hawke, does not think so. He had no faith in the previous Government’s Medibank. The Leader of the Australian Labor Party outside the Parliament, the leader of the ACTU, had private health insurance; but under this Government that very man joined Medibank.

Mr McLean:

– Who did that?

Mr SHIPTON:

-The Leader of the ACTU did that. He proved by his action that we have not dismantled Medibank. He proved by his action that Medibank is alive and well. I ask the honourable member for Grayndler to remember that and answer that when he gets to the technical stages of the Bill about which he is to show his knowledge. By crikey, we are looking forward to that very much.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– A lot of steam but not much substance.

Mr SHIPTON:

-The honourable member would not know about substance, would he? I dismantled his argument a few minutes ago. I would like to talk about the cost of health care in

Australia because that is one important aspect of the Government’s concern. It is concerned to restrain that cost and still deliver the best health services to the people. Under its proposals about $1,1 00m will come from general revenue. Taxpayers will still be paying a substantial amount of contribution to Medibank. That means that money will be coming from the rich about whom honourable members opposite are talking. State governments will be contributing $800m to $900m.

Mr Yates:

– Reserve Bank director!

Mr SHIPTON:

-I thank the honourable member for Holt. His interjections are most helpful, as is his whole contribution to this Parliament and to members of his electorate. As he knows, about $370m will come from the 2.5 per cent levy. About $980 will be contributed by those who choose to insure for more than standard Medibank benefits. Those are the facts, those are the costs and those are the important issues about our proposals. Under the Medibank established by the Opposition- the original Medibank that has been improved by our proposals- 70 per cent of people in Australia chose to insure privately. Seventy per cent of people knew that the old Medibank did not suit them. That is an indictment of Medibank as was the decision of the President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions to join Medibank an indictment of the Opposition’s policy. Medibank is alive and well. The people of Australia know that and have confidence in our proposals. I support the Bill.

Amendment negatived.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

The Bill

Dr CASS:
Maribyrnong

-I have an amendment to clause 4, which reads in part:

Section 25 1 v of the Principal Act is amended-

by inserting in sub-sections ( 1 ), (2) and (3), after the word “Part” (wherever occurring), the words “and of any Act imposing le levy “;

by omitting from paragraph (a) of sub-section (1) the words “or a Medibank contributor”; and “(2) The regulations may make provision for an in relation to-

exempting each person included in a class of persons prescribed by the regulations for the purposes of this paragraph from payment of the amount of the levy that, but for the regulations,

I move:

After paragraph (a) insert the following paragraph: “(aa) by inserting after paragraph (b) of sub-section ( 1 ) the following paragraph: ‘(ba) during the whole of that period the person was entitled to pensioner health benefits; ‘ “.

The amendment relates to that part of the Bill which describes prescribed persons- people who will be excluded from the need to pay the levy. The Bill indicates that, prescribed persons will be denned under regulations. Our view is that pensioners entitled to pensioner health benefits should be explicitly mentioned so that there is no doubt about their position. They constitute a very vulnerable section of the community. It is for these reasons that we propose the amendment.

Mr William McMahon:
LOWE, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– I rise with some reluctance. I do so because there has been so much misrepresentation about the Government’s attitude. So little has been said about the impact of financial arrangements in respect of the introduction of the health insurance scheme that I thought it necessary that someone from this side of the chamber explained the Government’s position in some detail. I must say that I was alarmed to hear the honourable member for Grayndler (Mr Antony Whitlam) speak as he did because there is no doubt in the world that he knows the financial implications of Medibank. He chose to disregard those implications and make a speech, obviously not in order to sustain his position in Grayndler because the seat is about to be abolished and no one will care if it goes and he goes with it. Nonetheless, I am a little ashamed of the fact that a man with his knowledge should not have explained completely the economic and financial implications.

I speak against the background that on the first night this year when the problem of Medibank was raised on television I heard the honourable member for Maribyrnong (Dr Cass) say that the Labor Party was not worried about anything other than the actual system. They did not care about delivery or about the patients whose needs and wants had to be satisfied. What they were interested in was a socialist system, and if they got that the honourable member for Maribyrnong would be happier than he has ever been before.

I turn now to Dr Scotton, who on the same night said he believed that if the Government’s intentions were carried out he could be a strong supporter. Shortly after that, for reasons I do not know, he left the organisation and from then on became a rather bitter enemy. More is the regret, because he is a very capable person and I would have given him the job of carrying out the Government’s intentions. I think we would have got a greater number in the private system of medical and hospital care and with a greater degree of efficiency than under the present

Medibank system. I recall also a couple of other facts which I should like the honourable member for Grayndler to hear, if he does not rush out of the Chamber for purposes that I do not know. The Government appointed the Nimmo Committee to look into the private system of health care. The Committee reported that the existing system was a good one and that its efficiency was first class. So the honourable member for Grayndler therefore cannot object because of the lack of economies of scale. The simple fact is that he was not here at the time, he was still in his napkins and swaddling clouts, and I do not blame him for not being able to understand what Nimmo said, probably as long ago as 10 years.

The honourable member for Grayndler also referred to the consumer price index. He ought to have remembered that at one stage Medibank was taken out of the consumer price index and now, under the Government’s proposals, it is to be replaced. It was taken out at one time, put back at another time. So in total there has been no loss; the position remains exactly the same. The other philosophical comment I make is against the background that honourable members on the other side of the House claim that they know what democracy is all about. What is wrong with the patient having the right to choose his own doctor and express his preference for the medical or hospital benefit organisation to which he wants to belong? If he chooses one, why not? We do it with the Commonwealth Bank, we do it with transport, we do it on a dozen and one other occasions. Why should we not have a plural system and give an abundance of opportunities to Australian people if they want them?

The point I really want to make relates to deficit financing, and here I have to rely enormously on my memory. Until I heard one or two people speak I had no intention at all of speaking in this debate. But having heard them, I thought it was essential that somebody who knew the Government’s case on finance should get up and say something. As I understand it, this year the cost of the Medibank levy will be about $260m, but in a full year when the levy goes up the tax will be $430m. If one looks at the Budget papers one will see that this year the cost of medical care will be of the order of $2,908m. I do not know how much of that belongs to Medibank, but it means that through deficit financing drawn out of Reserve Bank funds through the printing press- fiduciary currency through the printing press- medical care will cost the Australian public about $2,648m. This Government came into power in order to control the quantity of the money supply. It came in because it knew that deficit financing, financed by a bank for social welfare benefits, was disastrous so far as inflationary pressures were concerned. Therefore the Government decided that it had to follow up the proposals initially made by the Labor Party under non-inflationary conditions to finance Medibank by a tax on incomes of 1.35 per cent. If any members of the Labor Party, any members of the community or any technical experts want to argue that the Labor Party’s policy on financing part, at least, of Medibank out of taxation is wrong they have to go back on the principles that the Labor Party established when it first decided to introduce the scheme.

I want to point out that I do not mind deficit financing. In fact, I would recommend deficit financing. In this year’s Budget I would not have minded a deficit of $3,750m- providing only it was spent in the right way for productive purposes and providing it was soundly funded through open market operations, would draw in money from the public and neutralise it in terms of borrowed money in the hands of the Commonwealth. If we have a deficit of this kind not for productive services but for welfare services, that amount of money- it was $2,648m or a lesser amount according to the amount that is properly attributable to Medibank- must have inflationary consequences for us. Let there be no mistake about it. The Government recognised that the Medibank levy was justified on economic grounds and was anti-inflationary.

I have always been a member of a private medical and health system. I am not an antagonist of Medibank. I believe private systems are effective and efficient and that they do good for this community. They introduce an element of competition. If honourable members opposite are frightened of competition to Medibank they show it in the worst possible way in this House. In the time that the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) has led the Government of this country the Opposition has squealed about every issue. Today we saw what I believe to be one of the most degrading experiences I have known since I have been in Parliament. The Opposition refused to let Parliament operate sensibly and in the best interests of the Australian people. This is the kind of occurrence which we have to put up with from the dilapidated and depleted Opposition. From the day of their defeat members of the Opposition have gone back into their burrows. They have hidden from the public view. All they have done is to try to distort the processes of this Government and the effective administration of the economy. Give the Prime Minister time and he will make us prosperous. He needs a couple of years but in the meantime he needs to have this measure passed by the Parliament in the interests of the medical care of the Australian people.

Mr Antony Whitlam:
GRAYNDLER, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I shall not test your patience, Mr Deputy Chairman, by canvassing such a wide field as did the right honourable member for Lowe (Mr William McMahon). It is, nonetheless, a great privilege to follow him in this debate. He is an expert on finance. I want him to listen to what I have to say because I want to put some serious considerations to him. I hope that I can draw him back into the debate. I should like to revert to the Robinson Prize- it probably should be called the Robinson-Hunt Prize- because I suspect that the Minister for Post and Telecommunications (Mr Eric Robinson) was not as intimately involved in the design of this absurd scheme of health insurance as was the Minister for Health (Mr Hunt).

Mr Shipton:

– You can do better than this.

Mr Antony Whitlam:
GRAYNDLER, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-The honourable member should wait and see. At the Legislative Drafting Institute they have had to put up with these ill-devised, ill-defined schemes. This is a debate, as honourable members will be aware, that should never be happening. This is the debate that the Government was supposed to put to bed last May and June so that it would not be faced with the embarrassment of its bungling so close to the time that the taxpayers of Australia are having to fiddle with these stupid forms foisted upon them by the Government. If the Government looked at the legislation it rushed into the Parliament at the end of the last sitting, it would find that the legislation was so badly drawn that in some Bills- for example, the Health Insurance Commission Bill- virtually every substantive provision has been repealed by the Bill which the Government has now produced. Let us examine the Health Insurance Levy Assessment Bill (No. 2) 1976.

Mr Yates:

– I rise on a point of order. I thought we were discussing the amendment which is in these terms:

Whilst not declining to give the Bill a second reading, the House is of the opinion that Medibank should be funded out of general revenue.

Mr Antony Whitlam:
GRAYNDLER, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-What licence did we give him?

Mr Yates:

-Is the honourable member for Grayndler addressing the Chair, or am I?

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr Giles)Order! The honourable member for Holt is addressing the Chair.

Mr Yates:

– I thought I was just dealing with a committee debate.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- Order! If the honourable member for Holt will resume his seat I shall explain the position to him. The Committee is considering the Bill as a whole. Honourable members from time to time, where it might be helpful, could mention to which clause they are actually referring, but there is no such need when the Committee is dealing with the Bill as a whole. I understand the implication the honourable member makes, namely that a second reading debate is meant to deal with the concept or the philosophy of the legislation and that consideration at the Committee stage is meant to stick more closely to the elements of the Bill itself, but at this stage in the debate I do not object to the words used by the honourable member for Grayndler. I call the honourable member for Grayndler.

Mr Antony Whitlam:
GRAYNDLER, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I shall refer immediately to the amendment under consideration which in fact does relate to clause 4 in the Bill I mentioned. It is to the effect that the Government now proposes to give an exemption to pensioners who are entitled to pensioner health benefits. This is a change of heart, and the Government ought to own up to it, because it is a noble change of heart. It is one in relation to which it ought to be more forthcoming. It is a provision which was not in the legislation which the Government introduced in May. It is not one which is described in the misleading pamphlets which was produced at a cost of millions of dollars to Australian taxpayers. That pamphlet, produced in August 1976 by authority of the Department of Health, states:

If you’re a pensioner who receives only your pension, you will not have to pay any levy for Standard Medibank benefits. This will include many people who are entitled to pensioner health benefits. However, if you receive any extra money you may have to pay the levy.

That in fact is not now the case, and the Government has caused needless heartache to a great many pensioners. The genesis of proposed new section 2 5 1 X is very simple. Let me tell the House about it. The Treasurer (Mr Lynch), who is assisted by the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, who is at the table, received on the day after he delivered his Budget a delegation from the Combined Pensioners Association of Australia. That delegation put it to him that it was inequitable that many of the people who are now entitled to pensioner health benefits and who do not have to pay for their medical care will, in future, have to pay the levy. Our Treasurer said: ‘Oh, no, that cannot be true’, with the familiarity that he always exhibits in relation to the Budget Papers. He immediately rang up the Minister for Health. He said: ‘Ralph, is this the case? It cannot be so, can it?’ Ralph said: ‘Yes, I’m afraid it is’. So immediately after that the Government went into this secret operation to give to these pensioners the benefits to which they are entitled. Why does not the Government come out and say -

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- Order! Do I presume that the honourable member is talking about the Minister for Health?

Mr Antony Whitlam:
GRAYNDLER, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I was, in legal parlance, doing what is called a ‘verbal. ‘ I was reciting verbatim the conversation. The Minister for Health, very creditably if belatedly, gave these pensioners their due. What the amendment seeks to do is to give that exemption in the legislation, and not by way of regulation, to ensure that the exemption for pensioners entitled to pensioner health benefits is not made subject to the whim of the government of the day which could prescribe it out of existence by altering the regulations gazetted during a parliamentary recess. Let us put that provision into the legislation, as indeed we do for every other person who is exempt from the levy. For repatriation personnel, for defence forces personnel we have in the relevant legislation an exemption. We ought to put that exemption in this legislation in relation to pensioners entitled to pensioner health benefits. I think it is fair to the pensioners. It is an equitable principle.

It is in this regard that, if I can, I want to draw back into the debate the right honourable member for Lowe- an important principle of taxation with which he will be familiar. The Income Tax Assessment Act, which is amended by this legislation, does not permit of the prescription of any person as exempt from any tax. The regulations made under that legislation do not permit the government of the day to prescribe exemptions. A very important principle in taxation legislation is that the Parliament gives these exemptions. It is one that wc ought to uphold as an important principle quite apart from the question of giving pensioners justice. I do not ask for any great retraction from the Minister for troubling us with that bothersome debate a couple of months ago because the legislation was so poorly drawn. I simply ask now that the Government makes the position very clear to pensioners who, as every honourable member here who does his constituency duties will know, are concerned about the prospect of their being subject to a levy and to persons who are entitled to pensioner health benefits but who pay income tax and who would, apart from the regulations which we are told it is intended to make under this legislation, have had to pay the levy. Let us stand up for the rights of those pensioners and put it here in the legislation. That is what the amendment proposes. It is a principle of justice for pensioners. It is also a very proper principle in relation to taxation legislation and in relation to the Income Tax Assessment Act which is the legislation that this Bill amends.

Mr YATES:
Holt

-I understand that we are discussing in Committee 2 matters together. One provides that the pensioner is entitled to health benefits all the time. I completely support that proposition. I see no reason why during that whole period the pensioner should not be entitled to health benefits under clause 4. Nothing would persuade me that a pensioner under Medibank should not be entitled to it. I understand that we are also discussing the following important provision:

Whilst not declining to give the Bill a second reading this House is of the opinion that Medibank should be funded out of general revenue.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- Order! The second point that the honourable member is dealing with, I gather from what he said, refers to an amendment which was moved at the second reading stage and which has already been dealt with. He was in order on the first point that he made, and he would also be in order in referring to any additional clause of this Bill. Strictly he is not in order on the second point he made.

Mr YATES:

-The former Prime Minister, the right honourable member for Lowe (Mr William McMahon), who spoke before me suggested that Medibank should be funded out of general revenue. I am absolutely unable to accept the proposal that Medibank should be funded out of general revenue. There are many good reasons for that opinion. Firstly, I do not believe that it is possible to fund Medibank out of general revenue. Experience abroad in 2 countries in this world has proved that any attempt to fund a national service organisation out of general revenue will fail, and therefore it is perfectly sensible that we ought to follow the original concept of the Opposition that a levy should be raised to fund the total Medibank cost. I do not believe that this nation in fact wants to accept a tax so that Medibank can be paid for out of general revenue. My fundamental belief is that people should care for themselves and look after themselves, and it is only when people cannot do so for one reason or another- because of their own problems or because of their financial situationthat taxation revenue should be used to help them.

Am I being asked, for example, to say that my own contribution, if I join Medibank, should be paid out of general revenue? I do not believe that it should. I think I should be able to care for myself and family. I do not believe that the general revenue of this country should be used to fund Medibank completely. That was not the concept of the Opposition. I do not understand why this amendment has been proposed. Perhaps Dr Cass could explain it to me. Surely everybody knows that we cannot possibly have a system whereby general taxation is used for Medibank.

Dr Cass:

– I raise a point of order, Mr Deputy Chairman. You have pointed out to the speaker that he is really speaking to the motion relating to the second reading and not the amendment proposed in the Committee stage. I think that his remarks are rather irrelevant to what we are debating at the moment.

Mr DEPUTY CHAIRMAN:

– Whereas I have a certain feeling that the point of order raised by the honourable member for Marybyrnong is correct, at this stage the Committee is dealing with the Bill as a whole rather than with all the clauses of the Bill separately. I think the honourable member is probably covered by the fact that this is a Bill for an Act ‘To amend the law relating to Income tax in relation to the imposition, assessment and collection of a Health Insurance levy’. However, I do pick up an implication that he really is harking back to another debate. I should like him to tie his remarks in with a clause of the Bill, if possible.

Mr YATES:

– I thank the honourable member. I am surprised that after all that we have been through the Opposition should propose that Medibank ought to be funded out of general revenue. I have never heard of such an extraordinary concept.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I was grappling with the very deep implications of this Bill when I heard the remarks of the honourable member for Holt (Mr Yates). I find it very difficult to comprehend the proposition that he put before the Committee. He said that people should be paying for health services. He seems to take the attitude that whereas Australian people generally accept the proposition that many things that are important to individuals and to the nation at large should be financed on a capacity to pay principle- I am referring to such matters as social welfare benefits, child endowment, widow pensions, age pensions, even the defence of the country and many others that come under the administration of State governmentswhen it comes to health we ought to depart from that principle and revert to a philosophy whereby people have to look after themselves and whereby a levy ought to be paid.

Mr Hodges:

– How about a national scheme for your home or your motor car?

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-That is accommodated to some degree in respect of needy people under State housing programs and the like. The honourable gentleman might like to contend on some other occasion, as it is inappropriate to do so now, that we should abandon the support for low income people in housing and the like. There is no doubt that in respect of many important services that sustain the Australian people individually and in a corporate way we acknowledge the principle that people should pay according to their capacity to pay. I am not making an assertion; I am just relating a fact of life which is the subject of a great range of legislation which the House deals with from time to time. Mr Deputy Chairman, you will be gratified to hear me say that what we are dealing with now is a very simple proposition, related to clause 4 of the Bill, whereby the shadow Minister for Health, the honourable member for Maribyrnong, Dr Cass, is trying to safeguard the interests of some hundreds of thousands of pensioners around Australia, especially pensioners who are receiving health benefits. He is trying to ensure that during the entire time that a person is entitled to pensioner health benefits he will be safeguarded. That is all that is being put before the Committee at the present time. I wonder why there is all this concern. The fact of the matter is that around Australia at the present time and in the Parliament there is enormous consternation as to what people should do and foremost among the ones who are concerned are pensioners. The pensioners who get into the most difficult area are the ones who are affected by this amendment, the ones who receive health benefits but who do not know what their position is now and what their position might be in the future. There is nothing in the legislation before the Parliament which would safeguard the interests of those pensioners, those people who under a means test receive the benefits of health concessions. The proposal put by the honourable member for Maribyrnong would do this.

Mr Lusher:

– Do you intend to change this when you get back into office?

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-I have been asked a question and I think I should answer it frankly and honestly. What the Labor Party proposed to do when Medibank was first introduced was to impose a tax levy of 1 .35 per cent.

Mr Lusher:

– You are supposed to be talking to the amendment.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-You have asked me one question. I will deal with one question at a time. That was our proposition.

Mr Lusher:

– That was the question I asked you.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-When we were in office, the honourable member who interjected might recall that the Senate rejected the proposals of the Labor Party and proposed that Medibank or health care should be financed from the proceeds of uniform taxation.

Mr Lusher:

– No, we did not.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-Well, if you like, from consolidated revenue. We accept the proposition that your Party forced upon us by utilising that brutal majority your Party had at that time. If you want to think about this philosophically, you ought to go back to the very simple proposition that there is a total health burden in Australia, manifested in money terms. It is in respect of such things as private hospital care, public hospital care, and repatriation care. There is an aggregation of all those costs. What we have been talking about for several days in this place is how those costs should be met. The Labor Party’s proposition is terribly fundamental. It is to this effect, to ensure that every Australian is guaranteed adequate health care, the availability of a doctor who is well trained and access to a regional hospital which is well equipped and in respect of which there is a complex of medical expertise. Surely we all acknowledge that idea. It does not matter how you go about it or what appendages there are. Whether it is a private hospital, a nursing home or whatever, the fact is that there is a total cost and we ought to be looking at the idea of how we can most equitably contribute to that and do it in such a way as to ensure the well-being of Australians. Can honourable members opposite think of a more simple proposition than paying from the proceeds of taxation so that the rich pay more than the poor as is the case in respect of widows’ pensions, child endowment, defence, education and all these other services for which we legislate from time to time? That is all the Labor Party is putting.

In the amendment before the Committee we seek to safeguard the interests of the pensioners. I gather from all the wide-ranging talk that the right honourable member for Lowe (Mr William

McMahon) went on with, that he, in the end, like other Government supporters will vote against the proposition put by the honourable member for Maribyrnong which seeks to safeguard the interest of pensioners. In fact what the Government has done in every element of the propositions that it has put in respect of the 4 health Bills has been to vote against the fundamental idea that everybody should be looked after and their interests safeguarded simply by the taxpayers paying for them in terms of equitable payments. Why do Government supporters abandon that concept? What do they have against the idea that every human being in Australia should be able to go into a hospital and be looked after and that they should be paid for? Is that abhorrent to them?

Mr DEPUTY CHAIRMAN:

-Order! I do not mind passing references but the honourable member is really debating the principles and philosophies of the Bill, which is not the purpose of the Committee debate. Will he tie his remarks to the amendment or to any specific clause in the Bill?

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-I will be pleased to cooperate in that regard. I commend the honourable member for Maribyrnong who put this proposition so explicitly and clearly before the Committee. I ask honourable members opposite whether they are prepared now to vote for the proposition contained in the amendment moved by the honourable member for Maribyrnong in respect of pensioners who have qualified in terms of the means test, not the means test that applies to pensions but the one that applies for people to qualify for the pensioner medical service and all the fringe services? Those pensioners should be put beyond doubt in respect of this matter. That is what the proposition is about. At present there is ambiguity on that question. Hundreds of thousands of pensioners are affected and the Labor Party wants to safeguard their interests and put them out of the state of anxiety that they are in at the present time.

Mr DEPUTY CHAIRMAN:

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

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– We have listened to a diatribe from the honourable member for Hughes (Mr Les Johnson) who, I believe, for political reasons is trying to drag a red herring once again in front of all pensioners to confuse them about Medibank. In referring to the proposal of the honourable member for Maribyrnong (Dr Cass), I quote from the second reading speech of the Minister for Post and Telecommunications (Mr Eric Robinson).

For example, people whose only income is the age pension are not called on to pay levy. As already indicated, however, levy relief for pensioners is to go further than that. Pensioners who have an entitlement to pensioner health benefits will, like people covered by repatriation and defence force arrangements, be freed from the levy. Age pensioners entitled to pensioner fringe benefits, as well as repatriation beneficiaries and Service personnel, will thus continue to receive the special consideration that has long been extended to them in the field of health care.

So much for the speech of the honourable member for Hughes and so much for the amendment moved by the honourable member for Maribyrnong. I believe that we should leave this chamber tonight indebted to the former Prime Minister (Mr William McMahon) for his great contribution, thus enlightening the Committee. He told honourable members just how much the whole scheme will cost.

The honourable member for Grayndler (Mr Antony Whitlam) reminded the Committee this evening that last night I said that I was a continuing opponent of the whole concept of Medibank. He fled England only a few months ago to find a safe seat in Australia. Had he thought so highly of the English health scheme he would have been there still. I recall that last year when he was in England articles appeared in the Australian newspapers stating that the English health scheme was staggering and in dire need of the injection of some £ 2,000m to save it. As the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock) said the other day; ‘You cannot blame the son for the sins of the father’. But the honourable member for Grayndler entered this debate to advocate the scheme from which he fled in England. In today’s Press we saw another article headed ‘France’s Medibank staggers’. The article stated:

France’s equivalent of Medibank is so seriously in the red that it expects a staggering $ 1 ,800m deficit next year.

We are discussing the Health Insurance Levy Assessment Bill 1976 and it is appropriate that we talk about levies. The English scheme, the French scheme, the Canadian scheme and so many other sick schemes throughout the world have failed because they relied upon some form of levy. This Government has set about trying to preserve that which it regrettably- I emphasise the word ‘regrettably’- inherited and making it better. So highly did Labor politicians think of the Australian Labor Party’s national health scheme that seventeen out of the 36 members of the ALP who remained as members in this place after the election continued also as members of private health funds. Even Dr Hawke or Mr Hawke- whatever he might be called -

Mr Shipton:

- Dr Chicken.

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

-The honourable member suggests Dr Chicken. I do not want to indulge in frivolous discussion. This is a very serious matter. Even Mr Hawke continued to remain as a member of a private health fund because he regarded the Labor Party’s health scheme as totally unacceptable. Unfortunately -

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr Giles)Order! Would the honourable member please try to tie his remarks to the Bill we are discussing.

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

-Mr Deputy Chairman, I will be coming around to that.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- The honourable member might not be coming around to doing that for much longer if he continues to speak in this way.

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

-While I recognise that the Health Insurance Levy Assessment Bill is good in itself, it is sometimes unfortunate that the Liberals have a capacity to do things better than the Labor Government. This means that Medibank will continue to live. I do not profess to speak on behalf of anyone else, but my personal view is that I could not care what happens to Medibank. Let us look at the health costs. Prior to the introduction of the Hayden health plan, the average Australian was receiving health care so much more cheaply than is the case today. Mr Deputy Chairman, I am talking about this levy and particularly about clause 7 of the Bill. The average Australian family was paying only $3 or $4 a week at the very most for the maximum form of health care. In 30 months, this cost has increased by two to two and a half times in order to secure exactly the same cover. Despite the fact that the honourable member for Grayndler rattled off figures to try to substantiate bis claim that Medibank was better, I would say that it is infinitely more costly to preserve this scheme.

An amazing contribution was made on behalf of the Australian Labor Party tonight by the honourable member for Grayndler. He had a shot at a doctor who was convicted on certain charges. I do not condone for one moment those people who live on the periphery of crime and by confidence tricks. But the honourable member referred to the fact that the Liberal Government had prosecuted only one medico. I can remember what happened in one case. I may be talking about the same case as the honourable member. Was he referring to the doctor who was alleged to have earned $500,000?

Mr Antony Whitlam:
GRAYNDLER, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– It is not my habit to defame people here under privilege.

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

-This may be a second case. I read about an Adelaide doctor who allegedly earned approximately $300,000 to $400,000 legally and had ripped off Medibank- this was all from the levy- to the extent of another $ 100,000.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- Order! I must say that the honourable member is not talking to a clause in Committee. I have the feeling that I am being set up for a confidence trick.

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

-No, Sir.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN-The honourable member will deal with the subject matter of the Bill or I will be forced to ask him to resume his seat.

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

-Mr Deputy Chairman, we are taking this Bill as a whole in Committee and I am trying to cover as many clauses as I can at once. I will conclude my remarks with a few brief comments. Doctors, from the word go, were totally opposed to Medibank and to the levy, the introduction of which we are discussing in this debate. They were opposed to all other forms of government national health schemes. They subscribed to previous health insurance schemes that existed. A great many doctors, in fact, now have incomes in excess of $250,000 a year. A huge number of Australian doctors are earning more than that amount annually. But the fact is that these doctors did not want this health scheme in the first place, although some may hum to themselves every night, ‘My God how the money rolls in, rolls in’. They preferred a system under which people had to work -

Mr Shipton:

– Can you sing it?

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

-No. That is what they are saying. They had to-

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

- Mr Deputy Chairman, I rise to order. The people who are covered in the amendment moved by the Opposition are the contributors to Medibank, the members of the defence forces and people covered by the provisions of the Repatriation Act. We are trying to safeguard the interests of pensioners. It is as simple as that. The honourable gentleman is talking about doctors. There is a lot to be said about them, but it has nothing to do with the matter before the Committee.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- I uphold the point of order. The honourable member for

Griffith will resume his seat unless he comes back to the amendment.

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

-The Minister, in his second reading speech, assured the House that certain guarantees would be given to pensioners. I feel that the amendment is a last ditch political ploy by the Opposition to try to give the public the impression that we are not looking after pensioners. We are looking after pensioners. We looked after them prior to Medibank. I am quite sure that with the return of the Liberal-National Country Party Government not only pensioners but all citizens are better off than they would have been if the present Opposition had continued in government.

Dr CASS:
Maribyrnong

-Mi Deputy Chairman, I beg your indulgence. I trust you will allow me to reply to some of the comments directed specifically at me in the context of this debate. Firstly, the right honourable member for Lowe (Mr William McMahon) said that the Nimmo Committee, which was set up by a Liberal government, reported that the voluntary health system was first class and most efficient. I shall quote from page 9 of the report of the Nimmo Committee. I quote from the findings:

  1. The operation of the health insurance scheme is unnecessarily complex and beyond the comprehension of many.
  2. The benefits received by contributors are frequently much less than the cost of hospital and medical treatment.
  3. The contributions have increased to such an extent that they are beyond the capacity of some members of the community and involve considerable hardship for others.

Other findings are:

  1. An unduly high proportion of the contributions received by some organisations is absorbed in operating expenses.
  2. The level of reserves held by some organisations is unnecessarily high.

First class? Most efficient? Poppycock. That was the finding of the Nimmo Committee. It reported that the voluntary health system was most inefficient. One of its recommendations was that a national health insurance commission be set up to supervise the funds, to arrange for the insurance funds benefit tables, the basis of payment of medical and hospital fees, special assistance for low income families, surveillance of operations of insurance organisations and observance by them of the conditions imposed by and under the National Health Act. They are hardly the comments of a committee of inquiry which is saying: ‘Very good organisation, very good show’. It is utter nonsense to suggest that that is what the Committee was saying.

A number of speakers, not just the right honourable member for Lowe, referred to

Medibank costs. I made the point in my initial speech on this Bill- I repeat it now because this Bill relates to the raising of funds to pay for medical and hospital services- that Medibank is simply the instrument of passing the funds across. One cannot say that Medibank costs money. It is the services that cost money. Whether it is in Great Britain, France- they are the 2 countries to which reference has been made where costs are rising- America, Sweden, Canada, Australia, West Germany or any other country, the costs are rising. The community pays. It pays out of its own pocket. The money does not come from up above. It comes from taxation revenue, contributions to benefit funds or the patient paying directly. It does not come from anywhere else.

In addition, studies in America show that the cause of this rapid increase in costs is not the system by which the money is collected and handed over. The problem is the way in which the people providing the services are rewarded. The problem is the fee for service system. That is what the facts show, despite all the prejudiced views of honourable members opposite about the cost of Medibank. I said that the cost, whether it be $ 1,000m, $2,000m or $3,000m, was irrelevant. The honourable member picked me up on this point in the sense that I meant it did not matter. That was not what I meant. I meant it was irrelevant in the sense that whichever figure it is- I do not want to argue which one it is- all that money comes from people’s pockets. It comes from people’s pockets, not to pay Medibank, not to pay the voluntary funds but to pay the doctors and the hospitals. That is the cost. Honourable members on the other side of the chamber should stop deluding themselves. Even the changes they are about to bring in will only make matters worse not better. The cost will continue to escalate because the Government is retaining the fee for service basis.

To get to the point of this amendment, we agree that pensioners should be covered. We agree that the Minister said they would be covered. But the point is, this is not in this Bill. It covers some pensioners but not all pensioners. It does not cover the pensioners that we have specified, namely those who are entitled to pensioner health benefits. The explanatory memorandum to the 2 Bills states on its first page:

There is to be a regulation-making authority that will enable relief from the levy to be given to people such as pensioners entitled to Pensioner Health Benefits.

The Treasurer (Mr Lynch) said that. We are simply saying that if that is the case, and it now depends on a regulation making authority, we want that put into the Act. That is what our amendment is about.

Mr Eric Robinson:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

– I have listened to the debate tonight, I think, for the best pan of 3 hours. If my memory serves me correctly we have had a debate on this subject now for about 3 months. A lot of comments and, if I might say so, some rather loose comments have been made during that particular period. I simply wish to take just a few minutes to state a couple of facts. I put it to members of the Opposition that there is an inconsistency in their approach. I wish to speak very briefly about the question of not wishing to have a levy because the original concept of the then Labor Administration, now the Opposition, was to have a levy. The purpose of the levy which this Bill introduced has to be seen in the context of budgetary responsibility. We all know that despite what the honourable member for Grayndler (Mr Antony Whitlam) said there has been a degree of misuse and there has been a degree of abuse. The Government is attemptingand I believe attempting successfully in a very complex area- to try to bring some sanity and commonsense into a very important program for the Australian community. But I should really like to speak about the amendment in the Committee stage. I felt that the honourable member for Griffith (Mr Donald Cameron) spelt out the position. Let me just repeat what I said in my second reading speech:

The Bill will also provide an authority to make regulations to confer exemptions from the levy. This authority will be exercised to exempt pensioners who are entitled to pensioner health benefits. Such people will thus be given an exemption comparable to that provided for repatriation beneficiaries and members of the Defence Force.

I say to the honourable member for Hughes (Mr Les Johnson) that there is no doubt about that. There is no ambiguity in that statement; the position is perfectly clear. All we are talking about tonight are technicalities. We are not talking about substance because we both agree that these people ought to be exempted. I put these questions to the Opposition: Is it a fact that there is again an inconsistency? Is it a fact that when honourable members opposite produced their Bill they did not specifically exempt these people from the Act? Is it a fact that the Bill which they introduced into the Parliament some time ago in fact had regulations and gave them a power to make regulations to confer exemptions? It seems to me that honourable members opposite ought to be saying that they are in favour of this exemption, because my understanding is that this is exactly the same as they did. They did not have specific exemption in the Bill that they introduced into the Parliament a considerable time ago. Therefore what I want to say to the Opposition is that the legislation will contain and does contain regulations to confer exemptions. The Government is committed to the conferring of those exemptions. There is no need for the amendment whatsoever. As I said, the Government does not object to the substance of the amendment but there is no point in it. As a matter of technicality there is no need for the amendment and it is therefore rejected.

Mr HODGMAN:
Denison

-Mr Deputy Chairman -

Motion (by Mr Bourchier) proposed:

That the question be now put.

Mr Hodgman:

– Does that mean that I am not permitted to speak, Mr Deputy Chairman?

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- That is so.

Mr Hodgman:

– I would like it to be recorded that I wished to express views on this matter and I have been prevented from expressing them in this Parliament.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- The motion has been proposed:

That the question be now put.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Original question put.

That the paragraph proposed to be inserted (Dr Cass’s amendment) be inserted.

The Committee divided. (The Deputy Chairman-Mr G. O’H. Giles)

AYES: 19

NOES: 65

Majority……. 46

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Third Reading

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

page 1185

ADJOURNMENT

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-Order! In accordance with the order of the House of 18 February 1976I propose the question:

That the House do now adjourn.

Mr Sinclair:

– I require that the question be put forthwith.

Question resolved in the negative.

page 1185

HEALTH INSURANCE LEVY BILL (No. 2) 1976

Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 8 September, on motion by Mr Eric Robinson:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill now read a second time.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

Motion ( by Mr Eric Robinson) proposed:

That the Bill be now read a third time.

Mr Antony Whitlam:
GRAYNDLER, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– The Minister assisting the Treasurer (Mr Eric Robinson) in his second reading speech on the Health Insurance Levy Bill (No. 2 ) stated:

Its comparative length is due to the need to cater for combinations of less than usual situations.

I briefly draw the attention of the House to a situation that is not less than usual but is extraordinarily complicated by the procedures laid down by this Bill. It is a procedure which a great many taxpayers around Australia are grappling with today. The Australian Taxation Office exemption forms provide only for people taking insurance under the National Health Act, including the socalled Medibank Private. But a large percentage of young working families are expected to pay only the health insurance levy. As the situation stands, if the husband pays the family levy of up to $5.80 a week, which automatically covers his wife and children for public hospital ward and 85 per cent of medical costs, his working wife will still have to pay the single levy of up to $2.90 a week. This money will be refunded to the wife but not until the end of the financial year when tax returns are filled in.

If a working husband and wife decide to pay the levy separately at single rates up to a maximum of $2.90 a week, the Taxation Office will demand that the husband pay an additional $ 1 50 at the end of the year to cover his wife. The $150 paid by his wife would then be refunded. This situation could be avoided if the Taxation Office added another sentence to its levy exemption forms stating that a working wife would be exempt from paying the levy if it was being paid by her husband, and perhaps requiring the husband ‘s levy number to be stated. This problem was raised at question time today with the Treasurer (Mr Lynch). A report in yesterday’s Australian states:

The Medibank spokesman said: ‘The Taxation Department has shown no indication that they will do this. They have taken no steps to make the payment of the levy by working husbands and wives easier’. A spokesman for the Taxation Department yesterday confirmed that working husbands and wives would have to pay the levy and the extra money would be refunded to the wife at the end of the tax year.

That is not an unusual situation and it ought not to have been beyond the wit of the Government or of its advisers to devise a satisfactory solution to it. This is not a simple scheme. It is extremely complex. The last word on the demise of Medibank perhaps should belong to the honourable member for Oxley (Mr Hayden). He is not here. In his absence I state: The story of Medimuddle is not really that funny. It has been conceived in an atmosphere of lies, deception and humbug and will mean increased cost to the community, chaos and needless confusion. Where once there was a simple scheme which worked for the benefit of all we now have a more expensive and hopelessly more complicated scheme which is socially divisive and inefficient and which many experts say will not work. The Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) and the Minister for Health (Mr Hunt) have used Medibank as part of their overall economic strategy to window-dress the national accounts and make it appear as if they are good managers. Few will be deceived by this.

The Long March in China of Chairman Mao is over. The long march of our leader, Chairman Mai, is commonly believed by his supporters to have commenced in Launceston and not in some sleazy Toorak encounter after a hamburger or after Mr Gorton had been knifed in the back. So let us go back to Launceston, which was the scene of the start of the long march and which is where his favourite Tasmanian- the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development (Mr Newman)- comes from and see what the exceedingly conservative Launceston Examiner has had to say about this scheme. In its editorial of 30 July it said:

So what have Prime Minister Fraser and his Ministers been on about for so long? Instead of a better, brighter health insurance scheme, we appear to have a costlier, unwieldier, class conscious, divisive and confusing rag bag designed to satisfy the ideological nit pickers in the Government camp.

It is indicative of the enormous influence Mr Fraser wields in the Government.

Mr Eric Robinson:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

– In reply -I wish to reply very briefly to the remarks of the honourable member for Grayndler (Mr Antony Whitlam). I have brushed aside the politicking. He is obviously under some stress and strain. I have pushed that aspect to one side. I take it that the honourable member is genuinely concerned about a possible tax problem. A question was raised about this matter during question time this morning. The Treasurer (Mr Lynch) has consulted the Taxation Office. I point out to the honourable member that the Treasurer has released or will release a statement on this subject this evening. It explains the position in terms which I am certain all honourable members and all members of the community will understand. I am not going to take up any more of the time of the House.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a third time.

page 1187

ADJOURNMENT

C. J. Dennis- Chile- Australian Conservation Foundation

Motion (by Mr Eric Robinson) proposed:

That the House do now adjourn.

Mr SHIPTON:
Higgins

– I wish to raise in the House this evening the subject of the centenary of the birth of the author and poet C. J. Dennis. C. J. Dennis- called by some the ‘Larrikin Laureate’ and perhaps the unofficial Poet Laureate of Australia in his time- captured the folk lore of his time and at the same time created history. Whilst the Australian language changes, I think that in his poem the Great Australian Slanguage he captured not only what was applicable then but also what is applicable now. I would like to read it. I reads: ‘Tis the everday Australian Has a language of his own, Has a language, or a slanguage, Which can simply stand alone. And ‘ a dickon pitch to kid us, ‘ Is a synonym for ‘ lie ‘ And to ‘ nark it ‘ means to stop it And to ‘ nit it ‘ means to fly!

A week ago on Tuesday in this House the Minister for Defence (Mr Killen) put down in argument the honourable member for Chifley (Mr Armitage). I was sitting here on that day, which was the centenary of Dennis’s birth, and I was reminded of a poem called Uncle Jim written by C. J. Dennis. I would like to read it because it is very applicable. It reads: ‘ I got no time fer wasters, lad, ‘ ‘sez ‘e ‘Give me a man wiv grit, sez Uncle Jim. ‘E bores ‘is cute old eyes right into me, While I stares ‘ard an ‘ gives it back to ‘im. Then orl at once ‘e grips me ‘and in ‘is: ‘Somehow, ‘ ‘e sez, ‘ I likes yer ugly phiz. ‘

  1. J. Dennis said a lot in an indirect way about things that happened in this Parliament. I referred to Pilot Cove and thought of the former honourable member for Grayndler, the man who is sadly missed. I thought of him when he put the finger on the young man who is with us tonight: ‘Young friend, “esez . . . Young friend! Well spare me days!

Yey’d think I WUS ‘is own white- ‘ a-/-/ boy-

The queer ole finger, wiv ‘is gentle ways. ‘ Young friend, “ e SCZ ‘ I wish ‘t yeh bofe great joy . ‘

I then thought that that was not quite applicable and I went to another C. J. Dennis poem called

The Kid and thought of the honourable member for Werriwa (Mr E. G. Whitlam). He might say:

My son! . . . Them words, just like a blessed song, Is singing’ in me ‘eart the ole day long; Over an ‘ over; while I ‘m scared 1 11 wake Out of a dream, to find it all a fake.

Then I thought of years when the Opposition was in Government and I recalled The Glugs of Gosh:

Now, here is a tale of the Glugs of Gosh, And a wonderful tale I ween,

Of the Glugs of Gosh and their great King Splosh . . .

I thought of the Labor Government’s actions:

So the Glugs continued, with greed and glee,

To buy cheap clothing, and pills, and tea;

Till every Glug in the land of Gosh

Owned three clean shirts and a fourth in the wash.

But they all grew idle, and fond of ease,

And easy to swindle, and hard to please;

And the voice of Joi was a lonely voice,

When he railed at Gosh for its foolish choice.

Then I was reminded of the loans affair and the overseas borrowing:

And the King of the Glugs gazed around on his land, And saw nothing but stones strewn on every hand:

And he said with a desperate look on his face, ‘There is nothing so ghastly as stones out of place. And, no doubt, this Og scheme was a very smart dodge. But whom does it profit- my people, or Podge?’

I thought then of Emily Ann, a very appropriate poem for the ears of Government of the Australian Labor Party:

Government muddled, departments dazed, Fear and confusion wherever he gazed; - Order insulted, authority spurned,

Dread and distraction wherever he turnedOh, the great King Splosh was a sad, sore king, With never a statesman to straighten the thing.

Today in the springtime I thought of A Spring Song and the announcement by the Leader of the Australian Council of Trade Unions that he was not going to enter Federal Parliament after all. I thought of the poor fellow who said:

The world ‘as got me snouted Jist a treat; Crool Forchin ‘s dirty left ‘as smote me soul; An ‘ all them joys o ‘ life I ‘eld so sweet Is up the pole.

Fer, as the Poit sez me ‘eart ‘ as got The pip wiv yearnin ‘ fer- I dunno wot.

  1. J. Dennis captured the topics of the time and I thought perhaps he predicted the course of events of the 3 years of Labor Government when in The Seer he said:

Somewhere or other, ‘tis doubtful where,

In the archives of Gosh is a volume rare,

A precious old classic that nobody reads,

And nobody asks for, and nobody heeds;

Which makes it a classic, and famed thro’ the land,

As well-informed persons will quite understand.

I pay tribute to C. J. Dennis.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member’s time has expired. I might even ask the honourable member to try to find later a poem to describe the events of today.

Mr CREAN:
Melbourne Port

– I must say, with all sad respect, that I find what the honourable member for Higgins (Mr Shipton) has just said a bit ludicrous. C. J. Dennis was one of the great poets of this country. It is offensive to travesty what he wrote. I wish the honourable gentleman had quoted from a poem called The Austra-laise. It was about what were called ‘blokes an’ coves an’ coots’. I am not quite sure in what category the honourable gentleman would fall. The C. J. Dennis centenary- I presume it is the centenary of his birth- is being celebrated with, I hope, a certain degree of solemnity, not with the sort of nonsense that was perpetrated a few moments ago. I think this is typical of what passes for a kind of pseudo culture at the moment.

Mr Haslem:

– A comment on society.

Mr CREAN:

– It may be a communist orientated society but at least the honourable gentleman should know that we are living in a changing society. The late C. J. Dennis was one who typified the nature of the change of that society. I do not know whether the gentleman who has just indulged in that so-called pseudo comic speech saw the recent Australian Broadcasting Commission presentation of The Sentimental Bloke in a musical form. Perhaps he did not. I suppose he was out dining with tycoons on the only night on which the show was shown.

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

– He might have been down ‘Little Lon’.

Mr CREAN:

– He may have been down ‘Little Lon’. But with great respect I do not quite know why this speech was made tonight, what it was supposed to typify and why it was of such importance that it should have taken the limited time available in this adjournment debate.

I have a great respect for C. J. Dennis. At least he was a representative of the working class of this country which still contains the great majority of Australians. When one finds that kind of travesty perpetrated and hears the kind of laughter that accompanies it one is concerned at the levels to which this great Parliament can sink. I say no more about that. But I just wonder what point the honourable member was trying to make.

Mr ABEL:
Evans

-The 18 September is the 166th anniversary of the founding of the independence of the Republic of Chile.

Chile has over the past 3 years been the victim of a violent propaganda onslaught throughout the world for having rejected a Marxist regime and for refusing to allow itself to be subverted by the forces of world communism. Only recently, through disruptions and demonstrations in the Senate, this Parliament has had a small sample of the type of campaign being conducted against Chile- not a rational campaign, based on logic and fact, but one of violence and shouting based on the propagation of slogans.

Although the Australian Government has very sensibly re-established our diplomatic relations with Chile to their normal level by appointing a new ambassador, our trade with that country is being disrupted by the action of communist minorities in certain trade unions, particularly the maritime and waterfront unions which have placed a black ban on all trade with Chile, a black ban I might add which has never been placed on trade with other communist dictatorships. Honourable members opposite would do well to remember that. This action, which is in violation of all principles of free trade, responds apparently to the instructions of Moscow to isolate and attack Chile on all fronts for the crime of having prevented itself from being totally subverted by the forces of international communism. This action is extremely contradictory to the attitudes of these same self-proclaimed supporters of humanitarianism and peace; it is an attack against the people of Chile who are denied the food which Australia can provide by way of wheat; and it is an attack against the Australian rural worker who is denied this market for wheat at a time when rural industry is suffering severe hardships.

Many Australians are unaware of the reasons that led the Chilean people- a people who throughout the years have become an example of democracy and stability in South America- to finally rid themselves of a Marxist regime that had brought this once happy country to the brink of total disaster. It should well be remembered that Salvador Allende, a man elected to office with only 36 per cent of the popular vote, proceeded, upon his election, on a deliberate program to disrupt, overturn and destroy Chile’s traditional institutions and resorted to illegal methods in violation of that country’s constitution. On many occasions his actions were declared by the Chilean Supreme Court, a body internationally respected, to have been in total disregard of that constitution. The Marxists, by a campaign to totally disrupt civic life by the constant preaching of class warfare, by instigating physical confrontation, led the Chilean economy to the brink of absolute disaster. Inflation jumped from 30 per cent in 1970 to 180 per cent in 1971, 300 per cent in 1972 and, according to the Allende Government’s own figures, to 504 per cent by September 1973. In fact, the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank placed the figure at 1000 per cent in 1973. During the Allende regime, thousands -

Mr Antony Whitlam:
GRAYNDLER, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– What is it now?

Mr ABEL:

– The honourable member for Grayndler will be very pleased to know that it has fallen from 1000 per cent to 150 per cent. From a country that was once a food exporter, Chile has become a food importer. The copper industry, the main source of foreign revenue, tottered on the brink of disaster and collapsed. Despite repeated resolutions from the Chilean Congress for Allende to observe the Constitution, this man plunged his country down a Marxist path to chaos and ruin. No wonder the Chilean people, particularly the women, took to the streets to call for the removal of the Marxists. No wonder the armed forces, on the invitation of the Chilean Congress, moved on 1 1 November 1973 to restore order and stability to that country.

I am not going to stand here as an unquestioning admirer of the present government in Chile, but I do not believe in standing here as a hypocrite. I find it sickening and disgusting that the Opposition, and in particular the Leader of the Opposition (Mr E. G. Whitlam) can heap unbounded praise upon a dictator like Chairman Mao and call for ever closer relationships with communist dictators who yet wish to isolate a country like Chile. Just as this Government is reviving the economy of Australia, which was almost destroyed by the Opposition, so the government of Chile is gradually reviving the economy of that country. Just as this Government is winning the battle against inflation, so the government of Chile has lowered the rate of inflation in that country from 1000 per cent to 180 per cent, and the rate is dropping every month. I want people to know the double standards that are held by members on the Opposition benches, and that is obvious from their interjections tonight. I want to ask them why so many on their side of the House are so intent on destroying the country of Chile.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

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

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

-Mr Acting Speaker, I do not really listen when people speak at 358 words a minute, as the honourable member for Evans (Mr Abel) was doing tonight when reading the speech which was written for him by Mr Santamaria.

Mr Abel:

– That is a lie.

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

-By Santamaria and Knopfelmacher.

Mr Abel:

– That is a lie. I raise a point of order, Mr Acting Speaker.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Evans will withdraw that remark. The honourable member for Evans will resume his seat and not stand while another member is making a speech.

Mr Abel:

- Mr Acting SpeakerMr ACTING SPEAKER-Order! The honourable member for Evans will make an unqualified withdrawal of that remark.

Mr Abel:

- Mr Acting Speaker, I wrote that speech myself.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable for Evans will withdraw the remark.

Mr Abel:

– I regretfully withdraw.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Evans will make an unqualified withdrawal of the remark.

Mr Abel:

– I withdraw.

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

-Thank you, Mr Acting Speaker. It took one minute of my time for the honourable member to concede that what I was saying was correct.

Mr Ellicott:

– A point of order, Mr Acting Speaker. I suggest that what was said by the honourable member for Burke was provocative and in the circumstances I think that he requires a caution as well. That is all I have to say.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-Order! I call the honourable member for Burke.

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

-I am not going to traverse again the ground I have already traversed. We have heard in this House tonight a speech by the honourable member for Evans which would have laid bare the bones of other speeches in this House. He made all sorts of allegations about what happened in Chile, but I would remind him of what happened in Australia on 11 November 1975. I ask him to look at that situation. If there was a reversal of the situation in Chile, at least Allende was elected by the people of Chile. He was overturned by the Central Intelligence Agency and IT & T- the International Telephone and Telegraph Corporation- and that has been admitted.

Mr Abel:

– Garbage.

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

-‘Garbage’ says the honourable member. It is the voice of Knopfelmacher. It is the voice of Santamaria in this chamber. The honourable member for Evans knows that those who sit near him are those who propound in this chamber the voice of reaction and the voice of Knopfelmacher.

Mr Armitage:

– They are all oncers.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-The honourable member for Chifley will cease interjecting.

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

-It would have been delightful to hear and to understand what the honourable member for Evans was saying. It will be understood the next time around. It will be recorded in Hansard. The honourable member for Evans was so intent on delivering his speech- the speech written by Knopfelmachertonight that he read it so quickly I could not understand him.

Mr Abel:

- Mr Acting Speaker, I rise on a point of order -

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

-What I actually wanted to speak about was the speech made by the honourable member -

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Evans wishes to raise a point of order.

Mr Abel:

– I wrote that speech in my office today and I ask the honourable member for Burke to withdraw the implication that my speech was written by another person.

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

-I will accept that, Mr Acting Speaker, but I think that Mr Knopfelmacher and Mr Santamaria -

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-Order! I call the honourable member for Burke to order. There is no substance in the point of order raised by the honourable member for Evans.

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

– The words used by the honourable member for Evans were too big for him to have written them himself. I really want to talk about the speech made by the honourable member for Higgins (Mr Shipton).

Mr Neil:

– I rise on a point of order.

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

-Another rightwinger having a bash.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-Order! I ask the honourable member for St George to raise his point of order.

Mr Neil:

– The honourable member is delivering his ranting and raving diatribe from a position that is not his correct place in this chamber.

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

-This is actually my seat, Mr Acting Speaker.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-Order! There is no point of order.

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

-I do not have much time left to speak. What I really wanted to talk about was the scathing attack by the honourable member for Higgins on the greatest workingclass poet in Australia, C. J. Dennis.

Mr Shipton:

– He had a sense of humour.

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

-Yes, he had a sense of humour but it was prostituted and misused tonight by the honourable member for Higgins who endeavoured to select episodes at random. If he wants to talk about the Glugs of Gosh, I remind him to have a look at his eminent predecessor from his part of Melbourne and the situation where the Glugs of Gosh refused to take stones out of their area to buy jars of pickles and alarm clocks. If he cares to align that, it was written in 1 9 1 9 by C. J. Dennis. Can I have an extension of time?

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

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

Mr MARTYR:
Swan

– I have some good news for the House tonight. We have just listened to a lot of nonsense from the honourable member for Burke (Mr Keith Johnson). The good news that I have to give the House tonight is that the Victorian Government has denied to the Australian Conservation Foundation the $5,000 that it has been accustomed to receive. This is the best news that I have heard. I want the House to be acquainted with this matter, particularly honourable members opposite. The people associated with this foundation, in my judgment, have been responsible for some of the worst industrial sabotage that we have seen in this country in the last 5 years. They are holding up all uranium development. They are holding up the Newport power house and now, it is announced, they will see what they can do to stop the old Newport power house.

I wonder how honourable members in Victoria and the people of Victoria are going to get any power while this sort of action is tolerated. I believe that the Victorian Government has set a lead for Australia in isolating the Australian Conservation Foundation for what it is- an industrial saboteur holding up all industrial development in Australia. I hope that the Federal Government- our Government- will have a close look at the Australian Conservation Foundation because it also subsidises that organisation.

Every piece of data that it produces works against everything that we are trying to do in stirring the economy, in stimulating people and in trying to get the sons of things that are going to be necessary in the future for providing employment. I hope that our Government takes a serious look at any allocation that it is thinking of making to the Australian Conservation Foundation. They are not all communists. I have said that on other occasions. Unfortunately they are people of the ‘do good ‘ variety who do not know a great deal about what is necessary for the development of this economy, particularly in terms of power needs. I am afraid that these people are being led by the nose by elements which I can only describe as sinister.

If any honourable member wants to have a look at a current issue of the Communist publication called Arena he will see the clear delineation of what the communists and the marxists consider necessary to hold up this country. I draw the attention of the House to this most important matter.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-Order! It being 1 1 p.m. the debate is interrupted. The House stands adjourned until 2. 15 p.m. on Tuesday next.

House adjourned at 11 p.m.

page 1192

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS UPON NOTICE

The following answers to questions upon notice were circulated:

Tax Deductability of Mortgage Interest Rates (Question No. 397)

Dr Jenkins:

asked the Teasurer, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) What projections have been carried out to determine the number of taxpayers who will be deprived of tax deductibility of mortgage interest rates as a result of the Government’s decision to confine the benefit to first home buyers in their first 5 years.
  2. Is it a fact that over half a million taxpayers could lose the right of tax deduction.
  3. Does the Government anticipate a net saving in excess of $200m in the 3 years preceding payments under the Home Savings Grant Scheme by denial of tax concessions to existing eligible home buyers.
Mr Lynch:
LP

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

  1. and (2) Estimates based on income tax statistics of housing loan interest allowed for the 1974-75 income year indicate that the number of taxpayers who will lose access to tax deductibility of such interest as a result of the decision to confine the benefits to first home buyers in the first five years of use of the home would be over half a million.
  2. The gain to revenue of the restrictions on deductibility is estimated to be about $40m per annum.

Wage Indexation (Question No. 493)

Mr Les McMahon:
SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Treasurer, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Is it the intention of the Government to reduce real wages by persuading the Arbitration Commission to award only half wage indexation.
  2. If so, would this result in substantially reduced income tax receipts and thereby increase the deficit.
  3. If it is still the intention of the Government to reduce the deficit, why is it advocating action that would have the opposite effect.
Mr Lynch:
LP

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

  1. In the April hearing of the National Wage Case- the hearing to which the honourable member’s question was clearly addressed- the Commonwealth submitted that for a twelve-month period the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission should award indexation increases which, having regard to additions to the total wages bill, would amount to something like 50 per cent of full indexation. With regard to the form of indexation, the Commonwealth’s preferred option during the period was that each award rate should be increased by a flat amount arrived at by applying to the minimum wage and full price increase in the reference period, discounted for any increase in indirect taxes (or major increases in import prices ) occurring in that period.

Had the Government’s approach been adopted by the Commission it would, all other things being equal, have had the effect of gradually reducing those real wages above the minimum wage from the inflated level to which they had previously risen and which lay at the root of the sharp downturn in activity and growth in unemployment which the economy experienced in 1974 and 1975.

It is estimated that, had the Government’s submission been accepted in full by the Commission, real earnings would, on average, have been reduced by between 1 and 1.5 per cent by the December quarter 1976 provided there was little intensification of wages drift.

In the event the decision of the Commission announced on 28 May was equivalent to about 70 per cent of full indexation overall. It therefore had the effect of reducing real wages of those wage and salary earners who at the time of the decision were receiving awards of more than $125 per weekthat is, to a lesser extent than the Government’s preferred option would have involved.

Since then a further National Wage Case, to consider the application of wage indexation on account of 2.5 per cent CPI increase in the June quarter, has concluded. In this recent hearing, too, the Commonwealth has urged on the Commission that it grant only partial wage indexation in the interest of a further and speedier winding down in the rate of inflation, to ensure that the process of economic recovery just beginning is in no way thwarted or truncated, and to reverse the past tendency for Australian labour costs to increase faster than the labour costs of our major trading partners. In the Commonwealth’s submission the desirable option would now have been a wage increase equivalent to something like 30 per cent of full indexation.

The Commission’s decision, announced on 12 August, was equivalent to a little under 70 per cent of full indexation overall. This implies some reduction in real wages for all wage and salary earners receiving awards of more than $ 100 per week, but as in May not as much reduction as the Government had sought.

  1. The National Wage Case decision of 28 May did not have a significant bearing on the Budget aggregates for 1975-76 but will have a ‘full year’ effect on the Budget estimates for 1976-77.
  2. The Government’s fundamental aim in economic policy is to wind back the rate of inflation. This cannot be achieved solely through reductions in the level of the deficit. It is necessary to combat inflation on all fronts, including fiscal, monetary and wages policy. Although the Government’s approach to wages policy would have gone further than the Commission’s decisions of 28 May and 12 August, these decisions represented worthwhile steps towards winding down the current rate of inflation of costs and prices and will, it is hoped, through their effects on the inflationary expectations both of business and of consumers, assist in the recovery of economic activity and the creation of job opportunities.

It would be a curious argument indeed, if the effects of some economic policies on the deficit were to be used as an argument against attempting to reduce the current rate of inflation.

Destruction of Cargo (Question No. 847)

Mr Bungey:
CANNING, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

Will he supply full details of the reasons for quarantine staff recently destroying a number of cartons at Bruck Mills, Wangaratta, Victoria.

Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

Following the discovery of Khapra beetle in the ‘Catherine S’, all cargo that had been located in the infested holds was traced and inspected. A consignment of viscose yarn from one of these holds had been delivered to Bruck Mills, Wangaratta. On inspection at the premises, one larva and two cast skins were found in the wrapping. The wrapping and cartons were destroyed and the area sprayed.

Industries Assistance Commission Reports (Question No. 912)

Mr Lloyd:
MURRAY, VICTORIA

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

  1. 1 ) Where the economic information originally submitted to an Industry Assistance Commission hearing is no longer relevant at the time of presentation of the draft report, is the Commissioner required to accept updated information.
  2. If so, and when a Commissioner refuses to allow this information to be presented, or to consider it in his report, what action can be taken.
  3. Has there been unhappiness with the Commission over recommendations it makes to the Government based on outdated cost, price and import or export data.
Mr Howard:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) One of the reasons for producing draft reports and discussing these reports at public hearings, was to allow witnesses to present any later information they had available and considered relevant. Commissioners are not compelled to accept specific pieces of information at their inquiries, but they normally try to obtain as much relevant information as is available up to the time at which they sign the reports. There must, however, be a point beyond which it is not practicable to receive further information. This is particularly so where the Commission’s reports are subject to reporting deadlines.
  2. See answer to question ( 1 ).
  3. 3 ) I am not aware of any such unhappiness.

Unemployment (Question No. 987)

Mr Garrick:
BATMAN, VICTORIA

asked the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice:

  1. Has his attention been drawn to newspaper reports urging Federal action on the youth unemployment problem.
  2. ) Can he say whether the Deputy Principal of the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology has offered facilities for a conference on this matter.
  3. As people younger than 20 years old comprise 12 per cent of the workforce but almost 40 per cent of the unemployed, will he look into such offers and the problems which give rise to them.
Mr Street:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Yes. It is a matter which is of great concern to the Government. I have asked my Department to do all it can within existing programs and resources to stimulate employment opportunities for young people and to assist them in every way to find employment. The need for additional Government initiatives is being closely examined by my Department within the context of the Government’s overall economic strategy.
  2. I understand that the Acting Principal of the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology offered the use of its facilities for a public meeting which was held on 3 1 August 1976. The meeting considered the problems of youth unemployment. My Department was represented at the meeting.
  3. Yes. The honourable member can be assured that appropriate initiatives taken by the community will receive ready cooperation and assistance from my Department.

International Labour Conference (Question No. 1026)

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

am asked the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice:

How did the Australian Government delegates vote on the instruments adopted at the Sixty-First ( 1976) Session of the International Labour Conference.

Mr Street:
LP

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

The 6 1st ( 1976) Session of the International Labour Conference adopted 2 instruments concerning tripartite consultation:

Tripartite Consultation (International Labour Standards) Convention, 1976 (No. 144)

Tripartite Consultation (Activities of the International Labour Organisation) Recommendation, 1976 (No. 152)

The Australian Government delegates at the Conference voted in favour of the adoption of both instruments.

International Labour Organisation Conventions (Question No. 1027)

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

am asked the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) What order of priority did the Commonwealth and State Labour Ministers set in 1973 for their consideration of unratified ILO Conventions involving State jurisdiction (Hansard, 24 August 1976, page 517).
  2. Which of those Conventions have they since considered, and on what dates, in what form and with what result.
Mr Street:
LP

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

  1. The Commonwealth and State Labour Ministers agreed in 1973 that unratified ILO Conventions involving State jurisdiction and warranting further consideration should be divided into the following order of priority:

    1. top priority- where the aim is to ratify as quickly as possible and includes Conventions which deal with questions of very important principle.
    2. priority- where ratification at an early stage is the objective though considerable action may be required including new policy initiatives.
    3. keep under review- where ratification is a longer term objective and there may be extensive technical problems to be overcome.
  2. International labour matters including ILO Conventions is a standing item on the agenda of the twice yearly meetings of Commonwealth and State Labour Ministers. As the honourable member will be aware, the Ministers’ meetings are the third tier of the Commonwealth/State consultative machinery on ILO matters and the Ministers consider recommendations which come forward from the other 2 tiers of the machinery: the technical officers (ie ILO action officers) and Permanent Heads of the Commonwealth and State Departments.

The consultative machinery has devoted its attention principally to those Conventions allocated to the top priority category. In 1973 the Ministers agreed that the following Conventions should be accorded top priority for ratification:

No. 81- Labour Inspection, 1947

No. 100- Equal Remuneration, 1951

No. 107- Indigenous and Tribal Populations, 1957

No. 119- Guarding of Machinery, 1963

No. 135- Workers ‘Representatives, 1971 Since then Australia has ratified Conventions Nos 81 (24.6.75) and 100 (10.12.74) and early ratification of Convention No. 107 is dependent upon the agreement of one State. As regards Conventions Nos 119 and 135, some progress has been made but further progress is required before Australia will be in a position to ratify.

The operation of the consultative machinery has made a positive contribution towards the improvement of, Australia’s ratification record of ILO Conventions and to the promotion of the acceptance of international labour standards in Australia.

At their most recent meeting (3 September 1976), the Ministers decided that their officers should review the order of priority agreed upon in 1973.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 16 September 1976, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1976/19760916_reps_30_hor100/>.